 Thanks Dave. Good to go. Okay. Good morning. This is a convening of Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We're holding this meeting virtually, so I'll do our roll call. Good morning, Commissioner. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. I looked at the time because we've already met for our agenda study meeting and I apologize to the public. Good morning. Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. So we'll get started with our public meeting number 475. It is still August 30th on a Wednesday. And as I said, we started our work day with a agenda study meeting at 10, very productive. And now we'll turn to a public meeting that's focused on just a couple of items today. Commissioner Maynard, you've got some minutes for us. Yes, Madam Chair, and we actually rolled these over. So I appreciate that we found a small typo and it actually dealt with Commissioner Skinner. So I want to make sure she was here. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the minutes from the February 2nd, 2023 public meeting that's included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second, Commissioner Maynard, and thank you for the courtesy and you'll be happy to know I also caught that typo. Okay. Yeah, second. Hey, Commissioner Brian. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. Yes, well done. Thank you to the team for the minutes and thank you, Commissioner Maynard. All right. So now we're going to go to any administrative update from you, our interim executive director and of course, General Counsel Gressner. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners and all who are joining just really briefly. I wanted to just share one piece of information since we'll be looking at amendments to the application for a new racing meeting operation shortly. I thought I'd take just a moment to update you on a related matter. Yesterday we met with representatives from a group known as base state racing. This group is in the process of coordinating a proposal for a new track to be located in the city of Gardner, Massachusetts, which as you may know is not too far from Fitchburg and Lemister. Their interest in intent intentions have not only been publicly reported, but they've submitted a public comment on the application, which we'll be taking a look at. So this is certainly not breaking news, but it was helpful to hear from them directly just to help gain a an understanding of their timeline and and some of their early thinking. They're keenly aware of the need to secure municipal approval prior to submitting an application to the commission and based upon this and perhaps a few other matters it does not appear at this juncture as though an application will be submitted by the October 1 deadline by this group. That said, it is possible there are others out there who might have an interest in pursuing such a license so our work today remains timely. And further, just as part of this process, as we've discussed in the past, I just wanted to note that there are a set of regulations governing the racing licensing process that are being developed by the team and should be available for commission review shortly. That's where many of the customary provisions related to completeness and financing and suitability and things along those lines will be expressly addressed and set out by the commission so that's coming soon. So, with that, we can pause for any questions you may have but I just wanted to mention that as part of the update. Any questions for also Grossman, Executive Director Grossman. Okay. Thank you. Anything else. No, I think we're ready to move on. The tackle today. Okay. Thanks for bearing with me my screen just went with dark. So, we'll turn then right to Dr light down which was my memory. So, Dr light down, we are now going to work I assume with that. I think I've seen Councilor Young. So, Miss young is unable to join this morning is monahan and I will pinch it for her along with Dr. Okay, so council monahan, Councilor Grossman will join in and Dr light them will have you leave. Thank you. Thank you. As a commission knows these, the form was brought up before the commission earlier and then it was put out to public comment. I'm going to briefly discuss a few of the public comments and then I'll turn it over to the legal team to discuss some of the other public comments. We received several comments regarding that the 100 days of racing that is required for simulcasting would be potentially too much for a new track and the legislation has been changed. Going into effect on August 10th of 2023. The legislature changed it to a requirement of 20 days and then it also leaves it up to the gaming commission to decide if it would be less days. So there is that flexibility there now and obviously if a applicant did apply the commission could that would come under discussion. So I want to ease everybody's minds that made those comments that the commission is aware of the possible need to discuss the number of days that would be reasonable for the beginning of a new track. Another comment we got was regarding the ability to train the horses. As you know, they just don't show up to race. They also need to be able to train up to it. And that would certainly also come up in section to the project summary and financing. There's numerous places that that would come up planned accommodations amenities and facilities and services to be offered. Section to 10, the feasibility and economic impact. Those could all be, you know, would include the possibility of training and even in section six, the public interest. Why the project is beneficial to the public at large the Commonwealth the applicant and racing stakeholders so certainly that topic is also would be addressed in the application. We did get, as Todd mentioned in his administrative update, we did get comments from Kevin Conroy representing Bay State racing. And then we also got comments from Barbara Kellogg and I'll turn it over to Caitlin or Todd if they want to elaborate on those comments. Sure. So one of the additions to the application or I would should say potentially clarifications to the application relates to the applicant needing to receive all necessary final approvals in accordance with general law chapter one 28 a section 13 a. And as you all know that is sort of the local approval the town council or board of select men approving the location of the racetrack. So the way that this is worded is intentionally does not have a specific deadline for when the approvals need to be submitted or voted on. In that, and I'll explain why in a minute and it basically says in order for an approval. So there needs to be a final approval before submitting an application and then it goes on to state that in order for an