 that this meeting is being recorded and streamed and the streaming can be reached if you want to put aside your phones and just watch by going to our website, correct Dave and the link is there. Okay, good morning, Crystal. We'll get started with our roll call given the virtual format. Good morning, Commissioner Cameron. Good morning, I am here. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Present. Great, we're all set then to proceed. This is March 10th. It is a relatively special meeting, really limited to one subject matter unlike many of our meetings. It is a public meeting number 373, Commissioner Cameron. And we'll get started again just as we reflect on the beautiful morning that we woke up to will reflect on the citizens of Ukraine, their peace is so disrupted. So we'll keep them in our thoughts and prayers. But we need to get to our business of the day. Commissioner O'Brien, minutes please. There are three minutes that I understand are now included in the packet. I also understand there was some sort of technical glitch in terms of getting these distributed to the three of you. I am fine moving on them, but I realize these are substantial minutes and given how late they were turned over, I wanna really hear from you, whether the three of you would like to move on these or put these on for Monday. I can say I did have the chance to read them. I think it was a matter of a PDF format or whatever that they didn't get included, but they were in the email today this morning early from Crystal. I can say that I did take the time this morning to read them. It was really only the first one that was really substantial. The other two were not as long and required as much time. So I am prepared to move as well. Okay. And I think I will be able to- We don't participate, right. We won't be participating anyway. So it really is the three of us that then we constitute a quorum and we'll just note that the three of us in my vision, we're next to each other. And it is an occasion where we are an all-female group of gaming commissioners and Commissioner Hill. You'll just let us have this moment. Great. Up away. And so Commissioner O'Brien. Certainly. First, starting with June 24th of 2021, the minutes included in the packet, I would move we approve those minutes subject to any necessary changes for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. And we're all set on the edits. Well done, legal. Thank you so much. And Commissioner O'Brien, I know your oversight has been very important here. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. And I vote yes, three, zero, Tan, Judy, thank you. And then moving on to August 4th of 2021, I would likewise move that we move to approve those minutes subject to any needed changes for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. I'll set no edits. Okay. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. And I vote yes. And finally, September 9th of 2021, I would move that we approve those minutes again subject to any necessary changes for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Okay. I'll set again with respect to edits. Okay. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. And I vote yes. And welcome back, Commissioner Hill. Okay. Now we'll get started with the single item of our agenda today. And I wanna thank everybody who's been working hard on this matter, particularly Todd and team and Joe Delaney and team. So thank you. You know what? There you are, Joe. You disappeared on me for a second. Good morning, Chief Delaney. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. As you know, today we will be continuing the discussion on the East of Broadway development that's being proposed by Encore. First, I thought I would just give a quick recap of sort of how we got here today. So back on February 10th, the commission held a public meeting where representatives from Encore made a presentation to the commission and the commission then questioned the applicant about their proposal. At that point, the commission asked for written public comment to be submitted through February 25th and scheduled a public hearing for February 28th. So written comments were compiled and sent to the commissioners from those that were submitted through February 25th. And in the interest of having all of the comments available for the commissioners, we continue to forward those late, some stragglers that came in after the 25th and we kept sending those to the commissioners just so that you're fully informed on what sort of all the opinions are out there. So then the commission convened on February, the public hearing on February 28th and we heard from roughly about a half a dozen interest parties who presented a lot of great testimony for us and some written comments that went along with their testimony, which of course brings us to today. So the goal of today's meeting is for the commissioners to deliberate on this matter and determine whether or not this development should be considered part of the gaming establishment. So now in our initial evaluations at looking at this, we looked at this question as strictly a yes or no answer. It's either in or it's out. And looking further, we realized that there could be, if the commission wanted to consider this, a third way forward. As we've gone through this process, a number of concerns arose during the public meeting and the public hearing. And it's really for the commission to determine whether or not these items that were raised constitute a regulatory interest that the commission thinks should be regulated. So now if the commission were to determine that these items don't constitute a regulatory interest, the commission could then decide that the development is not part of the gaming establishment. However, that doesn't address these concerns that were raised. So I guess the third way forward on this is that to address these concerns, the commission could place conditions on the gaming license that Encore has to ensure that these concerns are being addressed and then don't elevate to a true regulatory interest in the future. It would give us some protection on that for any instances in the future. So for the meeting today, I'll be turning this over to Todd in just a second to discuss the four part test for determining whether this is a gaming establishment and other regulatory matters associated with that. And then it will come back to me and I will discuss some of those key issues that arose during the public meeting and the public hearing. And then after that, we will discuss some of those matters and answer questions for the commission and then hopefully come to a resolution on this matter today. We also have with us Jackie Crum from Encore and Tony Starr and also Katie Hill from Mint's Levin. They are here to answer any questions that the commission may have regarding the development or any of the legal aspects associated with it. So with that, if there are no initial questions for me, I will turn it over to Todd and he can go through the four part test and some of those other regulatory matters. Well, thanks, Joe. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Allow me to begin, if I may, by offering a roadmap of some of the specific issues the commission's being called upon to resolve to reach a conclusion in the present matter. Joe has already outlined some of them. The ultimate question is, of course, based on the information that's presently before you, whether the proposed development east to Broadway will be considered part of the existing gaming establishment of Encore Boston Harbor or not part of the gaming establishment or some variation of either of those. As you know, and as referenced, the commission has developed a four part test to guide the decision making as to where the boundary of a gaming establishment lies. The test was created as part of the commission's 2014 decision in which the boundaries of the proposed gaming establishments of the two of them applicants for the region A category one gaming license were determined. It's important to mention that the test itself was, of course, not developed out of whole cloth. Instead, it's deeply rooted in the specific language of chapter 23K relative to the gaming establishment and the commission's associated regulatory oversight. For example, in developing the test, the commission reviewed the term gaming establishment which is defined in section two of chapter 23K. And it's defined as the premises approved under a gaming license, which includes a gaming area and any other non-gaming structure related to the gaming area and may include but shall not be limited to hotels, restaurants, and other amenities. The statute then also goes on to define the term gaming area. And that is defined as the portion of the premises of a gaming establishment in which or on which gaming is conducted. So those are the two of the definitions that the commission looked to in establishing the four part test. In looking at the definition of gaming establishment though, it's notable that the word may is included in using the word may in the definition of gaming establishment that the commission noted in its 2014 decision that it's clear that the law was intended to provide the commission with great latitude in determining the components of the gaming establishment and that the latitude was designed so that the commission is able to include or exclude any element that it deems necessary to ensure proper regulation of the gaming licensee or that it may decide is unnecessary to ensure that type of regulation. It's further worth mentioning that the two courts have reviewed the application of this four part test in certain circumstances and have endorsed it. Before we jump into the four part test though, there are a few other threshold matters that are important to identify. First, in making decisions of this sort that is that relate to the interpretation of chapter 23K or the commission's regulations or other matters directly under the commission's purview. The commission is afforded broad discretion. You'll recall that section one of chapter 23K provides that the power and authority granted to the commission shall be construed as broadly as necessary for the implementation, administration and enforcement of chapter 23K. Additionally, there's language in section four of chapter 23K that states that the commission shall have all powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate its purposes. And finally, I just wanted to point you to the familiar language in the city of Riviera case in which the Supreme Judicial Court itself noted that the gaming act places a number of unreviewable policy considerations squarely in the hands of the commission. And the court went on to define the types of highly discretionary determinations as quote, exercises of the commission's professional expertise and judgment and weighing and balancing a wide range of considerations peculiar to the petitioner and light of the public interest. And that is precisely the sort of analysis that you're about to engage in. So while the bounds of the commission's discretion are certainly not unlimited, they are broad. The second point is that the commission should consider what effect, if any, that the language of the ballot question that was approved by the voters of Everett in 2013 prior to the submission by win of their RFA2 application has on the present analysis. And we'll take a look at that question as well towards the end of the four part discussion. Third, the commission should consider the interplay between this proposed development and the governing and the law governing MEPA, which is the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. And for that, Joe will be available to provide an overview along with Meena Macarius, who is a partner with the law firm of Anderson and Krieger, who'll be joining us if he's not already here, here he is, who has been our trusted advisor for MEPA related matters over the years as well as many other matters as well. So we'll get into that at the end of the four part discussion as well. And fourth, there's been spirited discussion of late as to the law surrounding the conduct of live entertainment at a gaming establishment and particularly at Encore Boston Harbor. While that issue is not squarely before the commission today, it's certainly relevant to this discussion. To be clear, this is not a new issue. The commission staff, myself included over the