 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, General Laws, Chapter 38, Section 20, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Horse Racing Committee. Given the unprecedented circumstances resulting from the global coronavirus pandemic, Governor Baker issued an order providing limited relief from certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law to protect the health, safety of individuals interested in attending meetings, public meetings, and keeping what the guidance provided, the committee will conduct this public meeting utilizing remote collaboration technology. Any and all votes taken at this meeting will be done by a roll call vote. With that, I'll call the meeting to order and I'll call upon each of the members of the committee to introduce themselves and note their designation to the committee and I'll start with Commissioner Kamar. Good morning, everyone. I am present for the meeting. Gail Kamar representing the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. And Attorney Katonok. Hi, everyone. I'm like Katonok. I am the Treasurer's Representative. And Mr. Umbrello. Good morning, everyone. Paul Umbrello representing the thoroughbred industry. And Attorney Goldberg. Yes, good morning, everyone. Mr. Chairman, Peter Goldberg, representing the HHA&E and SOM, the representatives of the standard red industry in Massachusetts. Thank you. And I'm Brian Fitzgerald, the chair and governor's designee. So thank you all to everyone for attending this meeting. The next item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes of our meeting on February 17th, 2021. I know that the minutes were submitted as a pre-read for all of the committee members. And I'd ask if the members have had an opportunity to review those minutes and if they have any comments or changes or corrections to be made to the minutes? Mr. Chair, I did have a chance to review them and I found them to be in order. I'm happy to make a motion if everyone else agrees. Sure. I'd ask for a motion to approve the minutes with any clerical mistakes to be made. Move the meetings from our previous meeting, which was on February 17th. Is there a second? Second. Okay. All right. And the motion carries. So then we will take a roll call vote. Commissioner Cameron? Aye. Attorney Contano? Aye. Mr. Umbrella? Aye. Attorney Goldberg? Yes. Okay. And Fitzgerald? Aye. Okay. All right. Thank you. The third item on our agenda is the review of the racehorse development fund revenue. I would ask Attorney Grossman if he would be so kind to share a few pages of the revenue just so the members and the public can see. So what I did was just selected a few of the pages, just the relevant pages from the report that is issued monthly by the gaming commission. I'd ask if you could just scroll down to page two so you can see there where you scroll back up a little bit. Page two. Sorry. Oh yeah. So there you can see the allocation, the total allocation over the inception of the fund has been just over 92 million. The amount that's been paid out is just over 73 million and the balance in the fund is just over 19,422,000 dollars. Okay. Any questions regarding that? Okay. And then I just wanted to note, which it turns out it's pages 13 and 14, but I have it as page three and four just to see what's reported between the current split of the fund between the throw bread industries and the standard bread industry. If you scroll down you can see taking into account the amount when the last change was made with respect to the split and the distributions that have been made to each of the industries are noted there. One of the things I did note was I just kind of went through the figures and just did my own calculations just to do a simple comparison, which was in February of 2020 last year pre-pandemic. The monthly collection was 1.517 million. February 2021 was showing 1.223 million that's collected between the three licensees, which designates or shows a 19% decrease. So hopefully things are going to move forward. And obviously, as you know, last year, half of March through June, there were no collections. So it's hopeful that with everything moving forward through the vaccine rollout that these numbers will start to increase as life somewhat returns to normal. Does anyone have any other questions regarding the revenue update? So move on to the next item on our agenda, which is item number four, view and discussion of present racehorse development fund distribution percentages, purses breeding health and welfare, and consideration of adjusting the recommendations based upon discussions between the thoroughbred and standard bred industries. As the members of the committee will recall at our last meeting on February 17th, we were presented with a proposal from both industries. And I believe we agreed that we would need some more information and requested that the industries either submit a joint memorandum or memorandum kind of explaining their proposal based on the figures of the 2020 racing season. So I would note that two memorandums were submitted by one memorandum was submitted by the thoroughbreds and one memorandum was submitted by the standard breads. In terms of process, I guess what I'd do is probably, I guess I would call upon Mr. Umbrella at this time to just kind of talk about the thoroughbred industry and the process that you went through with respect to this proposal and also as to why you feel this proposal is based in the best interest of your industry. Mr. Chair, may I make one request before we get into the specific proposals in reading through the various documents that we received in preparation for these meetings? You just mentioned two of them. There are also two additional documents submitted that were made available to the committee. The role of this committee has been mentioned in I think three of the four documents. What we should be doing, can be doing. If you don't mind for my edification and maybe everyone else's, I'd love to ask Mr. Grossman just to review the statutory role of this committee because in the documents there were things mentioned that I don't believe are part of our, we don't have the authority to handle such matters. But I would, if you don't mind just taking a minute for Mr. Grossman to just review that and then we can get into the specifics. Sure. Thank you very much. I'm sorry to put Mr. Grossman on the spot but he's accustomed to that by now. My pleasure, Commissioner Cameron and Mr. Chair and members, if I may, good morning to everybody, first of all. Secondly, happy to walk through the committee's authority here. As we all know, the Horse Racing Committee was established by way of General Law Chapter 23K Section 60, which is the same statute that created the Race Horse Development Fund. And the committee was established for a very narrow reason and it has a very narrow focus as well. And that is to make recommendations as to how funds from the Race Horse Development Fund will be distributed between the breeds. That's the very simple and limited focus of the Race Horse Committee. The committee of course is comprised of five members who are all appointed by different authorities. Each comes with your own areas of expertise and backgrounds and experiences. And each of the five members is on equal footing. No one member has any more authority than any other. No member, one member's opinion about anything carries any more weight than any other members. Of course, when it comes to the, and this is kind of getting a little bit into some of the comments without me opining as to what the person or people said or didn't say, but the implication was that if the industry representatives come to an agreement that that has to be followed. And I'll certainly leave it to the committee as to whether that is the case or not. But there's no legal requirement that any agreement between any two members be followed by the rest of the committee. Certainly to the extent that any particular members have opinions about things, it might be considered more persuasive or very highly persuasive to the others if certain members agree on certain things. But that's basically the extent of it. And otherwise nobody's opinion has to be followed or what have you. Of course, everyone's opinion should be considered. And that's basically what the statute talks about. Of course, there are other considerations that should go into the ultimate recommendations and those are described in the statute. And I'm sure you're about to get into all those. So I wasn't going to go through any of that, although we can do that too. Those are spelled out in section 60 as well. So I think that's the fairly well understood overview of how this committee was comprised and its specific authority. Of course, the recommendations that this committee makes then go before the gaming commission that has to essentially vote to adopt the recommendations. And that's how the distribution percentages or splits as they've come to be called come into effect. If the committee takes no action or the commission takes no action, the split figures would remain as they presently are. So that's what's on the table here today is the question as to whether the committee wants to adjust the recommendation and bring that before the commission. Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Grossman. Are there any questions? So then I guess we'll take a few minutes and have Mr. Umbrello present the summary of the thoroughbreds position at this time. One thing I wouldn't note Mr. Umbrello is when you're describing the proposal and the process that you went through, there was a note in the memorandum that was stated in reaching our split position with regard to standard breads. We have consulted both boards of the NEHBPA, Mass Breeders Association, and have their consent to proceed. So I just wondered if as part of your discussion, you could elaborate on that and what went into that as well. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Chairman Fitzgerald, members of the committee. Yep, so I'll discuss that. So just, you know, a couple of things real quick before I start. Just that I was appointed by both boards to speak on behalf of the NEHBPA and the Mass Breeders Association, the two organizations that are recognized today in 23K and both in 128 ANC. And there is no, I know there was comments about these backdoor deals with the standard breads. I was also sitting here because time was of the essence as an interim position on this committee because the legal fees were exuberant amounts that it's cost us in the past. So it's also why I was more or less elected or appointed to serve on this committee as well. Now as far as regarding the splits and how we came to those percentages, just that I did in fact have a board meeting with the members of the NEHBPA board discussed the positions and by this committee now, rightfully so with the help of council gross and us breaking out the splits into each program actually made it, I would say, more beneficial for each of those programs to potentially get a benefit by us splitting them out. And I'll elaborate that on that a little more in a second. So what I ended up doing is met with the NEHBPA board discussed our position for each bucket where we stood with the split, the revenue coming in for purses, the revenue coming in on the breeder's bucket, and the revenue coming in on the health of welfare bucket and looking at the COVID numbers. And obviously as you stated earlier how significantly they've been reduced and hopefully looking at what 2021 might look at. And we already see signs for January and February while they're better. They're not on target, what we used to see in 2019. So in doing so we went through looking at both short term and the long term benefits. So I know historically this committee has adjusted the splits when we would present, you know, our 40 page executive summaries. This committee has historically adjusted the split 5 to 10% in favor of the standard breads. And in doing so we always go back and look at, and I know 23K when it was written, my interpretation, and we discussed this also as a committee about its interpretation, some of the criteria, the following criteria, but we always look back. Now it also was implied that would always be when this was written, would all be racing, right? So it wasn't intentional that our breads to stop racing, unfortunately, we were dealt a bad hand. But that language in my interpretation is it was just that to look back, but more importantly, I think we need to, which we're doing now is look forward as well. At the same time, I met with the mass hybrid breaders board and explain the same situation to them. And one of the good things, unfortunately, by breaking out the split, it gave us the opportunity to take, you know, and adjust the split individually each bucket. Unfortunately, you know, as I'm sure you'll see in some of the comments, and I hate to be this kind of calluses to say, you know, someone in the health and welfare bucket who's receiving benefits today and old age assistance check or life insurance, he might not really care about what's in the split for the breaders bucket or purse bucket. And that applies to every single bucket, right? And unfortunately, it's challenging for myself and both these boards to try to look at the numbers, the finances, and again, the short and long term needs of each bucket. So it wasn't easy because it's just that you're trying to do what's right for both your health and welfare program, your breeding program, and your investors for race track. And again, it's where I'm going to talk about short term and long term benefits. And not just again, we look back, look at the criteria, we look at numbers, and then say, oh, okay, this is how we determine the split. So what I'm going to do quickly is I'm going to kind of rework and go backwards. So under the health and welfare bucket, it's always been for years and years and years, meeting after meeting, my personal opinion is the health and welfare bucket should always be a 50-50 split, right? Two different programs. I get it. The standard breads have a program where I call it like the stock market, you know, your 401k, if your revenue is up, your rewards are up. Unfortunately for the thoroughbreds, because we've been doing this for 25 years, and people have been depending on those checks, you know, month after month, and other benefits we offer, it's hard for myself to, or our organization, to hit a reset button and start all over. I'd love to do that. I'm hopefully not if, but when a track is built, we can look at that. But what it's almost like us saying, let's stop sending people their social security checks and try to come up with a new program. I'm just not in a position to do that. And more importantly, I need that stability. And again, not looking back, but looking forward, week to week, month to month, year to year, when those checks come in, even during COVID, to know that we can have some sense of stability of that revenue so I can continue to offer our members those health and welfare benefits without having to make cuts. And of course, if there is stability, like either breed, more money coming in, I can offer or do more things for our members. So I am trying to, and these were discussions as Attorney Goldberg, I'm sure we'll say year after year after year, we've always heard, try to work together, try to work together, come up with solutions. So again, and talking to the different organizations, it is only fair between the two breeds, right, 50-50 split. I think that's something that, you know, we should consider for, you know, almost forever, right, depending on what happens potentially to either breed. But I think that the health and welfare should be kind of locked in at a 50-50 split. One of the other, which I know we won't vote today on, but one of the other premises that is that, you know, 2020 really had no racing. 2021 doesn't look like there's any racing. There might be a long shot, 50 to one shot pun intended to race potentially, but most likely, depending on how things go with a racetrack development, we're looking at 2022. So it was also, it's under the premise that again, in trying to work with the standard breeds, these numbers would stay as they are probably for the next two years. And hence, you know, some of that decision of where we came up with these numbers was looking at five to 10% adjustments year after year. That was factored in for, you know, two years for 2021. Now, as far as the breeding program, it was really important. And again, each bucket, everybody has individual needs. And again, short term health and welfare, I need the money today and I need to budget today and for the future. The breeder's bucket, while, you know, if you look at some of the numbers, the number of foals or the number of races held, I can tell you we need stability again, and don't really want to see a large flux in that percentage. Because again, based on the revenue streams with COVID coming in, and that both breeds bound by that 8% administrative to just keep your doors open, again, makes it very hard to the industry to keep its doors open if we can't even, it can't even cover administrative costs. Besides the fact that the breeders which is in our executive summary have a bill HD 1017 and to literally, you know, kickstart the breeding program or working on industry initiatives, just that to get it going. Have an accredited breeding program, which as I simply put it gives opportunities for, you know, a New York red horse to come into the Commonwealth, stay on a farm which benefits the Tuts farm for six months. And that was that would become an accredited mass bred. So it's a way to get it more or less of, you know, a instant racing population of our mass bred horses. And again, not if, but when a track is built, you want your program like any other state to, you know, primarily can be comprised of mass bred horses. That's what you want to see mass bred races. At the same time, I can tell you that with a lot of this this chatter about potentially the breeder's bill and the incentives we're trying to offer the kicks out the program. We're already seeing right now, which I didn't get time to put into my executive summary, but we're estimating right now we'll have about 14 mass bred bulls born this year, probably even higher than that. And that again is just folks getting excited about, you know, the return of a race track in the breeding program. We talked about again, you can breed in Massachusetts, preserve the farms, the open space, you know, all the jobs associated with it. But technically, you really don't have to race in a commonwealth. Other states have done that. So it's why that was important to us to also try to protect the revenue stream that's based on the current splits and the revenue coming in as a result of COVID to protect as much money possible. That's being paid out that we do have that statutory obligation to pay out those incentives to horses that are running out of state. And then the last bucket, which I will talk about, which is more of the long term effect, you know, the purses. And it was clear in my report, and I'm going to make the request up right up top. The first is we need to escrow the $20 million of that racehorse development fund. I'm going to ask this committee after and how we vote today is to have probably another meeting. Go back, look at 205, CMR 149. We should be as the industry, the committee, that promotes and serves this industry to make a recommendation to MGC to escrow that $20 million. If we escrow the $20 million, that is more than enough money to have any investor who wants to come and build a racetrack into Massachusetts to help pick start their program for one to two years. It was part of also the decision of looking at the split, the more money, and I heard it year after year, the money grab, the money grab, the money grab about dumping more money into that barrel bread bucket just becomes that it's a carrot we're dangling out there. So I would rather have the industry, the standard breads that can use it now, take advantage of that. But at the same time, the current split today, if you guys really don't and I'm more than happy to do it yet again, if you look at the numbers coming in, even during COVID 10 million, and you stop breaking out the numbers 80% 8 million, and then you break that down to a 75, 25 split, there's not enough money coming in for any racetrack operator to run any type of significant meat, even if it's a 50 day meat, that's going to get enough horses to race, come up and race. And in the days we raced at Suffolk, you created a natural circuit between Tampa and Suffolk. So in the winter time, the guys would go to Tampa and they'd come back up to coast and race at Suffolk, because the type of horses, the quality of the horses and the in the purses you're offering supported that. But today, you know, to get those guys that are coming up from Tampa that are going to stop at Delaware, Maryland or whatnot, which offer excessive amounts of purses, you have to compete with that. Mr. Goldberg has even attested that in the past about to compete in the industry, you have to offer more purses. And for us to, you know, and again, we look back, here we go again about the criteria, let's build the racetrack, let's get established, whether it's Starbridge or Wareham, right? I don't see in conversations with industry experts, it would be almost impossible when a track is built to start a 50 or 60 day meat instantly. There's slowly and then Ms. Nomer, we're only going to run festivals is just that it's Ms. Nomer. Ms. Nomer, you have to start six, 10, 12 day meat for the first couple of years, show folks what the facility in the program is going to look like, and then increase those purses. It's why again, it's more important for this committee to look and consider in the gaming commission to escrow the 20 million, preserve that money for those investors in Starbridge and Wareham, assure them that the money will be there. And not the fact that whether if you really break down whether it's, you know, 8% of purses to the thoroughbreds for 20%, the amount is insignificant. It's probably close to about a million dollars when you're forecasting. Million dollars in the thoroughbred industry today is about five days of racing. What's more important is again, I can't emphasize that's growing the resource development fund. I also ran by both the lobbyists and investors for the Starbridge group, explained to them that 92, 8%, they understood and their whole premise was, and as Mr. Goldberg also knows is that as well, is that when we build a racetrack and we start racing, right, and I'm going to come to this committee for all still around, we would then look to significantly switch back, fair is fair, that percentage to help the thoroughbred industry, you know, preserve its racecads in a number of race days. I also spoke twice to council for the Wareham folks, and they also understood our position with trying to now, because we rightfully broke out each bucket, how we're trying to obviously short term and long term support