approval to be deemed final there must have been an opportunity for the petitions or special elections set out in section 13 a place and any such petitions or special elections must be complete. The reason why there isn't a specific number of days you know the approvals have to be done 30 days before the application comes in is because the statute does not set out a deadline for when the citizens of a town can petition to basically have their board of select people's approval overturned and because that it's up to the town to make that decision as to sort of how long the citizenry has to submit that petition. There is a separate statute not the racing statute that sets a 20 day standard for cities so the citizens of the city would have 20 days to submit their petition, but that does not apply to towns. So because of that, we believe that it is on the applicant to come to the commission with evidence that the process is done, the required approval has been received there's been time for the citizens to petition. And that that petition hasn't happened. And so, and we don't have the authority sort of set a deadline for that for where that petition has to be in. So with that I'll pause and take any questions. Questions commissioners. So, Caitlin, could you just, in terms of what Mr. Conroy is asking for. He's asking to say that the petition that any, any citizenry has 20 days to submit its petition to sort of overturn the approval of the board of select people or these to town council. And I think from our perspective, that is not that is not set out in statute. And that is not something that we have the authority to require. So it, there's not a deadline it's it's going to be on the applicant to prove that they basically got their approval with enough time for the rest of the processes to play out. There is certainty in each. And so each town or city has some varying appeal or petition process or is that what it is? I guess I was wondering, is there a degree of certainty for our purposes to never mind the applicants? Yeah. So for towns there's more certainty because I'm sorry apologies for cities there's more certainty because again there is a separate statute that sets out the 20 day requirement. For towns, I think it would be on the local council for that town to say whether or not enough time has elapsed or whether there's specific provision for that town that would apply. Obviously, we can't know, you know, the bylaws of every town. So again, it's on sort of the applicant and the town to work together to determine whether that period has passed. And you know, there could always be a situation. Because there's not a specific deadline where citizenry comes in at a later date and says hey it's a year later but we still want a petition that might have to go to court at some point but that you know that's not again, not for, not for us to say. If it is silent though what what is to solve. Again I think you'd have to look at it town by town. Yeah, town not city I'm mixing up my cities in my town. No I understand it's the city is more that's more certainty. But if the town is silent. We're not giving what you're saying is you're suggesting that we can't give any recommended timeline because theoretically. That's open forever. Theoretically, yeah, theoretically that the people of the town could come in 20 days 30 days 40 days 50 days you know how how how long it takes them to get their petition together and in. If you're at a point where. Hypothetically, an applicant has applied in a town let's say they got there. They got their approval 90 days before the application comes in the Commission, the applicant would be on the applicant to say you know we put this in. We're representing to you that we haven't heard any rumblings that there's going to be a petition. You know the town could weigh in if it needs to. And the commission would have to make a decision as to whether it's complete or not at that point, understanding that if the citizenry move forward at 120 days. And it was accepted by the town and there was an overturning, then that means that the application could have to be or the if there was approval the approval might have to be revoked. It's not great. But I think it's the best we can do at this point. Hopefully the goal is that the applicant knows, get your approval with enough time that the citizenry would have had you know reasonable amount of time to sort of get there, get their petition and don't do it. Don't do it 10 days in advance of the application deadline. Commissioner Skinner. I understand what you're saying I think that's the ideal way to do it is to provide for the applicants to provide as much lead time as possible to account for those uncertainties but and I understand why we would not make the adjustment and adding the time frame to our application but that process that you just semi described where an application has been submitted they have the approval of the town. And there's just this remaining question as to what the time frame is for the citizens to to ratify or or or not to approve or deny. However, the record to submit a petition apologies for submit the petition and so I think I'd be okay with sort of allowing for that kind of a contingency and so what would that look like and do we need to make any determinations now relative to that potential scenario. So I think it's going to have to be application by application unfortunately for four towns the commission is just going to have to decide you know, again has the applicant submitted information that the commission feels comfortable with moving forward with the approval as it currently stands, recognizing that, you know, if by some chance a petition came in very late in the game it was accepted and the decision was overturned that the applicant couldn't move forward. We're trying to avoid that we're trying to do this all well enough in advance of the people the town can raise their hands and say we're working on a petition. We're going to get it in by this date, or actually get it in. But presumably, as you alluded to earlier, we'd be relying heavily on guidance from the town, in terms of what how they see their deadlines shaping up in connection with that particular issue. I think that's right. Okay, thank you. All right. Any other questions on the final approval. Okay, then we can move to the comments of Mrs Kellogg, which I believe are a start. Just to be clear, did we go through all of Mr. Conroy's believe that was his only state clear that if petition is filed within 20 days of then the commission will not find 13 April will be fine. That second to last paragraph. I don't know. Do we need to add any clarity around that. I would suggest that our proposed met revisions to the application are clear enough but again