years have reviewed this issue on several occasions. So with your indulgence for purposes of enhancing the present analysis, I'll share my opinion as to the law in this area. There is one and only one place in the gaming law that directly addresses the size of the live entertainment venue at a gaming establishment. And that is the frequently cited language included in chapter 23K, section nine, subsection 11. Now, by way of background, section nine itself simply outlines a series of items that were required to be included in what the commission referred to as the RFA2 application. Though it includes such obvious things as the name of the applicant and the designs for the proposed gaming establishment. But it also required a description to be provided by an applicant of the quote, ancillary entertainment services and amenities to be provided at the proposed gaming establishment end quote. Then of course, there is the proviso at issue here in section 11. It goes on to say that provided, however, that a gaming licensee shall only be permitted to build a live entertainment venue that has less than 1,000 seats or more than 3,500 seats. The language is playing on its face that it only prohibited such a venue from being built. There is no other place in the law that expressly or by implication limits either the number of patrons who may attend any event or the number of seats that may be set up for an event held at a gaming establishment. To that end though, the law recognized that despite this restriction on the construction of any such live entertainment venue that there could still be negative impacts on existing live entertainment venues associated with the construction of a gaming establishment. Accordingly, a provision establishing the concept of an impacted live entertainment venue or what we colloquially refer to as I-Lives which required applicants for gaming licenses to negotiate mitigation agreements with these designated I-Lives was inserted into chapter 23K as a prerequisite to applying for a gaming license. And this was presumably done in an effort to mitigate any such impact the gaming facility may have on the business of these I-Lives. This concern is addressed specifically in chapter 23K section 15 subsection 10 which discusses the agreement requirement, the mitigation agreements I just mentioned. Indeed, the gaming licensee here, WinMass LLC executed such an agreement with the Massachusetts Performing Arts Coalition which itself includes and represents a number of venues across the Commonwealth. The parties were of course at liberty to bargain with one another to include any terms they deem necessary to protect their respective interests. And the event of an impasse or an overreach or some other reason, both chapter 23K section 17B and the commission's regulations at section 126.01 set out a procedure to resolve such disputes that involved arbitration. In any event, the parties in this case mutually executed the aforementioned agreement and it includes some language that's relevant to this discussion and it's included in section 1.1 of the agreement. And it says in pertinent part anyway that the parties acknowledge and agree that bars, lounges, common areas, hotel, ballroom or other multi-use or meeting space within the gaming establishment or elsewhere at the casino site may be used for events, meetings or celebrations that include live entertainment. And that's what it says. Accordingly, by the express terms of the only isle of agreement which Windmass LLC is subject as I have read it and continue to read it the hotel ballroom may be used for events that include live entertainment. There is no restriction in the agreement as to the size of any such events either seats or patrons, the frequency of the events or any other such restrictions. Though there could have been if it had been included in the agreement. Any other theaters that are not designated as an ILEV are not afforded the protection of the ILEV provisions of the law that sections I mentioned were designed to offer. So for these reasons, we as staff anyway have never taken any sort of action against the gaming licensee for holding certain events in this ballroom. Of course, the commission itself has never addressed this issue as a body as there has never been a petition that I'm aware of anyway submitted based upon a live case in controversy. And certainly if that were ever to happen perhaps the commission would review the issue directly. So those are some thoughts and comments about the entertainment at gaming establishments. I can move on now to the four part test unless there are any comments on that. Questions at this juncture? No, thank you. Thank you, Todd. Please continue. Sure. So back to the four part test. Let's start by identifying the four parts and then discussing each. Based upon the law, the commission determined that the four part analysis as to whether a particular amenity or area would be considered part of a gaming establishment is whether the feature one is a non-gaming structure. Two is related to the gaming area. Three is under common ownership and control of the gaming licensee. And four, the commission has a regulatory interest and including it as part of the gaming establishment. This part four, the commission concluded in its 2014 decision only comes into play though if the first three elements are satisfied. So the first question is whether the components of the proposed development are non-gaming structures. To answer this question, the commission likely has to consider each component of the proposal individually. Before doing so though, recall that this element is derived from the definition of gaming establishment which I read earlier, which says that the gaming area and any other non-gaming structure related to the gaming area are what you are looking at. So what is a non-gaming structure? Well, the term itself is not defined but the statute does offer some guidance as to its intended meaning. In that same definition, examples of non-gaming structures were offered to include hotels, restaurants or other amenities. The commission took this to mean in the past that a component essentially had to be a structure of some kind and edifice of sorts in order to be included in the boundary of the gaming establishment. So that's why the internal roadways, the surface parking lots and the entryways to the casinos were not included because there's no structure of any kind involved. By contrast, all of the buildings proposed in the development before you here today do appear to be actual buildings or structures of some kind and they are not related to gaming in any way. So that's the first question that's before you is whether the proposed development includes non-gaming structures. So let me just pause there for a moment for any comments or thoughts about that. Comments at this juncture. Commissioner O'Brien, want to hold? I think we're looking forward to your continuing analysis talk. Okay, sure. The second question then is whether the components are related to the gaming area. Again, the gaming area is simply the portion of the premises of the gaming establishment in which or on which gaming is conducted. This is often referred to as the gaming floor. In its 2014 decision, the commission determined that certain elements were related to the gaming area and ultimately part of the gaming establishment because the component was intended, at least in part, to support the gaming area by making the entire facility a more attractive destination. Interestingly, one of the facts the commission looked to in determining that the race track at Suffolk Downs was not related to the gaming area being proposed by Mohegan Sun was the lack of proximity between the entrances to the track and the gaming area and that there was no infrastructure connecting the two structures. So that was the way that the commission looked at that particular amenity, if you will, in the past. So in considering whether this development is related to the gaming area, those are some considerations you might apply. I'll keep going onto the third element. This third question is whether the area is under common ownership and control of the gaming licensee. And of course, when the test was initially developed, it referred to the gaming applicant, but certainly the same principle applies here now that the applicant is a licensee. I submit to you that the intended focus of this element is whether the commission can lawfully direct compliance with the gaming laws and regulations in the subject area. This was the nature of the consideration employed by the commission in 2014. For example, in reviewing whether the Boston Symphony Orchestra and the TD Guard, which Wynn had entered into cross-marketing agreements with at the time, were amenities that should be included as part of the gaming establishment, the commission concluded that they were not, in part due to the lack of common ownership and control with the then applicant. Similarly, the commission concluded that the racetrack at Suffolk Downs was not part of the Mohegan Sun gaming establishment because, in part, it was not under common ownership and control of the gaming app. Accordingly, the commission would not have been able, for example, to require employees of any such amenities to submit to the commission's licensing and registration requirements or to oversee alcoholic beverage service at those places and other things along those lines, which we can talk about a little more momentarily. So those are some of the considerations that apply to this third element of common ownership and control. We must certainly be mindful of the fact, in considering this element, that the development and issue is not owned by the gaming licensee, Wynn Mass LLC, and will not be operated by the gaming licensee. We know that an entity named East Broadway LLC owns the land and an entity named Wynn Resorts Development LLC will oversee the construction. This does not mean, though, that the gaming licensee or its parent do not have any ownership or control over the development. To the contrary, each of these entities are essentially wholly owned subsidiaries of Wynn Resorts Limited. This is the same parent as the gaming licensee and, of course, a qualifier subject to commission jurisdiction. Accordingly, the commission could exert its jurisdiction over these amenities if it so chose, despite the fact that the parcels are not directly owned by the gaming licensee itself. And there are a number of areas of the law that can be looked to in support of this conclusion. For example, in the zoning context, there is a concept referred to as checkerboarding. If memory serves, I think it was actually mentioned in one of the comments that was submitted by one of the commentaries. Checkerboarding is essentially a method used by landowners to avoid zoning provisions that require lots held in common ownership to be combined for certain purposes of determining area and frontage and things along those lines. Parsels are sometimes divided so that no one person is named as an owner of a lot who holds title to an adjacent lot. The point being, though the adjacent lots are held by different entities or individuals, courts have looked beyond these formalities and held that such checkerboarding conveyances are ineffective to defeat lot combination provisions when the lots remain subject to the control of the originator of the conveyance. Further, the appeals court and looking beyond these labels held specifically that it was not the form of ownership but control that was important. Meaning, did the landowner have within their power i.e. within their legal control to use the land in a certain way? Such appears to be the case in our method. I'd suggest that wind resorts and to some extent the gaming licensee itself have the ability to exert legal control over this particular area and to use the land in a certain way. Now it's important to know that I'm not suggesting in any way, nor is there any evidence that wind resorts placed ownership of the subject parcel in control of the entities it did as so as to avoid the reach of the commission or any other sinister type reasons. There are a wide variety of legitimate and lawful reasons to set up the ownership structure as it did. The point, though, is that this ownership structure does not mean that the area in question is not under ownership in control of the gaming licensee. So those are some thoughts about that third