and preserve each one of those, you know, buckets, which is very important to both breeds and the industry. And then in closing, I'm going to make one last comment, I have to, I'm sorry, but, you know, when we talk about, and it's going to come up about, you know, the recognized horsemen's organization and the group, again, this committee needs to understand by statute, and there is only one group, the NEHBPA and the Master Overbreeders Association. And it should speak volumes if folks don't know that with the bills that are currently submitted around sports betting, that the NEHBPA is not in one, not in two, but recognized as the horsemen's group in six of those bills. So that should speak volume to where this organization stands within representing the thoroughbred industry. I thank you for your time, and I'm open for questions. Thank you, Mr. Umbrello. Mr. Chair, do you want questions now, or would you want to proceed with both presentations first? Why don't we, if there are questions that the members have at this time for Mr. Umbrello, I'd welcome those to be asked at this time. I do have a question then. Thank you. Mr. Umbrello, thank you. That was very thoughtful discussion and much more information than we had before about the rationale. And my question is this. I guess your organization had a representative, last year it was Mr. Savage, who fought so hard and frankly successfully to persuade this committee that holding on to more purse money did in fact help those investors who are looking for a, to possibly build a new track here in the Commonwealth. So I guess I'm just asking the question as to how your organization now feels differently than you have for years and years on persuading this committee that that was a really important piece. And I've read every document and I don't see anything. And I also just listened to what you said. And that's my question is how you fought so hard to hang on to some of that money and now you think 8% is the right amount of money going to the thoroughbred industry. Yeah, I think you commissioned a camera. I can and I will admit that, you know, part of it was is that we weren't in the middle of a pandemic and with the COVID numbers coming in and how bleep they were and how it was affecting both the breeding and health and welfare program again short term more importantly than the long term with the purses. So as a result of that, I looked closer just at that, you know, COVID brought in about 10 million dollars. And when you stop breaking that down, I felt and again why I'm pushing more, it's more important for the investors in my conversations with the investors, escrow the 20 million dollars them worrying about, you know, 200, 500,000. Most if you run numbers and look at the breakdown, it's probably about a million dollars based on trying to forecast for 2021. So it was me personally was trying to now to, I will admit, switch gears and have this committee understand and push and focus on and hopefully with the help even of council Grossman push to escrow the 20 million dollars that is far more important to the industry to help help an investor know that that money is now in escrow secured for years that will assure them that just that if in the event they started a 50 day meet, like, you know, you built a track, you pour water, it's built, and now we can race tomorrow and we're going to run a 50 day meet, you know, again, even at a 75 25 split to put on the program you want, there's just not enough money coming in. There's far more important escrow that that money. So that was that was one of the factors and then as we talked about, I get it during COVID, which again, hopefully it is light at the end of the tunnel where with vaccinations coming out and things seem to be opening up and hopefully it stays that way. You know, we didn't race. In the past, we fought every bucket about racing, we raced, we raced, we could show the W2s, the 1099s, the purses, the handles, right. I'm not going to deny it. You see, you see the right hand column of the thoroughbreds, right. So and again, historically, the way the committee has adjusted the split 5 or 10%. And now there's no basis for us to make a case on the on the purse account and by breaking out rightfully so. But that was the other reason why is to to fight that fight. I wasn't sure how much, no matter what I made for or we made for for a case of it. You know, again, looking at two years, I don't see much to change over the next two years, unless something miraculously happens. And then, you know, we come back and we revisit this. But that was really kind of the logic behind it. You know, we didn't race and rightfully so the standard breads are. I hope that answered your question. Yes, yes, sir. It does. I just have, I guess, two comments. One is, I think as as attorney Grossman pointed out, it is not within this committee's authority to to deal with an escrow matter. And secondly, you would all concerned when you when you made this decision, knowing how this this committee has worked for years. And when I say that, I think somewhat cautiously that recommending 92% from 70 and then saying, okay, but now we want the money back when there's a racetrack track built. And I just wonder if you'd considered that that that may be a more difficult position when you allow that much to swing in the other direction. No, because that's what I thought I was kind of. And again, when we were been directed for the last 12 years, as I'm sure Mr. Goldberg, when he gets a chance to speak, we'll talk about it's just that it's no reason why this committee from what we are doing by making a large swing in the purses that when we are up and running and it's built, this committee in fact should consider the same thing and make another swing in the other direction. I mean, I wouldn't expect us when we're up and running only to do a 5% split. That was also part of the premise behind this is, you know, we're showing good faith short term to help the standard bridge today with the purses and that when not if, but I'll keep saying it, but when the track is built and the need it's going to be for those that purses and that funding from this committee and both bridge should sit back down and make that swing back significantly. You know, again, we look at I keep saying it, we look back at the criteria and we line up W2s, 1099s, purses and all that. It really should include the relative needs of each industry and those buckets, right? So like we talked about health and welfare, we have fixed needs that both breeds need to support. Breeders, we have statutory obligations, we need the support, you know, contrary to the criteria. And the same with that purse park is when we're up and running, we cannot run a 60-day meet for $50,000 a day. Even the standard bridge don't know disrespect, they don't even run for that money. So assumptions are built in this committee, rightfully so. We'd make the big swing back to the, to favor the thoroughbreds. There's no reason why we shouldn't. We're setting a precedent today to do that. I would expect same in return. That was the logic behind that. Thank you for your response. No, thank you. And then one note, I'm sorry, I forgot, you know, and to put it in perspective, which I worry about, right? I forgot was on the health and welfare. We have, as a result of COVID, and I think I've mentioned this before, is we have $150,000 deficit that, you know, again, I'm trying to deal with and struggle without having to make cuts to our program, right? So it's, again, those short-term and long-term solutions and how you put out, you know, again, the different fires that are starting and the predicament we're in. So I meant to mention that about the health and welfare and why, again, that's important for us for stability. Thank you. Attorney Kutunak, did you have any any questions for Mr. Umbrella? No, no questions from my end. It was a very helpful overview. Thank you. Thank you. On Mr. Umbrella, I just had just a couple of quick things that I just kind of wanted to go over. So I just kind of wanted you to just again describe in terms of the process with the consent from the membership. Was there a vote taken at the membership? Were there meetings that were taken place by the board in terms of how they arrived at their consent for this proposal? Nope. It wasn't a vote that meant it wasn't a vote that either board took. It was just more of a agreement by the board members to proceed and move forward with just that, trying to present a summary that made sense to protect and again each individual bucket, theoretically, if you want to call it that. So it was that a board meeting? It was discussed? No vote was taken? It was just more of a mutual agreement for myself to move forward. And then I guess my next question is just regarding the issue of the escrow and quite honestly, I think the question may be more directed to Attorney Grossman or Dr. Lightbound to just kind of elaborate that these funds that are presently there essentially are purely intended for purse funds for any live races that take place. Correct. There's a small amount of money in the standard bread and in the thoroughbred that are just was just generally left there. So if you look at the each month, you'll see that besides the large amount that's in the thoroughbred bucket, if you want to call it that. But there's also, you know, a couple of, you know, maybe 20,000 or so in the standard bread bucket. That was just left there by the Commission decided to leave some money in the fund originally so that it never got down to zero. So but otherwise the majority of the fund is what would have been directed towards the thoroughbred purse money. The thoroughbred purse money and it couldn't be used for other purposes within the bounds of the statute. Correct. It couldn't be. That's correct. Allocated for health and welfare benefits or breeding. Yeah. And maybe General Counsel Grossman would want to address the escrow issue. But that issue has been brought up numerous times to the Commission through different lawyers, through different executive directors. And so far, the Commission has said that they were not going to ask for that for various reasons. And Commissioner Chairman, I'm sorry if I may just real quick, you know, I'd like to highlight under 205 CMR 149, right criteria, permanently discontinue harness races or horse races to close a racetrack use for harness or horse races to abandon or relinquish a license to not apply a perdual of a license or to transfer a racetrack to any entity. And then it goes on to say that the Commission, the Commission pursuant to any event as described above, has occurred or will occur may take one or more of the following actions. And just that hold a public hearing to determine if the money should be escrowed. I think we meet those obligations and why I keep pushing into that letter after letter. And I still think this horse racing committee again, I know what the statute says, but I don't think we should be strictly bound by that, right? Our job is to remote develop, protect the best interests of the Commonwealth. It even goes on to say the interest of the Commonwealth employees of the Commonwealth. And then I do find and again, while not an attorney, I've leaned on Council Grossman for this very, at the very last one of the sections, it goes on to say that the HRC may make the recommendation to the Gaming Commission, what to do with the portions, all the portions of the fund of that race was development fund that's in that escrow account. So again, interpretation, I know a lot