happy to take comments thoughts on that. So maybe we can just look at that particular section. Just make sure. Okay, I'm good. Thanks. Ms. Collins. Yes, and I'm trying to find the pay I think that's page 21 of your packet. So Miss Kellogg as you'll remember actually submitted comments on the last version of this, many of which we took, and she she notes that in her letter. So she has come back with a couple of other proposed amendments here. So the first one is that on page starting on page 22. She believes that engineering plans showing the needed grading as well as the composition shape and size of the track must be an exhibit. So we do have a provision in the application that requires sort of information about what the track is going to look like and of course there's a statutory requirement that the track be a mile. You know, I think it's up again, it's up to the applicant to provide information sufficient for the commission to make a determination as to whether this track is appropriate and all the meet all the requirements. I'm not sure that we need to get into the specifics of exactly what they want to what they need to present it in. One reason of which is of course I wouldn't want to miss something and then have them say well it wasn't specific enough. So I think, you know, again, for applicants the more detail often the better. And then that's what I would say with regard to that comment. Any thoughts or questions. Madam chair. Yes. So under the application and under our regulations, we, we could ask for that information if we felt we needed to was that accurate. Absolutely. Yeah. So if you get an application and you decide you don't have the information you need about the track you can absolutely ask for more. Dr light bomb and I have been, you know, discussing how race tracks work and the different types of tracks that are now available, you know, just And I can assure you and fellow commissioners and the public that how a race track is going to be built and safety of horses and things of that sort are going to be paramount and anything that I would ever look at. And I think the regulations give us the ability to ask for more information if needed. I think. Yeah. Michelle we've got a good track record, not to use upon but on on making sure that the integrity of the track. I mean, which is a state of the art, Dr light bound should be credited for that good work. So I agree with you. I bet all of us are agreement that's going to be a priority and we've got some good, good background on it. Dr light value and if you want to expand on that at all, but And like Commissioner Hill said, we've been exchanging, you know, news reports and all on some of the topics that have been going on. And there is definitely movement towards safer race track surfaces. And we've any new application it's going to have to meet the federal legislation that's gone to him. In fact, if it's a thoroughbred track. So there's a whole slew of safety recommendations on the track surface and all that, as well as the medication and the veterinary world as well. So that would all go into effect, which is something that we haven't had before in Massachusetts on the thoroughbred side. Commissioner, Commissioner Hill, you come from, I know your mother was such an animal's advocate. So you told me first thing that this would always be a priority and it has been And will continue to be. I actually, Dr light bomb just brought something up that I just want to make sure languages and the application. We now are dealing with federal regulations and federal law. Do we have language in there that says you have to adhere to all the federal laws and I know we do state laws I know we do regulation state, but I just want to make sure that in the final copy there's language that they also have to adhere to the federal guidelines that have now been put into place that weren't there a few years ago. So that's an attestation at the end that says you have to abide by all I will make sure that it includes federal. Okay, great. So moving on a couple other specific requests with regard to the application. One was adding requirements, an independent traffic study so we do actually require a traffic study now that was one of the changes that was made so I think that is covered in the parking plan for horse trailers and workers and patrons on site. I'm going to go through the next couple together details of on site water and sewer and other utilities. Again, I would say we asked for a lot of detail we could certainly add those provisions, but I think we do ask for a lot of detail and again we can always come back with more if we need to but every every plan is going to differ a little bit and some of that would be pretty detailed for the application. But may I suggest that we put language in IE and then list a few things. Sure. Sure, sure. I don't know if my fellow commissioners feel that way but if you give examples of things that that we would like to have. I think that's always helpful. Perfect, we can do that. As long as we make sure that it's clear that it's not limited to those examples. Yeah, I agree. Great. Can you just make sure we're all looking at the same are we now looking at a precise section in the application are we just talking globally. I think these were these comments she says they're related to section 2.2 but I think we could find the appropriate, but you know, sections of to put in those examples. Yeah. You know, Mrs. Kelly suggests a couple of different studies including an economic impact study. And, you know, it basically a study on. I think she has a study on the evidence and availability of thoroughbreds to actually raise to the proposed location with regard to the first the economic impact. You know, I think we do seek out information about the economic viability of the of the application. So I think again that that can be part of it and that that is that is part of it I would say. With regard to and I'm skipping a paragraph here but with regard to the study and evidence of the availability of thoroughbreds again I think that that goes to the question of you know can they race and you know are they going to have horses to raise or are they going to be able to make this a viable operation again I do think that's included without requiring sort of a specific study about the evidence of availability of thoroughbreds. That seems like potentially a lot to ask for again in an application. Any questions or comments on that section. The last comment relates to sort of we do now ask for all information about any host community agreements agreements with folks in the town and I do believe actually that was at the suggestion of Mrs Kellogg last year. I think she's now suggesting that the host community agreements must be negotiated and