element of the four-part test. The fourth question is whether the commission has a regulatory interest in including the development or parts thereof as part of the gaming establishment. And of course, you'll recall that this part only comes into play if you find that the first three elements are satisfied. There are a number of examples of regulatory interests that the commission has looked to over the years. In the 2014 decision itself, the commission concluded that it was important to include the amenities in the gaming establishment that it did in part because it had an interest in ensuring that all employees working in those areas are licensed or registered by the commission and that it have knowledge of the flow of money through those areas. Similarly, the commission could consider factors including the need to ensure that vendors to those areas are licensed or registered. That the commission's surveillance requirements be followed in those areas. That compliance with the commission's alcoholic beverage control requirements be followed. In other areas within the internal control submissions be made applicable to these amenities. By way of practical application, after concluding that the boat dock at Encore met the first three parts of the test, the commission ultimately determined that it did not have a regulatory interest in including that area as part of the gaming establishment as it was already subject to other government oversight and that there was no additional benefit to including it within the boundary of the gaming establishment. A similar analysis was applied to the race track at Plain Ridge Park Casino, which happens to fall under the jurisdiction of the commission under chapter 128A of the general laws. So the track itself is not part of the gaming establishment because it's subject to government oversight in fact by the commission via other means other than including it within the boundary of the gaming establishment. So there are a number of examples over the years that the commission has established relative to what a regulatory interest is. Ultimately though, that is up to you as a matter of your discretion as to whether you have a regulatory interest in including certain parts of this development or any within the boundary of the gaming establishment. So those are the four parts of the test and some thoughts I wanted to share with you about each of those. The next issue involves the ballot question. It is related. I can pause there to see if you wanna get into the ballot question now or wait. The ballot question issue may be relevant depending upon the outcome of your discussion of the four part test. So I can just stop here for a moment and we can get back to that later. Madam Chair, you're on mute. There, we've said it already today. I'm on mute. Commissures, does it make sense now and Joe and Todd for us to go through the four factor test and think about the application to the proposed project here or do you want to continue to hear from Todd on the next element? It could work both ways. Joe, I don't know if you have a recommendation but commissioners, if you wanna chime in now. No, I guess I don't have a particular recommendation. I think, again, we could do it either way whatever your question is. Maybe we highlight that at a high level and then delve into it as needed later, Todd. So why don't you set the stage on that element and then probably it makes sense unless we don't think we need to touch further on MEPA matters right at this juncture and then go back to the four factor test. Yeah, I think if we talk about the referendum question first then we can sort of pause there because I think that obviously the four part test is the test and then the other things that we're talking about are sort of concerns that folks have had and things that might need to be addressed in some fashion. Okay, excellent. Thanks, Todd. Sure. So turning to the effect of the vote in the city of Everett on June 22nd, 2013. As you'll recall, section 15 of chapter 23K set out the criteria for eligibility to receive a gaming license. It included such things as the requirement that licensees agreed to be licensed state lottery sales agents and that it provide assigned hosts and surrounding community agreements and that it pay that $400,000 application fee. In subsection 13 though, it also required that as a prerequisite to becoming licensed that the applicant quote have received a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election in the host community in favor of such license end quote. The subsection further outlined the precise language of the ballot question itself. And so in furtherance of that requirement, the city of Everett held the vote on the following question. It was, shall the city of Everett permit the operation of a gaming establishment located, excuse me, let me start again. Shall the city of Everett permit the operation of a gaming establishment licensed by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to be located at the property located on Horizon Way, off Lower Broadway in Everett, formerly known as the Monsanto Chemical Site. That was the question that was put before the voters and of course, supported. The area of the proposed development was not included in this description. So the question is, can any part of the gaming establishment be located outside the confines of the area that was approved by the voters? Depending upon the outcome of the four-part analysis, you may not need to answer that question in this matter, but it's important to consider the effect that such a decision could have on any future developments as well. So that's kind of a high level overview of the ballot question issue, Madam Chair and commissioners. So I can, I'll stop there once again. Okay, commissioners. So this is a complex task before us. The good news is that we have a structure presented to us that's actually been tested by the courts and accepted. So I think that we probably should start by considering each factor. That makes sense, Joe and Todd. And so that would be starting with non-gaming structure. This is an interesting exercise, Joe, and we would welcome your guidance because this project has several elements. So does it make sense to break down the elements or just let the conversation flow? Well, I don't, I'm not sure that the elements need to be broken down individually. I think from, you know, we did have the legal brief from Encore that, that OPINE that certain of these buildings should not be considered. They consider those are non-traditional structures from a standpoint of looking at each one of them as being a structure and each one of them is not for gaming. I kind of look at them as each non-gaming structures. You know, one could argue the other point, but I think on the face of it, these all appear to be structures. They all appear to be non-gaming. So that's sort of my take on that piece. So then let's start with the one that's probably gotten our attention so far. And that would be the pedestrian bridge, which is a component of the proposed project. If you want to just describe what's contemplated, Joe, with respect to the connector. So yeah, the bridge is proposed to connect into Encore Boston Harbor near the burger bar, the sports bar and memoir and pass across Broadway and terminate at the building, the proposed building. I think it actually ends up coming into sort of a common space between the buildings where you could go into the event center or into the restaurants from that point. There are a couple of access points to that bridge. So someone who's walking along the street would be able to come up and cross the street without having to cross at the surface. One of the things that came up previously was at the interface of the building where it connects to Encore Boston Harbor, there was some concern that if people got to that point and were underage or so on, that they would have to kind of go back. And Encore did indicate that they could put an exit from that point, an elevator or stairs or whatever it might be to get people down to the ground level so that they could walk around and then into the portion of Encore where they were going to the hotel or to a restaurant or to some area where you did not need to be 21, you would be able to do that. So the question that has come up and I really don't want to be the lone driver of the discussion here. So commissioners, I want you to chime in and has been, I think what we're hearing is with respect to the, on the other side of the street, their non-gaming structure seems obvious. There's been some discussion around whether or not the nexus with the bridge alters that analysis for respect to the pedestrian bridge. Thoughts on that or anything else? Commissioner Cameron. Thank you, Chair. I agree with the analysis that the buildings on the other side of the street are clearly non-gaming structures and the bridge was a little bit more complicated. But I for one, and again, we've all read lots and lots of materials for this meeting and had the benefit of meeting with our staff individually in order two by two just to really talk through these issues. So I do appreciate all of that work that staff has put in and it was helpful. Listen, I'm for one, I'm very happy that they are proposing a bridge because I am always concerned about safety issues. And I know human nature, people cannot help themselves but not to wait for lights and they cross and it's a dangerous situation. So I think it's really smart to offer this. And I believe that it's a non-gaming structure. I do like the idea of having some kind of a... First of all, I like that there's on both sides you can just come up and cross. You may have no interest in being part of either project on either side but you can cross safely. I think that's an important piece. And secondly, if in fact there is some kind of an exit for those who are under age without entering part of the gaming establishment, I think that's really smart as well. So I am convinced after looking at everything and having the benefit of these conversations in the back in particular the boat dock conversation that this piece of it is a non-gaming structure as well. Commissioner Hill or Commissioner O'Brien? Commissioner Hill? I saw that Commissioner O'Brien. I'll go first, I'll go ahead. I would agree with the analysis in terms of the answer to question number one is a non-gaming structure. I didn't struggle with that particularly. I do have other questions about the maintenance and security on the bridge in terms of looking through the materials and seeing, wind development will build it. It will be subject to at one point they reference in their memo to the Everett DPW and other relevant permitting parties that would be subject to their authority. I'm assuming that would include the city of Boston as well as those other permitting parties. I don't know what that means in terms of maintenance, security, et cetera. But they do note that wind development then continues to be responsible for maintaining the walkway. I have some questions about that. I don't know that it has relevance to this point number one. I think I'm very clearly in that this qualifies as a non-gaming structure. I throw those out in terms of if we're circling back to that as relevant as we continue this conversation. Commissioner, I think we will get into some of those particular points of concern. I think sort of after we discuss these issues, we can talk about those at more length. Right, I just wanted to flag them now as something that we'll get to later. I think it's organic to flag them now. I like that, Commissioner O'Brien, and we'll just keep a good running list on folks of these that we flag. Commissioner, I didn't mean to interrupt, sorry. No, that was it. I do have some concern with the fact that this comes out correctly stating this does not come out on the gaming floor, but it does come out in an area of the gaming establishment that you have to be of gaming age to enter. So the conversations about being able to divert away from that, I think are helpful. Be curious to see exactly how that works though, rather than just talking about it in theory, I'd love to see how that actually schematically would look. But it doesn't change my analysis in terms of number one. Terms of number one, thank you. And we've got a running list of the concerns. I think it's good to keep that running list now while we're thinking of them. Commissioner