of these are sometimes misinterpreted convoluted the way they were written, but I would like for us at least to maybe pursue this further as a committee to see what can or can't be done for us to even at least make a recommendation to the MGC to escrow that money. Thank you, Mr. Umbrell. Attorney Grossman, did you add anything to that? No, I don't have too much to add there. We are aware of the issue. The money has been set aside. I get the argument it's really up to the commission, not this committee necessarily, but it's something that can be explored in the future, I suppose, though it's not really on the agenda for discussion today. But you know, it's an issue that we are aware of. Thank you. Thank you. Attorney Goldberg, I'll turn the floor over to you, in terms of any questions or do you want to start your presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'll make a short presentation. A lot of the stuff you've heard from me before, but then I'll certainly take any questions. You know, this committee has done a lot of hard work over the past nine plus years to uphold the ideas and ideals of the mass gaming statute. Many, many hours have been spent poring over reports, documents, numbers at the numbers at the numbers. What we have to look at, what's important is we've always looked back at the numbers, the landscape of horse racing in Massachusetts has changed dramatically over the last few years and especially in the past two years. And I think we have an obligation of doing the hard work. And this is hard work in determining the applicable split percentages regarding the RHDF to bolster the horse racing industry in Massachusetts. And when I say the horse racing industry, I mean just that, the horse racing industry, not standard reds, not thorough reds, but the horse racing industry. Both of them are equally as important to Commonwealth, equally as important to saving jobs, to creating jobs, to saving open space, to helping all the ferries, veterinarians, feed deals, grain deals, all that's gone on for many, many, many decades, centuries in Massachusetts. If the dollars are not properly allocated in a way that promotes horse racing in Massachusetts, allowing for the economic growth, the agribusiness growth, we run the risk of legislation changing to taking some of that and reallocating quite a few funds away from the RHDF by the legislature. And why wouldn't they? The standard red industry feels very strongly that this, the RHDF is doing exactly precisely what the statute had intended and the benefits to the Commonwealth are overwhelming. You know, last year, General Counsel Grossman suggested and we discussed and debated the reallocation of our work into these three buckets. It was a wonderful idea, we all agreed to it, we did that and I think now it truly shows the foresight of this committee and starting with Attorney Grossman to be able to put us in a place where we can do, as a committee, can do just that. We can allocate the RHDF funds to help everybody, to help parts of the thoroughbred owners and breeders, trainers that have been getting funds over the years with the health and welfare, to continue to help standard bred owners, trainers, breeders, and everyone else. And that's important. The racing days, the metrics are important. Commissioner Cameron asked, you know, how do you come up with 92%, it's a big number. Quite honestly, I was prepared and I'm prepared to come in and request 100% of the purse bucket. If you look at 2019 and I'm always asked, how has it changed? How has it changed? Yes, then that's important. It's an important inquiry. If you look at 2019 to 2020, the change is dramatic. When there's no racing, you know, 2019, there was six days of thoroughbred racing, 108 for the standard breads, now we're going from zero to 68. And I'll get to the 68, the COVID, the pandemic reduced race meat and why the relative needs, the purse money, 92% is needed. Is needed this year by the standard. I'll get to that in a second. The metrics have changed dramatically. I mean, if you look at the number of occupational licenses, in 2019, it was 849 for the thoroughbreds, 974 for the standard breads, almost equal. 2020, zero for the thoroughbreds, 900 for the standard breads, quite a big discrepancy there. And those numbers up and down the 2020 charts are all the same. As far as the industry is working together, I can tell you right now there has been zero. There's been no backdoor deal done by anybody. None, zero. And I'm a little insulted by even the insinuation that that's possible. From day one, starting in 2012, John Sherman, Dr. Kochevar, Stephen Riley, everyone, every leader of our group and the committee members have said, why can't you guys talk and try to resolve some of these issues? And we've tried, by the way, there were meetings in my office in 2012. There's been me, I went to Boston to meet with members in 2007. We've tried. This is the first time. And my hats off to Paul Umbrello, because I think he has done the best job of any representative. And I know people are probably chuckling, well, that's because he's agreeing to give you 92%. No, that's not the reason. It really not the reason. I think we're entitled to 100% of the purse bucket. But Mr. Umbrello and I sat down for hours. We went over different things, the numbers, the effects, the past effects in the future. And I think that what we've come up with as a no one, I don't think anyone, I don't think Mr. Umbrello or myself has ever intimated that just because we agree on something, the committee has to follow it. I don't know. And I apologize if anyone got that idea from anything I presented, because that's never the case. Clearly there needs to be a vote and it has to be a majority. But we must follow the law as a committee. We must follow the law. There's been some thoroughbred people saying that Mr. Umbrello doesn't have the right to do this. When I read the laws, when I read the statutes, the NEHBPA and the mass thoroughbred readers, those are the two industries, the two entities that have the right that to bind the thoroughbred industry in Massachusetts. So as a committee, we have to give Mr. Umbrello his props and we have to listen to him and we have to take his word for things. That's important. In the same way with the standard bread industry, the HHA and the SOM are the two entities that are by statute designated to be the standard bread representatives. So I think the recommendation of the two industries is important. And Mr. Umbrello was asking about the 92 and 8. We could crunch numbers for hours. I'm not going to bore everybody with that. But in 2020, going right to the purse bucket, in 2020, the standard breads were able to give about $101,000 a day in purses and that was terrific. We're able to do that because it's only 68 days. So I guess the good news, bad news of the pandemic, although it's been a horrific event for everyone and reduced our racing to 68 days, we're able to provide $101,000 a day for purses and that helped keep the quality of the racing up. It helped bring in outside investment. And that's what we're trying to do. Keep the jobs for Massachusetts residents, Massachusetts farmers, horsemen and horsewomen, and also to bring in the guys and women from Maine and Delaware and New York to try to spend more of their time and money in Massachusetts. But now going forward, God willing, there's no further pandemic issues and the standard breads race going back to their over 100 days of racing. And just to keep us at the same level in 2021, as we offered in 2020, we will need about $11 million in purses, $11 million. If the RHDF brings in a total of $12 million this year, at 92%, the standard buds will only get $8,832,000. If it's $15 million in total RHDF revenues, then there would be just about $11 million going to the standard breads at the 92% number. This number wasn't just picked at a thin air, it was based on the metrics. So in order for the standard bridge just to give out on a daily basis the same first level, we need that 92%. And that's important. It's important to keep the upward trend alive, to keep people saying, oh, come off of Massachusetts is doing everything possible to keep horse racing going in the right direction in Massachusetts. So that 92%, while it sounds like a big number, it's going to keep us at the level where we were last year to the very important number. As far as the breeders, quite honestly, we wanted more than 75% for the breeding, a lot more than 75%. And I'm not going to make the argument now because that's not what I'm here to do. But suffice it to say, as part of this, as part of the negotiations that Mr. Umbrella and I talking, it was give and take. This wasn't, it was far from a one-sided deal. What the thoroughbreds got was a very healthy, not the money going into the bucket of breeding and a very healthy amount of money going into the health and welfare bucket because we understand the health and welfare that Mr. Umbrella does have obligations that he needs to honor. And this agreement that we've come up with that we're hoping that the committee will see that it wasn't a backdoor deal. It wasn't done with, we didn't pick numbers at a thin air, that it was done to look at each industry and look at each bucket and figure out what's the best way to allocate those funds so that each person in each bucket can get the most benefit out of it. And that's what we've done. And I really truly hope that this committee gets all their questions answered. I asked the questions because we're happy to answer them. And I hope you two will see that it's a very good recommended split. And I hope you'll agree with that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Goldberg, with respect to members of the committee. Do any of the committee members have any questions for Attorney Goldberg? I do, Mr. Fitzgerald. Just a couple of actually some clarity, which is very helpful to me. Again, another very good discussion and explanation as to what transpires, which frankly, we did not have the benefit of the last meeting. I don't think anyone on this committee ever mentioned the words backroom deals. I think, and I'll speak for myself, I was just concerned that I didn't have information. You two got together. We did not have information as to what transpired. And I think for this committee to do this work properly, we needed to hear what we heard today, which actually is much more than was contained in your briefs that you submitted. The same information was not in the written documents, which I would have loved it to have been, frankly, because that would have been really helpful to me in understanding how you all went about coming up with some discussions or some numbers. That was helpful today to hear that. My second concern is, you know, I was certainly concerned about the change in philosophy. They fought so hard and frankly, it was persuasive to me over the years to maintain money to obtain, to really attract investors for a new track. Also, some of the supporting documents what we received, talk about, there were allegations made, which you know what, you need to look at things for what they are on both sides in standard bread and in thoroughbred racing. We as the commission and we as the committee have gotten lots of public comments about things that those folks don't agree with, that the board may have been doing. And our answer has always been, hey, if you don't like the elected boards, then Alexa, the people who you think will represent you properly. And I think the one thing I would like to ask at this point of