signed prior to the local approval. I don't I think I would leave that to the towns to make a decision as to when they want to get their approvals by certainly if the town didn't feel as if it was being listened to or heard by the applicant they could come and comment on that there is a statutorily required comment session and their voice can be heard, but I'm not sure that I would require that the host community agreements happen before the 128 approval but again, we can make any changes we'd like on this. I think I think that is it for the comments specifically related to the application. On the track quality back to Commissioner Hill's point that of paramount concern for us that to the extent there are different services being offered. I guess our, and forgive me for not being able to point at the particular section. Does our application or should our application as for experience and installation of tracks and the type of tracks anything about that given the safety issues that are arising should we have it where I don't think we have to be hiring, you know someone to install it but I just wonder if we want to have any controls over that selection process and experience of the, the vendor. Apologies, would that be more for the rig than the application. I don't know. I can certainly we can certainly take that back and figure out the appropriate place for that to make sure that whatever vendor is actually putting in the track is, you know, experienced and accredited to whatever extent there's accreditation. Like now maybe there is a certification process for that that you know about and I don't know, do you feel that the application addresses that sufficiently. Strengthen some wording in the application about wanting more detail on the track itself. And certainly the commission could ask for it. That's in that red line to three subsection a and detailed description of track, including description of racing surface that. Okay. Anything that we want to add to that commissioners. What do you think Dr like them should we add something about experience or do you know is there that they're just a few certified track installers or is there. Yeah, so one of the things that they would have to do is meet the. Hi, sir. The federal legislation, and they do a certification of the race tracks now. When Suffolk was racing that certification was done under NTR a and Suffolk had that accreditation and they had to renew it every two years. So, you know, in Massachusetts we're used to having to meet those requirements. Now that has moved over to the hyza, the federal legislation and they would be the ones who would come in and certify and they have the experts on staff that would do it. Thank you. Really helpful. Thank you. Okay. And if I missed that earlier, my apologies. Okay. I just muted myself. That's everything we have with regard to comments and modifications to the application but happy to take any questions. We're generally questions on the comments. Okay. Dr like any going to walk us through the license one more time before we vote on it. If I'm being totally honest, I was not prepared to do that and hitting a little bit today, but I'm not sure. Oh, there's Judy. Hi commissioners. Thank you for your patience and also Caitlyn thank you for pinch hitting for me. Hi, and just kind of getting everything up in front of me, but I'm happy to walk you through the updated application if you'd like to see everything soup to nuts. Well, yeah, the red lines and then if there are any questions that commissioners have thought of, particularly given comment. So we vote on this or experience in between. Okay. Certainly. All right, so starting. Good morning. So starting on page 21 of your meeting packet. I'm just going to walk you through the application again. So starting in the beginning, we have kind of the name of the applicant and the general information that would be seeking where they intend to conduct their racing meeting the calendar year in which they intend to race. As I noted, the last time we walked through the reg. This is the 2024 racing regulation, even though we will have somebody actually submit this application. October 1 of 2023, but they will begin a racing season in 2024. So it's always the year, the year after. Next, after that, we get into section one. As stated in the memo, this section is not or has not been changed. That's why there's no red lines within it. Aside from a few formatting changes and additional spaces, an applicant would have to go through and list this general information mailing address principal office. And also, I think we asked them to provide a contact information for their lead attorney. So that section 1.9 was added in last year, but otherwise this section is fairly similar to all previous racing applications issued by the commission. Moving on to page 23 of your packets. We keep going through the tail end question. And then we have section 1, and then also beginning section 2. There is kind of a note commissioners that we do recommend the applicant kind of take, take notice of, in which case we set out the requirements listed in 128 a section 3. The commission in reviewing this application will take into consideration these and any other appropriate or pertinent factors. And then a large laundry list, if you'll excuse the expression of the factors and considerations that are set forth within this application. Another note that 128 a section 2 allows the commission broad discretion to consider other factors as well when offering up and evaluating an applicant for licensure. So, moving into section 2. The largest red line change is what was kind of recently raised by the commenter, Mrs Kellogg and explained by Dr. lifebound in section 2.3. We've strengthened the language asking for the applicant to provide as much information as possible in regards to the size of the track and requested a detailed description of the track, including a description of the racing surface. So, Madam chair, as I was kind of just getting up to speed. We could strengthen that language a bit more to include some mention in terms of an installation plan or the additional details that a licensee or an applicant at this point would have. You know, it is somewhat early when a person would submit this and the track may not be constructed. So, another option or something that the commission could also do was condition licensure upon subsequent demonstration of an adequate race track that was kind of in accordance with the standards that Dr. lightbound enumerated by the H the HESA, excuse me. So that certification, that federal certification, that's, they have to have that in place before they can race, right? Yes. Yes. I'm just taking a note right there. Commissioners, I guess that helps on clarity, but it