Hill. I'm in agreement with all of my commissioners, fellow commissioners on number one, being a non-gaming structure. I don't believe that this development is a gaming structure. My concerns, which I brought up weeks ago was the bridge and connecting the two and whether it would be a gaming structure by adding that bridge to the encore building. But since that time, I've been able to tour the encore's area and I've been educated by the very great staff of the gaming commission on what is a gaming floor, what is a gaming establishment. And when I was able to see at first hand and up close and personal, I could see where the exit of the bridge coming from across the street to encore with a new exit going downstairs for those that we are concerned about, Commissioner O'Brien, is I had the same concerns about the security. Were we going to have to man it? Was encore going to be manning it? Those are all the concerns that I too have brought forward. But after the analysis that was done and where I believe the bridge will end and a new exit being added to that bridge that will take them downstairs instead of onto the second floor, alleviated any thoughts that this would be a gaming structure. So I too agree, Madam Chair and fellow commissioners that number one in the four part test that I just don't see this as a gaming structure if that bridge has an exit at the end that brings the under 21 down to the ground. Thank you. And again, we're noting those concerns. I am in agreement with my fellow commissioners, Commissioner Cameron and I, she had the same sentiment. I am delighted to see this proposal. In fact, there's some concern that are raising any concerns would in any way cause the developers to rethink having a bridge. So we welcome the bridge for the purpose of the safety of the pedestrians who cross and of course for the mitigation of traffic concerns. I also like the bridge and its location for another reason. But first, before I get to that reason, I wanna echo that I had had the same concerns. I raised them with Commissioner Hill about where the point of contact was and how close it was to the gaming floor. Commissioner Hill and I did have a really productive visit and the gaming floors is quite removed from that point for those who don't know the property well. There is a sports bar, you know, a restaurant that we would recognize wherever you go for a burger. We actually come and refer to it as the burger joint. That right now cannot be accessed by under 21 individuals. So it is not a family restaurant, if you will, you wouldn't be able to bring your 19 year old with your 21 year old there. That's an interesting dynamic for that particular entity but it does show the gaming floor is removed and access to miners is very removed. Across from that restaurant is the nightclub. That's why I wanted to pause. I find that the exit that we would achieve through the construct of the pedestrian bridge would actually probably mitigate some traffic concern we have when the nightclub closes. Commissioner Cameron, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Hill, I think you understand that GEU, that's a challenge for the exit strategy slayed at night. So again, the bridge brings quite a few positives. My chief concern would be security, monitoring miners access but also security on the bridge from those who are on the other side using the facilities over on the other side of the street and then accessing directly the gaming establishment. This is a little bit of a different paradigm compared to the poor co-share, which is part of the gaming establishment and the other entrances. So that I have not yet in my mind, I don't know enough details yet exactly on the security issues that I would add that to or emphasize that on the list of concerns. So I'm in agreement on number one, that's helpful. Okay, moving on to then the factor number two and whether or not our analysis is what requires a determination as to whether the proposed development is related to the gaming area of the existing gaming establishment. Todd, I don't know if you want to just remind anyone else of further details on that analysis. Sure, I think the one note is that the language that commission included in its 2014 decision and answering this question was whether the component supported the gaming area by making the entire facility a more attractive destination. That's the language that was looked at. Okay, shall I start with Commissioner Bryan? Do you want to start with this one? Sure. This part of this, and I express this in the two by twos that I struggle with this a little in that right now we're looking at a portion of the development. We have a general schematic, but we have a lot more detail about a bridge and an entertainment venue only. So there are parts of the decision and the case law that talk about hotels necessarily being part of it. While there's gonna be hotels on this site, there's a question of whether it's a third party and unrelated, et cetera, but specifically restricting to, is it related to the gaming area? I came down with the conclusion that it was because I feel like the entire purpose of this and building the venue across the street is to make Encore a more attractive destination. And by extension, necessarily the gaming floor part of that gaming establishment. I know that they have gone to lengths in their submissions to talk about the fact that this is going to be run by third parties, that this is sort of a broader goal of creating this entire area as being uplifted. And I don't disagree with those representations, but I did find one area is worth spending a little bit more time and from my view on this, which was the reference to the Urban Renewal Plan. And there's a comment in the memo that was submitted saying that it was not, this proposed project is not designed, and I'm looking at page 10 of the memo, which I believe is page 33 in our packet. And at the end of that page, that paragraph, it states the proposed project is not designed to enhance the gaming area, but rather for the purposes of implementing Everett's Urban Renewal Plan to redevelop the lower Broadway portion of Everett. The mere fact that it may provide ancillary benefits to EVH does not change its purpose. The fact is the development, and as Todd pointed out, even the host community agreement referenced the fact when they voted on this, that it was going to be incorporating purchases and or right of first refusal and purchases on some of these properties across the street, some of this was included in that submission with the vote and the host community agreement. There are references throughout the Urban Renewal Plan when I went back and looked at them to the fact that various stakeholders were very much instrumental in crafting that plan. And they in fact referenced the fact that Wynn Resorts owned some of the property intended to purchase and develop. So I find that the benefits to EVH are not ancillary, that they are significant and deliberate. In that regard, so to me, that is what was pretty pivotal to me in finding that number two is in fact, present in the proposal that we have in front of us. Thank you, Commissioner Cameron. Yeah, I as well, and we were not in the same two by two. So I had, this is the first time hearing of Commissioner O'Brien's thoughts. I struggled with this one a little bit as well. But certainly when it comes to enhancing the gaming establishment, I believe that it does. And I do remember really well all of the hearings and how excited folks were about this project. And one of the reasons was not only what it would do for the gaming establishment and having that there cleanup of Monsanto, but also what it would do to the surrounding area and the commitment, which was so welcomed by the citizens. So I do believe it is related to the, for those reasons, and we did talk about this over the years and what enhances. Just a reminder that that's really what we're talking about when we say related to the gaming area is does it enhance and bring value to the property? So I agree with Commissioner O'Brien that in fact this non-gaming structure would in fact do that. Commissioner Hill. I'm not gonna repeat what was already said. I believe very strongly this is related to the gaming area for the reasons that were already put forth. I asked the very same questions and feel comfortable in saying that this is absolutely related to the gaming area. And I would echo that. In fact, I would hope that this kind of development does enhance the gaming and all of the amenities at Encore Boston Harbor. And in fact, this is a difficult exercise for wind resorts in Encore Boston Harbor because at the same time that they're announcing this development and going through this analysis, they also have a REIT that they're looking at where they are raising significant dollars. And thank you to those who participated in our public comment hearing. They brought to our attention, although we do monitor these calls and recognize that CEO Billings did in fact say as part of his investor call that the team in Boston, his words has really done, and this is true, a tremendous job, particularly in the casino, but we're just getting started. Our next phase of growth in Boston will be driven by database growth, particularly growth outside of adjacent areas and through our upcoming, our upcoming expansion project across the street from the property. The expansion will see us add additional amenities and importantly, additional parking. Parking, particularly on weekends, remains a constraint for us. The Encore is now non-rating, I'm sorry, EBI TDA, then a number of strip properties, Encore still has a tremendous amount of growth ahead of it. So the parking alone is really going to enhance what goes on at Encore Boston Harbor. So I think for me, it would be really disingenuous to really conclude otherwise. Okay, so we've gotten through the first two factors. The third factor is the common ownership and control of the gaming applicant. Before we get started, I did have a fact question that maybe, I don't know if you have the answer if Ms. Crum would be able to weigh in, but if we could just be reminded of the property, and you did do this of the corporate structure, but also who will be the members or the governing parties of the proposed owner of this in terms of individuals of the new LLC? You know, Jackie. We do have the... There she is. Good morning, Jackie. Good morning. Good morning. So the way we see this is once it's structured, once it's built and developed, and we've leased out the portions that would be leased out, there would still be a landlord and that landlord would be an affiliated entity of ours who would be responsible for maintaining the common areas, be responsible for the security between the lease premises, much like a high-rise building or any other multi-use development. Can you just... I understand that there's going to be a leasing arrangement. The Lessoir is, again, the name of the Lessoir. Tony, you'll have to help me. Is it EBH? Sorry, it's on EBH. It's East Broadway. East Broadway. And Tony, Mr. Starr, if you could just remind us of governing structure of that entity, please. I think that the East Broadway LLC has... The structure is really... Ms. Crumb is the registered agent for them. And I don't believe, Jackie, I could be wrong. I don't believe the structure is any further built out than that at this time. That's correct. And the corporate... Because we haven't hired anyone for that. So the corporate team, I think has... I think Ms. Billings and Ms. Wedemore are also officers of that entity, much like their officers of most of the subsidiaries. Okay. So just a reminder of the straight subsidiary structure. So it's the CEO and the general counsel. And then Jackie has the pleasure of being the representative of the agency. I get to sign. Yes. Okay, thank you. That's really helpful. I think I had read that earlier, but I did need to be reminded of that. Thanks. Okay, so this is a conversation that really does land on a lot of legal analysis. We've had the benefit as Commissioner Cameron has pointed out that we've been briefed. We've done a lot of reading ourselves. Does anybody want to give their layman's thoughts on it? And then we can have the benefit of Todd and Joe's and Mr. and Starr's and Ms. Krum's added enlightenment. Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Cameron, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Cameron. So you're asking about... The control. How do you feel? Yeah, and I listened to all the legal analysis as well as my understanding. And I do believe it's under common ownership and control. I don't think I can't look at it any other way, but that when it comes to this part of the test. Yeah. Okay, Commissioner Hill. And I'm glad you said layman, because that's what I am in this regard. And I too, after getting all the analysis and sitting down with our legal team, I absolutely agree that it's under common ownership and control of the game and applicant. Commissioner O'Brien. No, I agree. Particularly when you look at how the development is going to go, what the current structures are to me, it's under common ownership and control. Yeah. And I feel the same way after looking at all the documentation, considering all the comments, considering the public statements that were made, I do feel that number three is also met. So those are the three factors. Thank you, Ms. Krum and Mr. Starr for helping us on that fact-based question. So on those three, I know that in order for us to consider element four, we had to affirmatively find with respect to the first three. So here we are moving on to factor four, correct commissioners. Before we continue, it's 1105. Does anybody want to take a break or need Commissioner O'Brien a five minute break? And then we'll turn to item number four. Okay, so we turn it 1110. Thank you so much. Hi, Dave, I think that the commissioners are coming all back in. So if you could take down the screen, that would be great, please. Thank you, Dave. Okay, we'll just read in for Karen and Joe. There she is. There he is, thanks. Okay, so thank you for the analysis, thus far, commissioners. Moving ahead, we now have to think about item number four and Joe, Todd, sorry, if you could just help set the stage for this analysis, that would be great. Absolutely, so the question before you here is whether the commission has a regulatory interest, including the development or parts of the development as part of the gaming establishment. And in the past, in looking at whether the commission has such a regulatory interest, it looked at such things as whether it had an interest in making sure that all employees working in those areas are licensed or registered by the commission that it have knowledge of the flow of money through those areas. It could also include things like whether it is important to the commission to ensure that each of the entities at this development use licensed or registered vendors that there be surveillance in accordance with the commission's regulations applied in those areas or whether other elements of the internal control requirements be applied over in those areas, including alcoholic beverage control. So those are some of the factors that the commission may consider in determining whether it has a regulatory interest. But of course, there's a very broad discretion included in this particular analysis. Joe, do you wanna add in? I don't think I have anything to add to that. I mean, it is very much discretionary. So I think the commission needs to decide whether or not these factors come into play. I think I'd like maybe to hear from Mr. Starr on one piece of information that he shared in his, on one of his memoranda, a question came to us through the media. Why wouldn't a licensee be interested in regulation? And I think we all know the answer to that, but it might be an opportunity to educate the public on that. Before we get started on our analysis of the regulatory authorities, regulatory interests. You know, Angkor-Bossenhaber has come to us in the past to ask that the gaming establishment boundaries be extended. That was the case where to extend the loan and the gazebo and the analysis was made why that would serve the regulatory interests that were paramount for us. In this case, you're asking that we find this not to be subject to our regulation. So it just might be helpful to explain why the licensee is proposing that. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning commissioners and gaming commission staff. And I appreciate the opportunity to address you again. And thank you for the opportunity. I did submit a supplemental memo earlier this week. And thank you for that opportunity. You're right, Madam Chair, that the licensee when MA does not believe there is a need to extend the regulatory authority of the commission into the proposed development. As you well know, quite a bit of burden for both the commission and for the licensee would come with that. I don't, I think Todd and Joe have actually hit on some of those things, licensing of employees, monitoring of project construction and licensee requirements, overseeing alcohol beverages, oversight by the gaming enforcement unit, all in these various structures across the street. I think we put a great burden on the commission. And additionally, and I know you've addressed the matter of control, but again, this development is intended to be leased out to third party operators. The hotels, the restaurants, the events space will all be leased out to third party operators. And it puts a very, very substantial burden on those operators if the regulatory oversight is extended there, regulatory oversight over the design and construction of the hotels, the restaurants, the events center, licensing and registration of the hundreds of employees who are working for a third party over there. They're not working for East Broadway. They're not working for wind resorts. They're certainly not working for wind MA. All of these, as I understand the regulations, all of these facilities would then be subject to the jurisdiction of the gaming enforcement unit, which also would put a burden on them. And we think that this would, extending the regulatory authority into these third party operated venues across the street, we think would deter some of the ancillary development that I believe the commission would like to see on-core and some of the other license holders support. So we don't think it's necessary. And of course, as I mentioned in my original submission, the proposed development will already be subject to the regulatory authority of the various, of agencies having authority, the alcohol beverage commission for the licensing, the construction and so forth will be subject to all of the rules that are imposed by the city of Everett and so on. It's not as if there isn't already a full regulatory body of rules that are in place that would govern all this and imposing the commission's additional authority, would A, as I said, add enormous burden to the commission, but also to these third party operators. I will say if this would be an appropriate time to address some of this, I know you mentioned, Madam Chair, as well as some of the other commissioners, concerns about security on the pedestrian bridge and maintenance on the pedestrian bridge. Certainly my client, if this was such a request, if you wanted to establish a condition, for example, on the license, we would submit our plans as they become more fully developed as to how we would maintain and provide security on the pedestrian bridge for the review and approval of the commission and its staff, that that would help you with that concern there. All very helpful. Any questions for Mr. Starr on the particular question? I thought it would be helpful for background, for us to understand why in this case, it's a different request than what we've seen in the past. Very helpful, Mr. Starr. And thank you with respect to suggesting the conditions that might, we'll keep that in mind as we go through our next analysis, but stay tuned. We may have further questions for you. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay, commissioners. So this is a discussion that really does highlight the fact that we are given broad discretion and authority, but I know having worked with you now for sometimes, for some of you three years and now a good half year, we exercise that authority and discretion with a lot of insight and with responsibility. So does somebody want to start thinking about or sharing some of their thoughts on this particular topic? Commissioner Cameron. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm glad that we talked about the offer to submit plans because that really does help with a decision like this. One of the things we've done consistently over the years is condition licenses for concerns that we may have, right? It's not black and white. I think Mr. Delaney explained it pretty well in an opening that this isn't a yes or no decision for me. It's not. It really is about making sure that concerns, whether they be citizens, concerns, whatever the environmental, whatever the concerns are, I think we've always been thoughtful about how they get addressed. So for me on this one, I really don't believe there's a regulatory interest in making this part of the gaming establishment. And one of the reasons I actually feel better about that is that it is related to the gaming area and it is under control and ownership because I think that when has demonstrated a willingness to mitigate concerns, a willingness to work collaboratively, whether it be security with Everett PD, the gaming enforcement unit on the side that is part of the establishment to really pay attention to the concerns of all of the parties involved, NEPO concerns. So I'm glad the offer's out there. And I think that with my concerns, I'll speak for myself, that may require a couple of conditions. For example, you have to come back to this gaming commission. If there are changes in size to whether that be the event center or more information about security or making sure all the appropriate steps with NEPO are there or if there's a change, I know that the project isn't fully, there are pieces, parcels that you're not sure what is going to happen. So just that condition that all of those things come back to the commission with, I think I could certainly I certainly have faith because of a track record that this will be handled appropriately and security and other concerns will be mitigated appropriately by, for one, do not think this, there is a need for us to consider this is something that we need to regulate. Commissioner O'Brien, thank you, Commissioner Cameron. I agree with much of what Commissioner Cameron has said. I guess the part that I disagree on is, for me, I'm looking for some of those details to make a final determination as to whether or not I feel the commission has a regulatory interest because I can see aspects that could be, but then I can also see license conditions that could sufficiently answer those. And I'm troubled by the fact that we're here and we don't have some of those questions answered specifically about the pedestrian bridge about is it going to go in to that area? What's the schematic going to look like? I think there were questions even about, and I don't believe it's been answered in terms of the public meeting, there were questions about whether some of these restaurants would be positioned such that the entertainment venue would actually have seats or audiences that exceeded the 999. So, and then that would raise another concern that we have and we have a proper regulatory interest in which is preserving any impacts on eyelaves that while it is a distinct question from the fact that what they're proposing right now is below what is the statutory block, I'm not satisfied that I've been given all the information on that, that I would say I'm satisfied that we don't have a regulatory interest such that license conditions would satisfy it. So, I am asking for some of those answers to come forward, I think before I conclude that there's a lack of regulatory interest such that it can be sufficiently addressed through License Commission. Commissioner O'Brien, I don't want to put you on the spot and you may need more time to think about exactly the questions that you want answered. I hear the question regarding the eye-left number in terms of the bridge, if you could be more specific about that and then anything else so that if maybe today either Jackie or Ms. Crom or Mr. Starr can answer that would be great. Otherwise, we could ask for some further insights. So specifically, I think I've already laid out the ones in terms of the entertainment venue. As Commissioner Cameron said to me also this is an ongoing question. If the schematic and the plans changed beyond what's