Mr. Umbrella is the statement that there has been no election on your board since 2014. Because again, we have told people, please, just if you don't like the way you're being represented, then you go about changing the board. And I just, I don't know if that's accurate. I haven't heard anything, but I thought I'd ask the direct question. No, thank you, Commissioner Cameron. And I will make one statement back that between yourself or the racing director, director Lightbaum, I do find it kind of, I'm going to say offensive when I hear these false allegations. And I wouldn't like or expect even in Alex or something to please call me. I know Council Ghostman's called me on one other issue. All false information. We held an election in 2019. We held an election in 2020, and we will be holding an election and continuing in 2021. Thank you, Mr. Umbrella. I just didn't have a, I just, I'm asking, I'm not making, I am in no way making an allegation. I am asking a direct question, because I think it's important for us to do our work that all the documents that we received, we can make sure we all have good information. So I thank you for that. And that is that important information. The other, the other last thing that was mentioned is that this committee has not in any way been concerned or interested in the two proposals out there, which, which are this one in Sturbridge and one in rare hands. So if just for the committee's sake, Dr. Lightbaum, if you could talk about the work that you and the team has done along the lines of working with both groups for technical support. Sure. Thank you, Commissioner. Both of these groups have approached me and they've met with myself and Attorney Grossman numerous times and our, feel free to give us phone calls with questions they may have about process, about our regulations, anything that we may be able to help on a technical side. And we've been doing this all along as different groups have come forward through the years with different proposals. Once the proposals get to, you know, oftentimes people come at a very early stage in a proposal and maybe it's not filled out that much or maybe the group wants to do more work before it would be ready to be brought to Commissioner Cameron or Executive Director Karen Wells. Both of these groups have now met with the four of us to discuss their proposals. And at some point, if they get to a point where they are further along in the process, we'll certainly be willing to arrange two by twos with our commissioners if the commissioners are so inclined to get the information. So we're very supportive of any groups that want to come forward. There's a lot of moving parts, as I'm sure everybody's aware. A lot of different factors that come into it, things in the general location, the city or town that they're doing, building permits, that kind of things, different committees that they might have to go in front of in the towns. And then dealing with our legislation. I know, again, General Counsel Rosemann has met and to express different opinions on the way our statute works. We've talked to him about how you apply for a license and that whole thing. And it does come up occasionally at our commission meetings just in general passing that there are groups out there. When if we're asked to comment on legislation, you know, we usually try to mention that there are groups out there. And the groups themselves, they obviously, they're the ones that are going to go to the press and make their announcements as to where they're at on that. And both of these groups have gone to the press. So that's all out there. And as a common knowledge right now, these groups are working on it. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I may just please, I'd like to address the first comment the Commissioner Cameron made for clarification, please. Yes. I want this publicly stated that I in no way, and I don't think either the thoroughbreds in any way, claim that this committee or anyone in this committee termed or called what we did a backdoor deal. That wasn't my intent to say that it's been written in other, some writings have come into the committee. So that language, I do not believe was ever used by anyone in this committee. So that's not an issue whatsoever. And if that was in any way intimated in what I've stated, I apologize. And the last comment or statement is the other thing that we've talked about making this any suggestive split effective April 1st of 2021. And we've talked about the timing and why that's all important as racing will start God willing in April for the standard price. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions for either Mr. Goldberg or Mr. Umbrello, the members at this time? Not so much a question for my end, but just to echo Commissioner Cameron's sentiments, I really appreciate the thorough explanation, particularly on the 92% number, because we're used to seeing round numbers. So it's really helpful to kind of understand exactly how you did get to that calculation. And so not so much a question, but wanting to sort of pull out the point that if we are to shift, you know, more dramatically this time around a point for consideration, that that really is going to be marking a new precedent. And so I do think that we should, you know, put some careful consideration into that. And I guess to you, Attorney Goldberg, a recognition that you feel comfortable with that moving forward, you know, if a new site were to, you know, get up and running in thoroughbreds were to be racing a dramatic number of new days, having that shift sort of that pendulum sort of swing back in a similar manner. Thank you. Yeah. So Paul Umbrello and I have had this, we had this conversation this morning. And it was not the first time we had this conversation. We've had it many, many times over many, many months. And yeah, I think it's this committee's charge under the law to be fair. And to look at the metrics. And I think Commissioner Cameron was a thousand percent right. And in retrospect, it was very good that we came here today with the metrics, with the numbers, discussed them, answered the questions, because that is our charge, right? It's the look 23K section 60B tells us what how to do our job basically, right? To look at the, all the the metrics. So compare them year to year and come up with a fair and reasonable split. And I think that was done this year. And Attorney Katanik, I think I know it'll be done next year and the year after and the year after. And I and Mr. Umbrella has my word that as long as I'm on this, this committee, that's how I operate. It's yes, I'm a representative of the standard breads. But I think we're all representatives of the Commonwealth and the horse racing industry. And we have a duty to be fair and reasonable. So I don't see any issue of any problem with that going forward. Thank you. And if I may add to that. So that was the other premise again, and again, trying to save legal expenses or whatnot, right? Again, looking at the past, looking at today, looking at the future, again, historically, while that purse bucket seems like a significant jump, right? Even if based on all the criteria that was submitted, there would probably be a minimum of a 5 or 10% change on that bucket for 2020, right? And we would probably be, you know, I'm just trying to let this committee understand some of the rational behind it. And then probably looking at 2021 when we start in the fall, and again, unless there's some drastic change, which, you know, trying to forecast right now, I don't see that other than revenue numbers coming in, right? Assumptions were made that another 5 or 10% would hit that purse bucket. So I would expect looking at the fall of, you know, year from now, us coming back saying no change to all three buckets, right? Stability, long term, that that helps everybody. So that was another kind of part of the criteria and coming up with that sooner than later. And then the other thing to think about is if we didn't, as a committee, technically something food for thought, break out these buckets, right? Where would we be at now probably looking at, unfortunately, you know, at the top, 75, 25 making adjustments off the top would probably be at a 80, 20, 90, 10 split somewhere around there if I had to speculate. I'll say it's speculation. Well, guess what? That number, when you stop breaking it out on the purse bucket, you're probably very close to the 8%, you're looking at today the way we're doing it. If you stop running, you know, just numbers out, right? Used, you know, 10 million and it's 20%, it's 2 million and then 80% of that, you know, it's like 1.6 million dollars. So that was another factor I looked at. If this committee rightfully so didn't break out each bucket, would probably almost be, you'd be hurting more the breeding and health and welfare programs. But the purse bucket itself would probably relatively remain the same or not too far off, even though that number does seem, that's just that. I get it. It seems very alarming going from, you know, the 70s to the 90s. But when you really break down the numbers and start looking at it, as we talked about, as Attorney Goldberg had said, it was just a lot of back and forth, extensive hours, looking at the numbers, not only the criteria, but just the benefit to the relative needs, as we always say, to each program. Thank you. Mr. Fitzgerald, did you want to, I'm sorry, Attorney Chairman Fitzgerald, did you want to make a comment? Because I had something to add, but I'll wait for you, sir. Well, I had another just, I actually had a separate issue that I wanted to discuss with both industries. So I'll defer to your direct question. Why don't you do that first, because then I, percentages. Okay, all right, okay. All right. For both industries, I just had a question just about, in terms of, you know, in 2015, there was a law that changed where there was auditing of the actual of the fund and the allocations that were made to each industry. It was changed at that time to then allow for the auditor, the state auditor, to be able to request that audit reports be submitted. And so I guess I just would ask, you know, it's been since, essentially since 2015 that, you know, the allocations of the funds have actually been audited by both industries. So I just wanted to, for purposes of just kind of generating a discussion between the two industries, you know, between you, Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Umbrello, in terms of the appetite for seeing if there's, you know, a willingness on each industry to have their funds audited, you know, based on the prior year. As an example, I would say because of the fact that 2019 was pre-pandemic, whether there'd be a willingness to kind of have the 2019 figures looked at. And I recognize that we don't have the statutory authority to order that. Maybe we have some authority to make a recommendation of it. But I just kind of wanted to generate the discussion to see if that's something that you both would be interested in doing so that there's more of a direct report. I know that we get the executive summaries to describe how these figures are actually used and the programs that they're used in. But the additional component of having the audit is to say that, yes, the actual dollars and cents are being used in compliance with the statute. So I just kind of wanted to get your initial thoughts on that. Well, I'll speak, Chairman, for the child to answer that. Just the first I've heard of that request or any question. I don't know anything about audits, either