is a given they can't, they can't, there's no discretion on our part to waive that or anything. Excellent. Thank you. Trudy very helpful. Just call you Trudy. We do it all the time. I think I get called Judy because of Judd and she gets Trudy Judy. Sorry. Thank you, Judy. Four kids in my family. So I've grown up always being called a different, a different child's name. Sometimes I get the cat. It's all good. I'm two, two sisters and they're my mother raised three duties. So there we go. Thank you. Okay. So I like to say Madam chair, I've been called worse. Yes. Yes, that's the one. All right. So moving on, that is the only substantive change within section, excuse me, within section two of the racing application, moving on into section three. There were also no substantive changes in this section. The section asks for the schedule of proposed races and also sets out whether or not the applicant intends to race in calendar year 2024. So that change you won't see in red line, but it's kind of an obvious that we update the year every single every single year in the application. And then we've also asked them if they don't or do or do not intend to race in the calendar year that they've submitted this application, what calendar year that they intend to propose or conduct racing meetings. So moving on next into section four. This section has been reworked from the last time we brought this application to the commission in July. Going off of the concerns raised by the commissioners. We have added an additional question in section 4.2 but also strengthen the language in section or question excuse me 4.1 to to make it very known to an applicant that they need to complete all of the all the approvals excuse me and requirements enumerated in section 13 a of chapter 128. So, in order for an approval to be deemed final by the commission, there must have been an opportunity for for the municipality where racing is going to be located, or in the city for the the citizens of that city have had an opportunity to approve or ratify the finding by the municipality or by the city and having some kind of a vote. So the reason that we wanted to do that is that, you know, it really does. It's a very specific timing to when a person can receive an approval by either a select board or a city official or miss the municipality excuse me. And so it just kind of contemplates the full process that an applicant would need to also make sure that that approval was ratified as set out in 13 a. I'll ask this a bit more commissioners if you have questions, or we can keep going. Okay. Moving on into, or I'm sorry, question 4.2. We also ask the applicant if there've been any votes as categorized within 13 a so that again that petition that could be initialized by 12.5% of voters within 13 a, and then triggering a 45 day special election window. Or any other votes taken concerning this proposed project. This question is kind of to elicit that information out straightforward and also to be able to demonstrate whether or not this person has given sufficient time for that process that's captured in 13 a to have actually happened. Questions on that on that new question commissioners. Okay fabulous. All right, moving back through. Excuse me, we have also added one more question on page 27 of your meeting packets within section for we've asked the an applicant or potential licensee to describe and submit as an exhibit any sort of support or opposition to the proposed project expressed by the surrounding community governing body. Any government officials of the host and surrounding nearby communities, and also evidence of support or opposition in writing. This question is intended to prompt and promote an applicant to really be as transparent as possible with the commission. But also to, you know, be mindful of its surrounding community that it intends to launch this track and this business within. I should say that this question is also largely borrowed from the public, the public interest section of this application in section six, but we wanted to move it up in regards to the municipal vote. And these required commission approvals so that's why you'll see this question here as well. Any additional questions commissioners on section four before we keep going through the application. Section five on qualifiers and suitability. I will say that this section is the same from when we walked through it. Earlier in July. I will note that this section does have mentioned that a qualifier can request to be withdrawn. From consideration as being a qualifier status that is similar to what you see on the racing and sports wagering side. Our most recent meeting on suitability right now. The only guidance that we have on suitability is this application because we don't have the regulations correct on the process. That is correct madam chair so we on the racing side we are working on our regulations and I hope that we can have them. Disseminated internally and then have a meeting. A meeting on them shortly but there is a section within the racing framework that sets out the requirements of both preliminary suitability and durable findings of suitability performed by the IBM commission. But then that's a suggestion that it would fall under 23 and versus 23 K. Approach so we'd be seeking certifications is that how we're doing this here. Initially how it's contemplated however I think and I forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn Todd what we wanted to do is kind of present an option to the commissioners. That would kind of mirror the preliminary and durable findings that's presented within 23 and instead of the 23 K but if you know in walking through it and kind of presenting it to the commissioners at a public meeting. A definitive situation that's presented or contemplated within 23 K seemed more amendable to commissioners. We could take that feedback back and kind of alter the regulation or at least that section while having the other sections of the regulation go forward through the promulgation process. Just by adding that the reason that was contemplated you'll recall is that the commission by statute has to make a decision on an application by November 15 upon an application submitted by October 1. So the reason that'll be proposed is just to recognize that and the understanding that a full suitability investigation and proceedings on that may take longer than that. So that's six week. How do you feel about the fact that we don't have our regs in place but we'd be voting on the application I'm just thinking out loud I don't have an opinion. We have to get this application out. Sorry, Commissioner Hill. Madam chair I have no problem moving forward with the application before the regulations come before us. I think I'm thinking practically