being presented today, obviously it becomes a live issue of material change and circumstance would change it. Looking at what's presented today in terms of the bridge and the entertainment venue, I've got the question I just raised on the venue and any amenities that would surround it such that would it risk crossing over that number? That's an extraordinarily clean initiative. And secondly, in terms of the bridge itself there's references again to who those permanent authorities are. DPW would have some oversight through Everett but that's a separate question from security. And it's also a separate question of exactly where in that line does our interest and oversight of it and in terms of leaving the building but you're still gonna have a bridge that goes over the property at what point exactly would that terminate? Is it a separate set of doors that actually is going to be within the existing establishment? Is it another security vestibule that's outside of it? Who's staffing that other area? Because I do have other concerns in terms of just safety on that pedestrian bridge itself and maintenance. And so I'm looking for a little more information on that. So in terms of the pedestrian bridge that's what I'm looking for. Excellent, really helpful. Is there any other, maybe I'll let you think about if you have some more specific questions we'll go to Commissioner Hill because he may actually generate some more for us, Commissioner Hill. Well, actually I think we all agree on the concerns that we have in the three big issues. The big issue obviously is the entertainment venue. That's something that we've been talking about since day one, going over the 999. I'm very concerned about that. I really do care about what happens to the smaller venues surrounding this area, the North Shore, the South Shore. I'd like to see some more information as well. We have brought up the security of the bridge numerous times today. So I'm not going to be flavor of that one, but we've only touched upon the security in the garage. Again, I'm repeating what I've already said a few weeks ago. Some of the reports that I've seen since I started on the commission, the fact that people are leaving their kids in the car to go gamble is something that's so concerning to me. And the fact that it actually happens and I've shown that it does, we really haven't gotten good answers about what's going to be happening in the garage for security reasons. So I too would like to have some of those concerns addressed before making a final decision on number four but the I leave the security and the bridge are three items we really do need to get better answers than we're getting to in my opinion. So what I'm not hearing right now is that any of you are identifying a particular regulatory interest that would require our imposing our strict oversight and regulatory requirements. If certain conditions are met to address these concerns, I think I'm striking a balance here because I do recognize that we have broad regulatory authority and broad regulatory discretion and we have exercised that. We have recognized that paramount to us is the safety and wellbeing of the employees who are on the gaming floor and at the gaming establishment. Those regulatory interest comes precisely because of the world of gaming and that is our lane. So I'm thinking about making sure that while we have broad discretion that we also exercise that discretion fairly. Personally, I'm not interested in our regulatory exercise becoming a deterrent for probably the exact kind of development, the economic driver that the legislature envisioned and certainly the people of Everett envisioned in the city of Everett envisioned as they reimagined the waterfront and it has been reimagined. So my personal inclination is I don't want to be an obstructionist and I don't want to be in any way impose a negative, I don't want to impose a negative impact on our licensees when I think that they too are accomplishing much of what 23K envisioned. And to Commissioner Cameron's point, I thought about this. We've been thinking about it a lot over the last two years. On March 14th at our next meeting, it will be a two-year anniversary of when the gaming commission along with the three licensees cooperatively suspended operations of the three gaming establishments because of the immediate risk of COVID. And we saw in Encore Boston, Harvard and quite frankly, the other two licensees as well, significant collaboration and cooperation in Encore Boston, Harvard particularly stood out as a very generous employer, a neighbor, a public health partner, and also a fine citizen of a commonwealth. As we address concerns, I really would hope that Encore Boston, Harvard continues to be that good citizen and good neighbor. I think we have to strike that balance of rigorous regulator. And I know that they know we are a rigorous regulator, but also support the mission. So as we think about the concerns and conditions, and I like that you said that Commissioner Cameron, this has been a process that has been used historically. It's a process that's contemplated by the statute. Councilor Gressman indicated and Joe indicated it's an option for us to impose conditions on the license that Encore currently holds. And I'm also hugely in favor of the finding that control remains with wind resorts. So I believe there's opportunities for cross marketing and other innovations that Encore Boston, Harvard can make to really ensure that entertainment thrives throughout the region from Everett to Medford to Beverly because I think there's a place and there's a business that will be supported. So I think about, in respect to the individual regulatory interests, well, some broad discretion have to strike that balance. And I think the balance can get probably achieved through those conditions. We've identified the three. We need some more specifics. I did have another point that I wanted to ask about and get more clarity on. Attorney Starr in your February 7th memo on page 13, you talk about sort of what you see is sort of the lack of regulatory interest on the part of the commission. And you talk about employees not needing to be licensed who would be over there. I did wanna point out registration and licensing are a little bit different. That may be a point of conversation depending on this answer. You further go on to say that importantly, employees at the proposed project do not have to access EVH to get to their jobs and EVH employees do not have to access the proposed project to get to their jobs. My question is, do the proposed project employees, are they gonna have any other back of house status that would allow them into EVH in any way such that they would not be treated like any other citizen crossing at that pedestrian bridge? Commissioner Martin, your question is if an employee of a restaurant or the hotel, one of the two hotels? Of course security. I guess what I'm wondering is probably at all such that I know they don't have to access those to get in, but we're talking about they wouldn't need to be licensed or registered because of this bifurcation separation. But I'm wondering if that status gives them any special status walking across the street to EVH which then clearly falls within our jurisdiction. So that's the answer. Yeah, Ms. Crumb, Ms. Crumb. None of those employees would be employees of EVH and as such, none of them would have access to any back of house facilities, the employee dining room or any badging that would get them in there. So it would be run as two separate divisions. But the security that might be contemplated for the parking garage with those people, they would be status or completely separate security. That would be completely separate security. So Commissioner O'Brien is really touching on an important point. Our regulatory interest is very clear in terms of the integrity of gaming. So access to the back of the house would require that licensing process. I think there had been some casual conversations that oh, probably it'd be the same security folks that might be going back and forth on the bridge or the same vehicles that Encore Boston Harbor uses in the garage. Jackie, can you just further address that to make sure that Commissioner O'Brien's question is fully addressed? Sure, so those would be completely separate employees employed by a different entity. They would not check in at the employee entrance or have any access to back of house. They would check in at an employee station across the street and their cars would be owned by whatever entity is the landlord of that. Or frankly, security might be outsourced completely. We might hire someone to, independent security forced to monitor both the garage as well as the bridge. And the way I sort of envision it is as people step off the bridge and I understand that that distinction is still out there but as people step off the bridge and into the gaming establishment, that would be when Encore Boston Harbor Security is intercepting them and requesting identification. Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, there were a couple of points that a few of the commissioners raised that. Could I just do a quick follow up, Mr. Starr? Thanks. And just, no, no, no problem, but I'm quite frankly afraid I'll lose my thought. Jackie, do you contemplate any kind of an arrangement with the Everett City Police or State Police, I suppose too, outside of our MOU? Absolutely, we've already had discussions with the Everett City Police, with Chief Meese. He's very aware of the development, he's very aware of the need for, not just with respect to the garage or the bridge, but the entire development is certainly something that he's well aware of and contemplating how he would oversee that. And he did submit public comment and support, but that is contemplated. And again, we have an executed MOU that makes those arrangements that without our regulatory oversight, we would be giving up that control. So, but again, to look at precedent, there is governmental intervention that can be relied on that is really outside, doesn't have to be us, it can be accomplished by other governmental agencies. Commissioner O'Brien, did you have a follow up? The only other question is, BPD have to be involved in those conversations? I mean, you've got that small portion of your bridge that arguably would be within jurisdiction of Boston and not Everett. So are they gonna have an MOU in terms of, you know? I think all that remains to me, you're absolutely correct that would have to be negotiated between Everett and Boston, but the burden would be on us to make sure that that bridge is in someone's jurisdiction and securitized. And of course we're talking air rights, right? Yeah, it crosses over. Right, but I'm saying the jurisdiction if some sort of that's been on public accounting in Boston, Everett, no sex. Oh, I agree with you, Commissioner O'Brien, it was just clarifying folks might not understand what we meant, but it's completely air rights. Okay, there, I no longer have the fear of beginning that thought. So now hopefully Mr. Starr, you didn't encounter that problem. Sorry for the interruption. I actually have to write things down. I avoid that problem. I think one of the commissioners mentioned the seating capacity at the events center in the proposed development and making sure that we stayed out of below the 999 seats. It had been my intention in one of my submissions to make an express representation to that effect and to address that very concern that we would not as the landlord allow tenants who have restaurants and if it turns out that they're proximate to the event space, the event center, we would not allow that type of a build out that one of the commissioners raised. And we would certainly, if that was a condition that the commission thought was appropriate to include in the license, that would not be a concern. We would welcome that. We clearly do not intend to allow for more than the 999. Likewise, a number of the commissioners raised questions about security in the garage and Jackie's touched on it a little bit. We would certainly submit the security plans on behalf of East Broadway that the landlord with the security plans that would be put in place for that garage to ensure that the concern that Commissioner Hill raised about children being left unattended in a vehicle that we would have the appropriate surveillance and we will welcome having that as a condition