way. I can't imagine, certainly if the Commonwealth has the authority to deal with and request it, I think the standard, I know the standard would comply fully. And I don't see any reason why an audit would be not welcomed by the standards. Okay. Chairman Fitzgerald, I can also say the same. I know the breeders have been at the same time. And actually, we're just finishing it up. I have presented to the commission in the past. Director Lightbaum, our audits from 2015, 16, and 17, rightfully so. And I'm now working on 18, 19, and 20. So we do full audits every three years, according to our bylaws. But I do a interim audit third party. And actually, those are currently being worked on because they do take some time. And the same thing I've submitted those in the past to Commissioner, sorry, to Director Lightbaum. And the same thing would be willing to do the same or have our books audited. Thank you. All right. All right. Does anyone else have any other comments and questions before we proceed? Oh, okay. All right. Well, thank you both for the thoroughbreds and the standard breads for your submissions and all the hard work that went into them. I guess, in terms of what we've been presented to the committee at this time and in kind of keeping consistent with how we changed our process last year and looking at each of the individual categories separately and taking a vote on each of those categories. I'd like to ask the committee members if we'd like to proceed in that way and looking at each of these categories at this time. Maybe if Chairman Fitzgerald, if you like, I'd be happy to make a motion regarding the proposed split for all three categories. And then maybe we could do, I think that's what we did last time and then vote individually up or down on each bucket on each category. Is that? I think what we did last time was we took each individual category and we took a vote. Separate motion? Separate motion for each? Separate motion. There were three separate motions. I think I'd like to try and be consistent with that process. That's okay. All right. So why don't we just start with the health and welfare benefits category then. Mr. Chairman, I would move then that we make a motion that we agree to reallocate the resource development fund split as it relates to the health and welfare portion of the resource development fund to reallocate that split for 2021 effective April 1st of 2021 to 50% for the standard breads and 50% to the thoroughbreds. And is there a second? I'll second that. Okay. Any further discussion? Yeah. I actually thought that both representatives made persuasive arguments about the needs of both organizations and the stability moving forward of having a number that they thought made sense. So I actually, I think that I'm persuaded that that's a good number with health and welfare. Okay. All right. So the motion then carries. So I'm going to take a roll call vote on the basis of the motion. Commissioner Cameron? Aye. Attorney Katanak? Aye. Mr. Ambrello? Aye. Attorney Goldberg? Aye. And Fitzgerald? Aye. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. We will move now to the discussion regarding the breeder's distribution. And at this point in time, I didn't ask if there is a motion that is going to be tabled. Mr. Chairman, I would again move that we agree to reallocate the resource development fund split as it pertains to the breeder's allocation to be 75% of that allocation to the standard breads and 25% of that allocation to the thoroughbred industry. I'll second that. Second. Okay. Motion moves forward. So Commissioner Cameron? Aye. Attorney Katanak? Mr. Ambrello? Aye. Attorney Goldberg? Aye. And Fitzgerald? Aye. Thank you. The motion is approved. So then we'll move on to the first allocation and is there a motion to be presented based on the first allocation? Mr. Chairman, I guess through the silence, I will step up and make the next motion, please. And I would move that we agree to reallocate the resource development fund split percentage as it pertains to the allocation to purses, to the change to be made, to sit 92% of that allocation to the standard breads with 8% of the purse allocation to the thoroughbred industry. Is there a second for that motion? I will second it. Discussion, Mr. Chair? Any further discussion? Yes. I would like to talk about the beginning of this committee work and how we had an expert report stating that 90% of the money should go to the thoroughbreds and 10% should go to the standard breads and how this committee did think about precedent, did think about the needs of both breeds. And we chose not to use that report and we came up with a far different split. And Attorney Katonik's comments about precedent did strike me as something that we should consider. And I think there were good rationale over the years why we were cautious and why we did maybe 5% or a 10% increase. I am still uncomfortable with the huge swing. I've listened to the reasons for such, but I'm not persuaded that that's the right number to go to. I do believe that there is a need because of the drop in revenue for the standard bread to have a bigger piece. I would be prepared to go 10% up to the 80-20 that we talked about. But I am concerned about the work of this committee moving forward and that those huge splits may not be a good idea and I would not be as persuaded that we should be convinced in the future to go in a totally other direction. Also, it's very different than the work that we've done in the past. And I've been very comfortable with the decision that this committee has done in the past and not going with huge splits. I understand circumstances are different, but I also have been persuaded in the past that there are two very promising proposals. Holding on to some of that purse money as an incentive has been what we've done for years thinking that was the way to incentivize. I, for one, am not comfortable with that large split. If I may, Mr. Chairman, the numbers are what we've always talked about and as Commissioner Cameron states, the metrics are what we always looked at. And that's what the statute requires us to do. The difference, the change, I can't tell you committee members, the public, what my discussions were with settlement agreement, whatever you want to call them, discussions were with the thoroughbreds in prior years. But I can tell you that this move towards no racing is significant. Unfortunately, the relative needs of these industries, it's clear. We're charged by law to do what's right for the Commonwealth. The thoroughbreds, the standard bids need this money to keep their purses the same level they were in 2020. If we don't get it, the purse levels will decrease just the way it's going to be. We need to keep it at that level. The thoroughbreds have not raced in 2020. Unfortunately, they're not racing in 2021. That's a significant change. You know, in 2012, yeah, we got a report from an expert, but we didn't follow it also because there were many, many, many, many errors that we found in that report. But in 2013, 2012, the standard bids were racing over 100 days a year. The thoroughbreds racing 60, and we got 25%. That's it. You know, that's a huge number that the standard bids really got hit with. It's been a small move every year to get it where it needs to be, where it needed to be, and we're not there yet. We're truly not there yet. The 92% is a bigger than 70%, but of course it is. But the numbers, as Paul Umbrella suggested, the numbers aren't that big. And depending on what happens with the Resource Development Fund this year, and the income from the casinos, it may be even smaller. But I know this, the standard bids need that 92% to keep that arrow pointing upwards, to keep the people coming in from other states, to keep the Massachusetts residents who have put money into their farms, which is what the statute intended, who have put money into their houses, which is what the statute intended, who have put money into their racing stock, into the horses. The quality has increased dramatically. Those are all wonderful things. By making it 92%, this isn't going to be a pot of goals for the standard bids. This is going to enable us to keep the daily racing levels where they were last year. I've suggested, I've said it, I've said it, I've said it, this committee, I've said it to Mr. Umbrella privately many times. What next year brings, next year brings. So the year after, we'll look at it. And we'll make the, I think the committee will make the appropriate change. But if this is not as drastic a change as it seems, and I think it's truly necessary to show the Commonwealth, to show the legislature, to show everyone that this is a statute that's working. It's working in Massachusetts. Let's not slow it down. Let's not try to break it. I think the 92%, I know the 92% is a good number. And it's a number that, quite honestly, is why we agreed to 75, 25 for the breeders. And I don't want to go back. And unfortunately, you know, if we started with, if we started with the purse bucket, and it was something less than 92, I wouldn't agree to 75% for the breeders. We have 122 brood mares to two for the thoroughbreds. And I don't want, I don't want to come arguing that today. That's not what we're here for. But this truly was thought of by myself as a three bucket allocation. Anything less than 92%, I think is a mistake. I think it would be really difficult for the standard brids to move forward. And it's not what the intent was of myself at least coming to this meeting. The 92, 75, 50, 50, I feel clearly takes into consideration the health and welfare, the breeding, and the day-to-day overnight races. And I think that if we're going to go to 50, 50, and 75, 25, the 92, eight split makes all the sense in the world. And I would, I would implore this committee to see that and to vote yes on this motion. Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that, right? And again, it's, for us looking at criteria again, the painstaking hours again, Attorney Goldberg, especially myself put into this was, it comes down just that to numbers. So, maybe it'll help this committee to understand that with COVID using 10 million as a base, I'm already forecasting. I don't even think, which I do hope we hit 15 million in revenue from the casinos looking at January and February. I think we're on target for 15, but again, that's if we stay on course. But for perspective and looking at 2020, and I know we're moving forward looking at 2021, but an 80, 20, an 80, 20 split today in the purse bucket would equate to, on the fellow bread side, 1.6 million in revenue. 