here is that if we want this out for consumption and use. I don't see how we do it any other way. We'll know that the, you know, prior to our draft regulations which will come before the commission shortly. There is sufficient precedent there within that's enumerated within the introduction to section five on page 27 of your packets that we have relied on before to kind of clarify to potential applicants. I think what we'd like to do is consider the interest of the public in racing competitions honestly map, excuse me, honestly managed, in which case we, you know, have in a different way contemplated suitability and the approved practices of racing. In this case what we'd like to do is to, you know, have a framework within regulation similar to what's contemplated and performed by the commission within the racing or excuse me within the sports wagering and gaming frameworks as well. Any questions on section five commissioners or I'll just throw my thoughts out there to that I think I'm comfortable moving forward with the app has written knowing that the ranks are coming soon after I'm okay with that. And the basis of our authority is is strictly in that case correct Todd. Yes, well so yes there's the case and then there's actually the language in 128 it talks about and this is on the application to that the commission must consider the interest of members of the public in racing competition honestly managed. So we've between the two of them, we've proposed this approach. Can we make clear that an applicant could seek and we use the word waiver withdrawal at any, at any time, make it clear that there is a provision on the top of page 28 Madam chair, and it is a portion of question 5.1 that just got knocked down. It reads an applicant may seek waiver for any person on the above list who lacks the ability to control the activities of the applicant. Yeah, that's at any time. Well, I think I'd like to be able to hear if somebody if we have an applicant who I eb, I guess it's easy is that those determining the. Who's a qualifier. Have we have we figured that out. It says, so within question 5.1 subsection 5, it lists the division of licensing after consultation with the I eb. So it's a similar protocol that's enumerated within the sports wagering regulations as well. Yeah, that's one of the factors so I'm assuming that it's licensure then all the way through that determines off one through five. And then, and then I guess given the recent experience I guess I'd like to make sure that we qualify that a an applicant could come to us and request a withdrawal from their qualifier, and we would respond to that. Is it the same, should we use the same language though isn't it what move to be. What, what's the language that's currently used. You grab it. D designated I think right wasn't that the phrase that we use. No, I think that's a notice of withdrawal. They have to file a notice of withdrawal. And that they could, I think there's language about time that they can do it at any time. I think this would be something that the I eb would want to be in close communication with legal with respect to the way the reg is drafted. Absolutely. You know, you know, at, at much I'm sure it's the I eb decision to be designated versus when it would have to go to that. Well, I guess I'm wondering with the whole the whole process is every is this an I eb driven process because we're adopting a regulation and I don't know I assume that's right Heather. I was just wondering on that particular language. I think it was withdrawal, the regs, we use the term of a notice of withdrawal, if I remember correctly and I think that reg that that did have a time factor in it. I don't have it in front of me. I don't know if I'm wrong, but my recollection of 213 and you know, obviously this isn't the specific way we're talking about at the moment, but is that the I would be able to be designated based on its own decision. But if it was before the commission, if there had been a meeting for the commission to review the application, then it would ultimately be the commission's decision. That's my recollection of the. The way it worked is that there was a couple of requests on the last one. And those were denied. And then there was a time factor as to when they could come before the commission. I'm hearing you make that suggestion as how you'd like it to, to follow here. I don't remember where it was where it came to the commission, but there was a little I know I received a question from a fellow commissioner about that particular issue. You know, noting some confusion around the timing of the inquiry. So I guess we want to just clarify that that's really what I'm getting at. When can and the applicant here for horse racing. As to the designate give, you know, withdrawals. Hoping we don't have to go through that issue pop. But because it's so fresh in mind, it might as well tackle it. We can clarity. Great. I both sorry, Caitlin. I was just going to add that, I think, you know, we, we can use the regulations that are forthcoming is the vehicle to address this as opposed to the application. It'll obviously take a lot of careful thought as to how that process should unfold. It has been modeled after the existing language in the regs, but in this context, we need not necessarily follow that we can make any adjustments that might work better in this racing context as well. So I think for purposes of this application, the fact that it's just identified is helpful and then we'll maybe drill down much further when we get into the regulations. And commissioners here, I don't know if we, because we went through this application before, if we're all comfortable that this is the stand that this is the approach we want to take. And it being following 23. I just want to make a sense. Is that a consensus or do we need to talk about that? Because I'm, I'm not sure if it was really. The commission has never weighed in on that. I think, and I don't think that it's not necessarily reflected here in the application itself. We were just kind of giving you some context and texture. This, the way I view the application, if this is helpful, it's just that this is the vehicle by which we gather all the information that the commission will want to consider in rendering a final decision, but it's the regulations that will provide you kind of the procedure to make the decision and set out the standards and things along those lines. So this, I think puts the applicants on general notice as to what the commission will be looking at. And of course, there is some jurisprudence referenced and some provisions of chapter 128 a, but will provide a lot more structure in the regulations and things I agree completely. The things like whether the commission wants to adopt a preliminary