as well. And lastly, there were some questions raised about I think security at the checkpoint. We did try and address it in the Chris Gordon F. David, we included exhibit C, which tried to show that. But again, for Commissioner O'Brien, if you wanted us to include more detail as to exactly how that'll be positioned, detail on the elevator for that exit, exit as the construction drawings are more fully developed, we would happily resubmit those to you for further review and consideration. And if you would like to include that as a condition, that would be welcomed by WinMA as well. And lastly, we will make a representation that no part of the proposed development will violate the gaming act and we'll abide by that. Thank you. I would like the further detail in terms of the elevator and that security that is relevant for me. So I think all of us would welcome it. Commissioner O'Brien has articulated, but I think we all have our envisioning something. And I suspect none of us probably have, are completely aligned. So we really an important condition, right? Okay. Thank you. I have another question. Commissioner O'Brien touched on it. What about the hotels? How do we deal with this, Joe? So, Madam Chair, I don't know if this makes sense at this time to start kind of going through all of the sort of issues that have been outlined, or I mean, on this one specifically, I think there is a proposal or an indication that Encore wants to build some additional hotel space and then even further up the road, something that might be office or retail or something that's a little bit less defined. But I think that these would have to come back in front of the commission again for basically the same type of discussion. I think, obviously the entertainment venue here has been the topic of discussion and the bridge. And if these were approved, those would be in place. So I think the discussion would probably be maybe a little bit less robust than this one has been. But I think it does have to come back in front of us because we don't know. I mean, right now the indication is that we want to, that there are going to be hotels there. Times change, situations change, economic conditions change and we don't know if that ultimately will be what's built there. So, and we are also not being asked today whether or not that's part of the gaming establishment. That is a determination to be made for another day. But I think we do need to make that determination. If we go back to the MEPA decision and our second amended section 61 findings where we talked about these properties, we didn't talk about every individual property but I think we all knew at that time that Encore was cobbling together a significant parcel of land across the street and that this ability to review license permit and or condition or otherwise went to those other properties as well as this property. So, I think we will need to, perhaps again, that can be done as a condition on the license that further development. And I think we probably would want to maybe better define what those boundaries are, since we know what properties have been sort of assembled at this point, we might need to get some kind of a legal description of those properties and so on. Because again, I don't think we want to, not that I'm suggesting that this is the case at all, but if Encore were to purchase other property that were someplace else, that were maybe further distant from where we are today, not sure that the commission wants to be involved in any thing that isn't really within that, general vicinity of the casino. To make clear though, before us, the project is defined does not include any anticipated hotels. It does not. Yeah, okay. All right. Now, with that said, I think the traffic study and other things that were done in support of this did include the traffic numbers from potential future development so that at the time that they need to go to MIPA and the city that they understand what the whole mitigation package might be for this area. But what's in front of us is simply those four pieces, the garage, the restaurant retail, the event center and the bridge. So, Joe, you would like to go through the list. You've heard from us in terms of our highlighting the three major concerns. I think we flushed those out. Do you want to go through the others that you've identified to see if that, does that make sense? Yeah, I think I did wanna touch on MIPA a little bit. Oh, yes, yes. And some of these other things I'll just, if we've discussed them at length, I'll just sort of breeze over them. But I think the thought was that these are the issues that were raised by the commission and by the public with between the written comments and the comments we got at the public meetings. And of course, we had the public hearing and of course we did get a lot of positive comments on that. We don't need to talk about those particularly because I mean, no one's asking for any or anything out of those other than build it. So I think I'll go through those items and then we can talk about, I guess, whether or not. So we've gotten through the first three steps of the four step process and we're on that fourth step. And we're hearing those opinions on whether or not there's a regulatory interest. And we've heard from two commissioners that we think we need some more information and potentially conditions might be able to resolve that. So I think what we should do is go through these. I'll go through them, I'll go through all of them. And I think maybe we can take them one by one and see what, if any kind of condition can be crafted around that that would address those concerns. Does that make sense? That sounds good. And just to interject, I think on behalf of all the commissioners, we want to again thank the members of the public and the stakeholders, particularly the members of the live entertainment venue community really across the commonwealth for providing really informative written and oral commentary. So that takes effort and it really helps illuminate the issues for us. So thank you again. Let's get started then, Joe. Yeah, tremendous amount of input, lots of emails, letters, so on. And then the oral testimony that we received at the public hearing, I mean, I was, I guess pleasantly surprised at how much interest there was. Yes. But going right into this, so the first item that I want to talk about a little bit was MEPA. Of course, just via background, MEPA is one of the things that was sort of driving this whole process. It was that notice of project change that happened in 2017, where MEPA said, hey, we know there's other properties being assembled and we want to make sure that there isn't segmentation and things of that nature. So, but regardless of the decision that the commission makes, some MEPA action will be necessary on this project. If you said it was part of the gaming establishment, it's likely that a notice of project change would need to be done with MEPA. If you say it's not part of the gaming establishment, Encore is committed earlier. I think Chris Gordon, when we talked said that they would be doing an environmental notification form with MEPA on this project, which essentially means it's a new project and this is starting that MEPA process. So something needs to be submitted to MEPA regardless. There was some talk about maybe also doing a, an advisory opinion from MEPA, if that were appropriate to do that. The long and short of this is, I think we need to ensure that something is submitted on this project to MEPA and that MEPA renders a decision on it. And there's a couple of things that that affects. One is if MEPA, you know, MEPA could say there's no further environmental review necessary, they could say that there's an environmental impact report that needs to be done and mitigation or anywhere in between. So I think what we want to understand is if MEPA requires some additional mitigation and I think this relates to the transportation demand management requirements that were fairly significant on the Encore project. I think we raised earlier saying, you know, does this construction of a parking garage have an impact on transportation demand management? So MEPA would be the agency that would say, hey, you need to do more with respect to transportation demand management. The impact that that could potentially have on the commission is we might have to go back and revisit our section 61 findings to make sure just sort of we're in compliance with what MEPA is doing. And, you know, we don't want to have something that's maybe contradictory to what they're saying. So I think, again, just a condition that says that Encore needs to, you know, do a submission to MEPA, whether that's a notice of project changer and an ENF or whatever it might be that we would need to do that just to cover our basis. So that's sort of a regulatory issue. The other, these other issues are all of the things that were identified in the public meeting and public hearing. And the first one we've talked about at some length is the size of the entertainment venue. The memo that was submitted just the other day from Mins 11 did commit to not increasing the size of that event venue over 999 seats. And I thank them for that. But again, I think that's something that as a condition on the license would protect the commissions a little bit more. So something on there that would either prevent them from increasing the size of the venue over the 999 seats or require additional review and so on, re-openers or whatever it might be to deal with that issue. To add on, I think Commissioner O'Brien's point needs to be addressed is that it's not just seats. It's probably tickets or audience, maybe. Yeah, that might be. Viewers, participants, because I actually think it's a wonderful idea to have restaurants around the venue. But if it frustrates the 999 limit, we'd want that addressed. Yes. Okay. So then the second issue, again, we've talked about this one quite a lot is the potential impact of the event venue particularly on the Chevrolet Theater and the Impacted Live Entertainment venues. So we heard at the public hearing particularly and in a lot of the correspondence that there was a potential negative impact on those venues from the development of this events. So I think, again, this is one of those things that the commission just needs to consider and try to determine whether or not there is a way to address those concerns. I mean, these are obviously potential concerns at this point. We don't know if there will be impacts or not. So that's something that the commission needs to consider on whether or not there's an appropriate condition that might address that. And I'm not sure that there necessarily is. One of the issues that was also raised particularly was regarding non-compete agreements. And I don't think we really talked about this today, but so as part of the RFA too, way back when, Wynn agreed to not have any of these geographic non-compete agreements for any entertainment that was done at the Encore Facility. That non-compete stuff is not addressed in the ILOV particularly, but also in the memo that we got the other day from Mintz 11, they did commit to not having any non-compete agreements at the new venue. So I think that clearly could be a condition on the license to require Wynn's commitment to us back then to extend over to this property. And again, we've talked that the next two items are of course the ownership and security of the bridge and the parking garage, as well as, I'm going to sort of lump these together as well as the access point into the casino and you know, sort of who owns what and where. And I think we've heard some additional information regarding that today. I'm also hearing that we might want to receive some more formal information on that. Potentially, this could be done again, possibly as a condition with a submission of additional information at a later date or if the desire was to try to get that information more upfront. And I guess, you know, with any development project, some of these details are not worked out at this stage. They, and by right, you know, wouldn't necessarily be worked out at this stage. So again, this could be a condition requiring an additional submission to 90 days, 180 days. At some point before the opening, I don't know what the right timeframe is. It would be sooner rather than later to satisfy me, to be honest. And I understand that as these go and they might