85, I'm sorry, 85, 15 would equate to 1.2, about a $400,000 difference. And a 90, 10 split even is about 800,000. So, while, while the shift in percentage seems excessive, it's about $800,000 of revenue coming in based on COVID numbers, maybe a little more if the numbers get better, right? But again, I don't have the crystal ball. So you got to use, you know, looking back and then trying to look ahead and forecast. So, again, I think perception is looking at an adjustment seems that alarming, but by breaking out the buckets does again help each program. But I'm not, I'm not going to say 800,000 is not a lot in the fellow bread industry again. That's not a significant amount of race days. Again, that's growing the 20 million is a significant amount of race days. So even if we did 80, 20 this year today, and we come back here a year from now, right, and we make another five or 10% split, and again, trying to forecast, I think we're going to be in no different of a position. I think this committee still would be at a 85, 15, 90, 10 split on the purse bucket. That was, that was some of the rationale that, that, you know, I, and, and talking to others put in behind this and how we came up with that number again. It's maybe it's important to understand that. Mr. Chairman, you talk about the audit. And I heard you say that you'd like to see how each industry spends their money from the racehorse development fund. Precisely. I can tell you this right now. Any percentage that we give to the thoroughbreds for 2021 will not get spent. We don't need a CPA audit to tell us that it wasn't spent last year, $0 was spent last year, $0 will be spent in 2021. That's unfortunate, but that's the truth. Every dollar of purse money that's given to the standard bridge this year will be spent. I think that's significant. I think that the Commonwealth deserves that, that the money be used to take care of what the statute intended and the standard bridge will use every dollar. And whatever, whether it's $800,000 or $1,000,000 of purse money that the thoroughbreds get this year based on the 8%, it's going to go into that 20 million just make that balance higher and higher. It will not be used this year. And that's not what the statute intended. The 92% is a fair number. It's a number that both industries have gone back and forth for hours talking about. It's a number we agreed to. And it's also a number that then led to the 75, 25, and 50, 50 numbers as well. They're not mutually exclusive. There was a lot to discussion about all three numbers. I think that's important to note as well. Thank you, Mr. Over. Turn it to Tana. Yeah, so I think, I mean, this is a bigger shift than we have seen traditionally. And that is something that did, you know, give me pause. But I will say that I'm finding myself being persuaded by your discussion of the really dramatic shift that's taken place in the industry as well, both in terms of racing days and in terms of the revenue that's available for the respective industries this year. I think those two combined, you know, make a more compelling case for a more outsized shift than what we've considered in the past. And I guess this is just a question in terms of historical allocation. And maybe it's for Dr. Eli Baume, but have we in the history of the fund, have we allocated purse money to an industry that has had no racing days? No. Well, the money for the thoroughbreds, this is the first time there has been no racing days, was last year to begin with. So no, there hasn't. The money that the thoroughbreds could have used if they had had a full meet, but didn't use, that has gone to the, that stayed in the fund so that it's there still. Right. So in terms of the look back, if we were to allocate funds to purse funds to the thoroughbreds, this would mark the first time that we'd be allocating funds to an industry that has had no racing days in a prior year. Yes. Which I think is also an important precedent to consider. But if I may interrupt, I'm sorry, but tactically, which the horseman chose not to, and it would have been excessive, but we could have made the request even during the festivals to literally request every single penny of that racehorse development fund. I will admit it, not sure how far it would have, would have went. Other states have done it. Kentucky Downs does it. They literally put on, you know, like a salad toga meat, excessive meat. We could have asked for excessive amounts of that purse money to use over the festivals over the last six years. But again, the intent was just that, save it for the rainy day, save it for the investors, save it to kickstart the building of a new racetrack. Unfortunately, the hurdle is it's sitting in limbo and we need to protect that money again. That's, that's, that's really the, again, I'm going to emphasize the most important part of this. And I still think we should have a follow up meeting after we vote today with this committee to see if there's anything we should do as, again, the committee to promote, develop and support the relative needs of that money. I still think it's, it's our duty to make the recommendation to the commission. Mr. Umbrillo. Commissioner Cameron, did you have any? Well, I am, I am thinking about it differently as a, you know, with no race day. So, so it's, it's really not a precedent because the facts have changed so much. I guess I wasn't considering that piece of it. Just, you know, I was really considering the work in the past of this committee, how we were cautious for a reason and trying to be fair to both breeds. And I'll remember those early as Mr. Goldberg will as well. He was with us early on, you know, those passionate discussions about the standard bread, you know, having more of the monies come to them. And those discussions were persuasive to me as were the thoroughbred, you know, discussions over the last couple of years where, frankly, the metrics didn't actually work out. You know, we didn't go exactly by metrics because we should be considering other factors and that, that need to attract a group was persuasive to me that would come in here to the Commonwealth and build a new racetrack. And I am, I am optimistic with the projects now that I year about. And so, so I, but, but I guess if we are looking at as attorney just mentioned the fact that there are no racing days and how does that change our thinking, it is a factor that, that I need to consider. So we have, are there any, any other comments from any of the other committee members at this time? We have a motion that's been presented and that motion has been seconded. We'll proceed to a full vote at this time. Okay. The motion has presented Commissioner Cameron. How about I? Attorney Katanak. I. Mr. Amarillo. I. Attorney Goldberg. I. And Fitzgerald. I. So the motion is approved. Okay. Well, thank you very much for all of your hard work and moving this forward. At this time, kind of looking at our agenda, I just wanted to talk about the next steps and, and either any future meeting dates that we do want to schedule. Do we want to now be able to look at potentially scheduling something in the late fall? For a meeting like last year, I believe we had a meeting in October. I was wondering if we wanted to schedule something around then or in November at this time. I'm hoping I just get through this month. Never mind October, but that's fine. And can I kick Chairman Fitzgerald. I'm sorry though. Can, can I at least table again and counsel Grossman, please? Do we have, I guess this committee have the authority to, so I'm trying to learn, have the authority to at least review 205 CMI 149 and put our own opinion of that interpretation of it and still present a recommendation to the commission. Like why, why would we not be able to at least do that? I mean, we've made special allocations toward the split. We do make a recommendation on the split. You know, as you and I talk about, it's always interpretation when you read it. I don't know if it's beneficial for this committee to literally just review 205 CMI 149 or a subcommittee or it's a mute point and just see that if it's something that we should pursue. And by the way, for this committee to understand that it's also benefits for the, instead of that money becoming dangling like a carrot in a money grab. But I know it's, it's during COVID, but rightfully so again, the law states escrow the funding. I don't think we would, well I suppose we wouldn't see any or get any objections towards it. I'm sure the investors themselves would be all over as they've done in the past, sending letters of recommendation to escrow. But do we owe it to ourselves again as this committee to review that and get a better understanding interpretation of that law? So it's the question to have an overview of 205 CMI 16149 dealing with the issue of the escrow of the funds. And kind of a legal opinion on that matter. I don't know if Todd's going to say that's a council girl, so that's a gray area, but call a legal opinion. Again, we're the HRC committee, I think we should review it and just have an opinion of it, right? And then make a recommendation to the gaming commission. They can choose what they want to do with it, but I think, you know, myself, others over the years, we've continuously sent letters to the MGC and I understand at times the sensitivity behind it. But it's also important, right? What's our mission statement for both the MGC and the HRC? Again, promote, support the relative needs. And by the way, if we escrow this funding again in three years, and for whatever reasons, hopefully not the Thalbert industry goes belly up. You now have the Atari also to then that's NCMR 205-149 transfer that funding to the Sanderbred Association. So again, I think it's important to the industry. Just that, I can't emphasize enough, I think you've heard it in nauseam to escrow that money. I'm just trying to figure out again, interpretation for this committee. Do we have any oversight, any authority to at least provide our own opinion to the commission? I think that might have more merit, more weight. And from stepping, you know, I don't know if I'm stepping out of bounds, out of territory. I just think it's important that we should at least, this committee should at least review it. Mr. Chairman, if I may, and Commissioner Cameron will, I think I remember me, if it's probably much further than mine anyway, back when we made our first recommendation to the legislature and gaming commission, it was a time when the Sanderbred industry was in dire straits regarding the potential of not racing. And we actually, if you turn back and look at the first recommendation, I think November of 13, I think it was, or to the commission, we put in something about S growing funds. If one breed fails to race just for that purpose, I think we mentioned the three years. And if they don't race for three years, then it can be reallocated. So I think we would be in support of any kind of discussion going forward that we as a committee can have to help flesh out if you will, what the best way to deal with this surplus or the money that's currently in, I don't recall surplus, but the unspent funds in the RHDF, I think need to be protected for the horse racing industry in Massachusetts. So Attorney Goldberg, it's your recollection that there was a recommendation within one of our opinions? Yes, Commissioner. Yeah, I don't, I'd have to see it. I don't, I don't recall that. And I think I probably have to recuse this. I mean, I think one of the reasons we just talked about our authority was I don't think escrow is part of our authority. I think any recommendation can be made though. But because I am a member of the Gaming Commission, I would not want to be making a recommendation to the body, you know, I sit with the Gaming Commission. So I'm not going to, I'm going to recuse from this discussion as it may be a matter that I will have to opine on later. And by the way, the commission, I think the committee knows that this was brought before the committee, or rather the commission. And, and for legal reasons, the, the, the makeup of the committee at that commission at that time, decided that it wouldn't be appropriate to escrow that money. Now, there is a new, there are new members of the commission. And certainly, the thoroughbred horsemen have the ability to bring it before the commission. They see it as an issue that they'd like to see revisited. So yeah, I'm sorry, is that I myself, the any HPPA mass breeders can make that letter of recommendation. I just don't