suitability model or not. And who will do the investigations and things along those lines are all on the table for consideration by the commission because none of it is set out in chapter 128. So I'm just going to note that if I were an applicant. What we're saying is we want them to deliver all this information to us. But we don't really know. We haven't made a decision as to the process and I thinking of back when we developed the sports wagering application. I mean, you worked really closely with a team on this. If we had the regulation structured. So I am a little bit. A little bit. I get where we're going and I get the practicality and I think I even said that maybe that red wasn't in place. The application red wasn't in place when we put out the red. The application but I'm sitting here thinking well, I would I would say this way. I can't remember exactly if the application red was finished or not. But there were a lot of regs that were implicated in the sports wagering application that I'm sure we're still being finalized. That would have, you know, to Todd's point earlier kind of would have would have ultimately affected that. So I just I'm thinking of the alternative the alternative is the regs and the application aren't aren't up by by the end of the deadline. So I'm just trying to square that. I know. That's exactly right. I think we just to be clear, we are putting the card before the horse. There's there's no question about, but it's a practical consideration. And that's why we're doing or we propose that it be done. And for me, Madam chair and commissioners, the alternative that Commissioner Mater just kind of alluded to is just not viable. And as to whether we use 23 and as a guide for reviewing suitability or 23 K or something else is is still up for discussion. But I think when Council Grossman reference the deadlines that were up against, I think 23 and the 23 and structure is not a bad idea. Commissioners, have you walked through all the public, all the second drive and all the questions that are asked because we haven't really gone through those with a fine to come. So, just so that you know that everybody's going to be asked to get happy with everybody comfortable. Is it accurate that most of this section is based on the BED. Some of these questions. And I guess I also wonder is that disqualifier, wherever you view this as an application, if they say something that we expect a yes to and they give us a no. I'm hearing Councilor Hall say it's an IEB decision making, but it's an application that's coming for us with particular questions. So it's a little bit different altogether. Do you see what I mean? And Todd, you and I kind of touched on that. It's different, you know, we're going to get the application in front of us. So, for instance, as an applicant and anyone that ever had a financial or other interest in a race trap. And they would submit. So the application, we will be looking at suitability in a different way than I think it heard this application, then what we've done with respect to 23 and 23 K. And I'm trying. I'm speaking in real time because this has been a work of art and Judy, you've been, you've worked really, really hard on. So I just want to make sure that we're all comfortable with. Let's just say I know we, I'm just always imagining that we might have an applicant. So we're comfortable with the application and how it is written without knowing the process. We do have to, we do have to have it ready for October 1. That's right. Submit that it actually should be way before October 1 and possible the deadline to submit it. That's right. Thank you Madam chair. Yes, help me out commissioner Skinner. Maybe. Well, I think I need a bit of help. I'm trying to understand your concerns. This is an application for a new race track, which the commission has released annually. Correct. And we are now proposing changes to it. And so what is different this year than the other years because we have not had regulations thus far. So just I'm trying to, I'm trying to tie the knots, you know, to close the loop here. I'm just trying to understand what your concern is this year that might not have been a concern for you in prior years. Do you have the suitability section for the past council grossman. I believe it was in the last version. Just to kind of refine, Commissioner Skinner, your point. This application is of a more recent vintage, although it has been the past couple of years out there, but it's not, it hasn't been out there for 10 years or anything like that. One or two years. The amendments and updates, if you will, were derived based on our experience and having handled an application that came through recently. And some of the public comments that have come through. And just our experience in general overseeing horse racing so it's been refined based upon those areas. And we're finally getting to a point where I think the process is actually really taking shape and coming together really well. But for a variety of circumstances, you know, we haven't been able to get the regulations done first that would certainly have been ideal there's no question about. But this is, I think a workable plan as well. To your point, Madam Chair, there are certainly some questions on the application that maybe after the process is set out, you will say need to be adjusted or refined, or even scrapped, if it's not relevant. But for purposes of today, I think we felt like this again is just a good vehicle to gather what we believe will be the relevant information. So the commission can make an informed judgment. And the only thing I would add to that is just for clarification. And Judy can tell me if I'm wrong, the changes to the application that are new that weren't in last year's application are only the only the items in red. So it's actually sort of a relatively small set of changes to what was last year's application. I don't I just I want to understand your concerns. I'm not minimizing them at all. I just, you know, if they're, I think we all can agree that the ideal way to do this is to have the regulations first and go from there in terms of making adjustments to the application. But I want to my responsibility. I want, I want to understand whether I should be paying more attention to this than I am currently under the circumstances. I think this was the last time this was voted on was this last fall. Like so the red the red line is compared to what compared to the last vote was when I guess what I'm trying to get like was this last November. The last are red lines to that like where are we. Great question. So the last time that this regulation or I'm sorry this application was before the before the commission was June 1 2022. So everything in black was voted on the commission