change, there are parts of it that they can't answer potentially, but to me, particularly the questions on the bridge, et cetera, that's something that's going to have to be hashed out sooner rather than later. At least starting the dialogue in particular with the different entities and municipalities that are involved. So. Right. So I think, and I think the, so like the access point, the extra access point, to the bridge that, you know, Chris Gordon had alluded to at the earlier meeting, I think, I'm guessing Jackie, that might be under design as we speak. Or, you know, but we'd want to see some details on that. I think. Right. Understood. And I guess I would leave this purely up to the discretion of the commission of when you would want to see. These kinds of things. Or, you know, what, what, what, what you think is, is. I do think it's a little bit of a, of a legal thought here, whether there could be a way to structure. Our decision. With the proper. Condition and. And, and, and, and I guess I would leave this purely up to the discretion of the commission of when you would want to see these things. And, and, and, and, and ultimate satisfaction of the commission. I, I'm trying to imagine that. That instrument or vehicle. Commissioner Brian. I mean, I think part of it is we actually have to draft the conditions because I know for me, what I'm saying is. That my decision ultimately on whether or not. We have regulatory interest. And we don't have, we don't have a decision yet for you don't have a vote anyway. We don't need to have a phone. That's what I'm imagining. And so. At this point, it's still alive issues. The more concrete we can be on these conditions, the better to getting faster resolution. And some of that obviously is on the part of the licensee. When development, et cetera. and municipalities and the parties in interest in terms of coming up with answers to some of these questions. Because then you have a document that can be as specific as possible and I think answer some of the questions that are still out there. Why don't we continue through the list and then commission the other two commissioners you may want to weigh in there. I am thinking of again that balance where we want to make sure we tend to our conditions early enough that we're not in any way negatively impacting progress. But I think the concerns have been articulated for a bit now over the course of the last month or so. So maybe the licensee would be further along on this. So Joe you were just I think going to maybe more directly to access point at the casino which is sort of part of the bridge analysis too. Yeah I think again that having another access point to the bridge where the interface with the casino is would resolve it seemed that at least from what I heard the main concern was the potential for underage access into the casino at that location and that if someone returned away that they would have to go back to another access point and come down and walk around that having saying you know I'm sorry you can't come in here you need to go downstairs and go into the entrance by where the bus drop off is to get to the hotel or whatever it might be would be would be appropriate. So I think that was that was the primary concern and then sort of the details around how does that interface work how are you sort of being passed off from the the security of one entity into the on-core security itself and and it would seem to me that you know right at that interface is where that would happen but I would add that it's also the component that others have touched on in that Ms. Crum has touched on is what does it look like within the gaming establishment what does the security look like because I'm also concerned about not only the miners coming on that's a paramount concern and I think that's getting addressed with the other exit but also guests who've had a really excellent time on the other side heading into the gaming establishment and if there's any way to address unruly behavior early on at that checkpoint so I'm hearing there's a plan for that so and Madam Chair to answer that it's much like any of our checkpoints if somebody came up and was acting unruly whether they came up from the garage or through the hotel that would be addressed at those at those secured checkpoints yeah and I think with sufficient room and everything yeah Joe and I think so the other piece of it is the jurisdictional piece of the the bridge physically itself part of it's on the encore property or over the encore property part of it is over the city of Everett right of way part of it's over city of Boston right of way and part of it's over the east Broadway LLC property and that you know the appropriate arrangements would be need to be made legal arrangements on who's responsible from you know who owns it who's responsible for maintaining it and so on I think we would probably just want to see whatever documents those were that were how those were arranged and so on and then the last item is again that further development on Broadway about the hotels and any other future development up the street I think we you know we want to probably have a condition in there that indicates that that encore will need to come back to us for a gaming establishment determination on those particular problems and those I think those are all of the key points that I've that I've gleaned out of this look I mean there's a lot of swallow rise with these these these are the big ones that I think really need to be addressed okay so Todd I'm going to look to you for some guidance does it make sense at this time for me to ask for a straw bowl of some sort that would give a sense as to the ultimate decision we might be willing to make if our concerns were addressed by the conditions that have been discussed you know subject to our ultimate approval of the conditions Commissioner O'Brien I'm just going to ask you first does that sound like we would work for you and in some kind of a favorable timeframe I was thinking more that we would try to get some pen to paper and set it up for a more formal vote I feel like we've already reached consensus okay then in terms of we appear to have unanimity of conditions can be satisfied for all of us so it seems like what we need to do is put pen to paper and start drafting conditions and I'm fine I'm hearing the same consensus am I am I are we right Commissioner Hill and Kim okay that's the main thing I I wanted to make sure we had our own agreement for that process and I guess the question that that begs is do we want to actually start crafting language for conditions well while we sit here or do we want to step away from that and then I don't think that's productive at this point I think it's better to put pen to paper as a draft and then we can I think it'd probably be more efficient to do that than word Smith on a meeting totally yeah totally agree I think I I certainly know I trust our staff to work with the licensee everybody's heard the same information the concerns I think Mr. Delaney just laid them out and capturing everything everyone's concerns so I think the next step would and I think this can be done quickly I really do you know get back to us with uh with some proposed language that we're ready to vote on and move this project along I guess maybe you can't tell that I'd like to come to resolution on this just a bit um and and I and I fully I fully appreciate that but I do think I think what this exercise has shown is that we recognize that we might be overreaching if we determine that there were a regulatory interest but given that there is a direct connection given the control you know in the findings on the three factors there are concerns and we have this legal vehicle to address them so the conditions need to be drafted they need to be reviewed by us Jackie then that will take a probably a couple of weeks or so just to to address and maybe even longer if you if you need it if I think we want to make sure not to impact uh development uh unnecessarily commissioners any other guidance we want to give on timeline or anything at this juncture well my question would be as we're putting pen to paper on our concerns one might receive um some of the action take place uh regarding uh semantics or or designs of what's going on with the bridge and things of that sort right well I think some of that's that's part of the the crafting of these uh uh conditions is that we would probably want to put some time certain on on seeing some of this uh back to us and I think that how quickly or how long that is is is subject to the commission's discretion well ultimately we're going to want to all agree of um four of us soon to be five of us commissioners um will um will want to be um agree on what is before us I think we all understand that there needs to be collaboration right um because the schematics matter so I think was that kind of a question for miss chrome and mr star too in terms of what they're hearing and what they have in front of them that they know they can share or that still needs to be developed is that fair brad yeah we definitely need to be developed uh I think part of uh where we are is without knowing where you are going to come out on this made it difficult for us to move forward so I think we've got a better sense what we need to provide to you to uh make a decision goodbye I hope that we've been keeping a pretty good cadence for you since the issue came to us you have absolutely thank you okay good good um is there any other issue that we need to address today then Todd and Joe no I don't think so I think Todd and I will put our heads together probably right after this and uh see how long it will take to to craft up some conditions for your consideration and what I like is that your heads can actually be put together in close proximity um I see where you're sitting today and I see where Karen is it's really nice to see folks at the office so excellent um well then any further questions commissioners Karen how are we doing anything that you need to raise or want to add oh I think this is going very well I'd like to thank Joe and Todd for doing such a good job and being so thorough on this there this was somewhat complicated and they really uh I think laid it out in the next one there right into their teams of course thank you um thank you Karen so um if we do actually have on our agenda the opportunity for any other business that the commissioners would would be interested in addressing today all right any other business madam chair but I too just want to thank the staff and all the hard work that's gone in the last few weeks regarding this issue thank you yes commissioner Cameron commissioner brian anything you want to add agreed agreed that this is um you know a lot of work and uh and again I don't want to forget that I do believe this is a great project and with the with our concerns um being addressed I think it's it's great for the city of Everett for the region um and it does uh it does it is what's contemplated with the law yes it is commission brian oh the same I know being a lawyer probably Todd probably had to endure me a little bit more than the rest of you uh over the last couple of weeks but I want to thank everybody Joe and Todd and everybody who helped go down the different rabbit holes so that we could have a fruitful conversation today keep it on track yes uh thank you again to the team um and to again to the public for all its contributions and to you mr star as well for your your written analysis all helpful um you know yesterday at our agenda city meeting there was a question that um rose about today's meeting versus a public hearing and I can assure all who are attending that um the commission would not move forward on any matter unless we felt we're fully informed and today is evidence of that we need a little bit more information and guidance before we can make our final decision and we're looking forward to that being resolved and in you know do course so that we don't cause delay so um then there's no other business other than big thank yous um I do need a motion to adjourn so moved second okay there's always very little discussion on this point um but I invite it um okay everyone have an excellent uh excellent afternoon commissioner Cameron I commissioner O'Brien I commissioner hill I and I vote yes thank you so much um have a great day and thank you to the team for for attending and for all your work thank you