know. Again, I'm not saying this committee has to make the recommendation. I'm just saying is that this committee, I think have the authority and has more, more weight behind it. So that instead of myself, maybe the warehouse group, the storage group, all sending letters, including the standard breads, I don't know if there's any merit to this committee as well to do some form of analysis and see if they come to the same conclusion that yes, they feel based on reading 205, CMR 149, they can make the recommendation to the commission that they see that money could, could be escrowed. So now it's, now it's, you know, it's, it's the HRC, it's the thoroughbred industry, the standard breed industry and race track investors. Now I'll, I'll, which rightfully so and importantly, rallying to, to escrow that money. That's, that's all kind of my ask was, is I don't know, and I guess I'm trying to get from, from Council Grossman or Chair Fitzgerald is just that why wouldn't we as a committee just, you know, depending on what the outcome is? I see two, two parts to, to the concern. One is, is one is that the statutory authority of the, the committee to even make a recommendation and then the statutory authority of the commission to decide what can be done with those, those funds. So I see it as a two-part kind of discussion. And I guess for purposes of the committee, whether the members want to address the, address the issue as to whether or not they can even make a recommendation. So yeah. And I would just jump in, Mr. Chair and say, for my part, I would, I would want to look at that regulation again. I don't recall exactly what it says about that. But it's, it's certainly not completely out of bounds that the committee would talk about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't know what the outcome can or would be, of course. Okay. All right. So Mr. Umbrella, just in terms of, of, you know, any further discussion kind of seeing the, the same point that you are in terms of the two issues, have I narrowed it down for purposes of whether attorney Grossman, you know, put together a memorandum to saying whether the committee has the statutory authority to either make a recommendation or not. And then is your further question related to overall what can be done with those, with that S group? Correct. I guess the third point, council Grossman is, is that does this committee have the right to review it and just have an opinion? Not what are, well, I guess that's kind of the same thing. Well, our statute, no, I'm crossing it over on our statutory obligation as versus, hey, I'd like this committee just to review it and get an opinion whether they think, yep, we have no oversight, no say, or as one and then two to your two part chairman Fitzgerald is, oh yes, we can do this or yes, we can make the recommendation. I just think I'd like to have a follow-up meeting and have us just review and get input from this committee on their interpretation of that law. Then just, then just myself continuing to send letters on behalf of the breeders in the NEHBPA or then leaving it up to one individual's interpretation of the law, I guess. Right? Maybe just, that's, does that make sense? Right. Okay. But my money in the lot is, I apologize if I'm money in the lot is because I know this is kind of, again, we're trying to read what's black and white and interpreted, but I'm also looking at, and I recognize this committee is just that it's a horse racing committee. So I just feel we have an obligation to, you know, review that and, and, and, and file an opinion of it, right? Doesn't mean what we do with it or where we go with it. I'm just curious what the opinion of this committee is in their interpretation. Okay. So does any other committee member have any, any comments regarding the request to look into it? Do we want to have it as a discussion item at our next, at our next meeting or next scheduled meeting? No, Chairman Fitzgerald. That's my concern. I don't think this can wait, right? I think, and we don't know again with the crystal ball with the next three months are going to do. So I would like a, you know, everybody have the opportunity and time to review it, interpret it, and then we meet back sooner rather than later before the next meeting and just, you know, everybody, I guess would give an opinion of their interpretation. Again, as long as we're going to need some, some time for that to take place if, you know, based on if there needs to be a review of it. So, so I mean, what I was thinking. Sorry. No, no, no, I just was thinking, I was just thinking at our next scheduled meeting, if it meant that we were meeting in October, as we did last year, then we would have it as a discussion item at our next scheduled meeting. Yeah, just my personal opinion, we've talked about this year after year after year, the money grab, the money grab, the money grab, and, and rightfully so again, the EPA and the mass breeders in our lobbyists, I'm going to give them all the credit. They've been the ones doing their jobs between the House and the Senate doing whatever we can to help try to protect that funding. But you know, it doesn't mean it's always going to be there. So you reassure your investors, right? We worry about investors. I hear the comments. How do you reassure it? Escrow it. Just don't think the longer we wait, you know, the more vulnerable potentially that that money becomes. Maybe it doesn't. I would just rather as as I feel it, it's me sitting on this committee now. It's our obligation, duty, what not to see just that. What can we do even for myself on the Thalbert side is to push to escrow that money. And again, as we talk about this isn't even as much as it's for the Thalbert person, but it's the racetrack investors to have as we keep saying that money available for them to start a meet when when it's needed. So, you know, I do admit this is new territory for myself in this committee and try and understand what what our boundaries are and what's not. I just think this is something there's no reason why we just can't talk about it. It doesn't have to be a should be just about the split. That's all. I'd like to do it sooner than later. And by way, if I'm way off base, people, please by all means tell me that this is, you know, just that out of our realm out of scope. But I just feel a little differently about it. But that's just my opinion, right? I want to find I want to be able to at least address your concern and have a discussion when the discussion can be had based on the relevant information that can be obtained for it. I guess I just was thinking, you know, that, you know, this would be it would be an appropriate time at that, you know, at the next scheduled meeting to be able to have that as part of the overall discussion when we're kind of moving forward with the other plans for for 2022. So yeah, again, I'm sorry. My opinion is that that's too far out. And I think I would like to keep this separate than the split. Keep the focus on just that that funding and the scrolling of it. I don't know how this fail. That's just again, my humble opinion. Are there any or do any of the other committee members have any comments or offer any input? So I'm joined by my tiny consultant here. So apologies in advance. But I think kind of thinking back to attorney Grossman's overview of our purview here is really helpful for this discussion. And that we're really just charged with looking at the split. And I think to the extent that whether the funds can or cannot be escrowed would impact our decision on, you know, any split before us, then I do think that's a relevant discussion. So in my mind, I think the two go together and are not necessarily separate issues. Okay. Thank you. Anyone anyone else? Okay. All right. So, Mr. umbrella, if we do address this at our next at our next meeting and make it a point of discussion at that time, would that work would that work for you with this? Again, I'm going to be more vocal and say I think it's been filed out. But if that's what this public committee fails, and I don't know if we should take a vote, then so be it. Right. That's I'm only one of five. So I respect that. Okay. Just Mr. Chairman, just to add to the to add to the fray. I hear what Mr. umbrella was saying and I agree with him. Maybe not so shocking anymore, but I agree with him. I think what he's requesting is maybe a meeting before November to have a brief I'll be a brief discussion or whatever we can and be gathered some information prior to and have a discussion regarding the potentiality of making some type of recommendation regarding escrow of the fund. So I would be okay personally as one of five again to have a meeting, whether it's April, May, or as soon as this committee can for the limited purpose of discussing the escrow issue. Okay. All right. Then I'll just quickly Mr. Grossman, in terms of do you think many stand the discussion you have enough to kind of pinpoint the issue and draft a memorandum with that? Yes, I'm very familiar with this issue. So we can we'll have it teed up. I think that's perfectly appropriate as soon as possible. Maybe I can just coordinate with the chair as far as scheduling goes. If that works for everyone, if that's the inclination. Okay. All right. So then we'd be looking at sometime with maybe an appropriate time then to take a look for a quick meeting. I think that that sounds reasonable. Okay. All right. Mr. Umbrella. That's more than reasonable. I appreciate. Thank you, Chairman Fitzgerald. All right. Okay. All right. So we then be looking to kind of schedule a meeting sometime in May. Do we want to look at and I know historically we've tried to do maybe Wednesdays. So would sometime around May 19th work? May 19th works for me, Mr. Chairman. Works for me. That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. That's going to my end too. Okay. It works for me. I just need to check on my my ability to participate. Now I'll do that with with Council Grossman at another time. Okay. All right. Okay. So we'd be looking at maybe May 19th in the afternoon. Two o'clock. With two o'clock work. Okay. That's fine. Okay. All right. So then we'll reconvene May 19th at 2pm. Is there any further business that any of the members wish to address? Mr. Chair, not obviously not coming from a member here, but I just thought I would remind everyone as to the process for the approval of the recommendation from today by statute. We now will submit the voted on recommendations to the legislature. We need to wait 30 days and then we will present those to the Commission for approval. And if I understood the votes correctly, the desire was to have the split, the new splits go into effect as of April 1. So that would be what the recommendation is. I'll prepare the letter and circulate it to the group just so everyone can have a look before we send it out. And if you could all just let me know whether there's anything that needs to be adjusted. That'd be great. Otherwise, we'll try to get that out in the next day or so just to get it. Thank you very much, Attorney Grossman. Thank you. Anything further? Do I have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn? Second. All right. Commissioner Cameron? Aye. Attorney Katanak? Aye. Mr. Umbrella? Aye. Attorney Goldberg? Aye. And Fitzgerald? Aye. Okay. All right. Well, thank you to all the committee members and thank you to all the gaming commission staff, to Grossman as far as thank you. Thank you so much for all your time and efforts. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Bye now. Bye-bye, everybody.