June 2022, the regulator sorry again. The application was posted online and was available. And folks submitted information according to that and then we've taken it down since then and then made edits that are all appearing in red line and then, you know, brought this to the commission last July. And then ultimately made a few more changes that are like still there in red line so anything not in red line is a part of the previous 2022 application voted on by the commission. And then the vote we had last November was the reg is that what I'm remembering. So that that actually was December 1 2022. Which red. No, there was something last fall I thought. So that was when the regulation initially came forward to point so it was draft 205 cm or 2.01 that enumerated the sections of the racing application. There was a hearing and then it came back before the commission December 1 2022. Commissioner Brian, I don't think that you were present for that. So there was one that I wasn't able to go. So that was the one that was the kind of the final vote we had received some comments. Right. And then, because it was a racing regulation, there was that requirement that it needed to go. And so that was the legislature for 60 days, but ultimately, we ultimately held on to that reg and didn't file it. So it had gone through every single step of the promulgation process, but was never ultimately finaled. We took it back and then decided to create a much more robust racing framework. Beyond 2.01 and all the way through, I think now 2.07 for racing. So on the suitability questions, Mike, I probably had the benefit of a year long thinking about the 23 and approach commissioner Skinner to your point. What's, I just have learned more about suitability. And what we did under 23 and and the temporary licensure process. And so I'm thinking about that process, light up 23 K very different. Different process 23 and really did address the, the time frame of the sports wagering licensing process in our regulations reflected that so I appreciate and agree with Councillor Grossman's point that 23 and it's more likely a good guideline, but this is still now that I know what I know. It is now quite different and I'm just raising questions and as long as we're all comfortable with the idea that the application could theoretically and could have the benefit of the application being tweaked, you know, after a year because nobody applies and we can tweak it once the regulation is passed. So I appreciate that but I also know we the theory is we're voting on this application today. So if in fact we had an applicant, would we all be comfortable because we would have to, we would have to respond to it by November 15. You know, very aware of our timeframe here. And I just, and again last year probably less appreciative of the 23 and being in the background here. You know, now that I know what I know, but this, we would be without a record place we would be using this as our roadmap, right. Todd, strictly this is our roadmap and the and the jurisprudence. So this is our time that there's anything that sticks out to you is like, you want to clarify and then one thing that jumped out at me was that language didn't seem to mirror exactly but I. But maybe it is exactly the language that it's used on the on seeking a notice of the drone. And then I, all of these items I think you're right, Commissioner Brian it reflects the BED but I think we would be the decision makers under this in the evaluating leader. This is a helpful commission scanner I might be completely wrong in the way I'm thinking but this is, you know, I'm just, I've just had to get a little bit more comfortable because we are asking for suitability in a way that and so it is different through this application process. But I'm hearing today that the the brexit proposal near the 23 and process. And that's new. So, madam chair, if I can, I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you asking if this. The process that's not necessarily captured in the application that will be enumerated in the regs is going to mirror. What is what is demonstrated within 23 and and echoed within the race or I'm sorry the sports wagering regulations so at which case, the Bureau would complete an application submit a written report to the commissioners, which would then include recommendations and those findings of fact relative to suitability of the applicant and qualifier. Or for the new existing racing meeting licensee in this case. And then it would be in, in course, the commission that would make that finding of suitability. Is that the kind of the my question I think I'm well, I think I understand that right now we don't have a regs so we haven't discussed it. Right. So I'm going to cast that. But what I do understand by looking at the application should we have to act on the application that this process is set out to mirror. What we, for instance, what a qualifier is under both law and regulation in a 23 and, you know, we, we spent a lot of time on those five factors or six factors. I'm sorry just recently. And so, and then, of course, we just recently entertained a notice withdrawal. So I wanted to make sure that that's clear that the timing for that might it might be helpful and to understand that. And then otherwise, if everything if all the answers are here in the application. Right now, it would just be that we would be voting. We would be the decision makers, I think, to your point, and to Council Hall's earlier recommendation, that's for us to decide once we see that the regulation full right, right, Todd. That's, but that's what I'm hearing is being right now. I was just imagined by our legal team. And I assume in coordination with IEP. But that is that's a pivot, because we've got, we've had the benefit of 23 and now last year, which we didn't have. So that's why it's a little bit different commissioner Skinner because it was filed. And then last year, right about this time, when we were also directing the 23 and regs. But in that approval, Madam Chair, the commission didn't charge itself with identifying qualifiers, right. It's always been left to be and then, you know, if there's a question as to whether designation of a qualifier is disputed or, you know, if it comes to the point where a petition for withdrawal is submitted. That's, if I understand you correctly, I think that's what you're more concerned with in terms of what the process is going to be given the situation we just reviewed with an applicant for sports wagering. Is that am I correct in that. Well, so I think it's I agree with you that IEB has, I believe, deemed who's the qualifier and that was actually a question that a commissioner raised to me on the last one. Why is it that we are now looking at whether or not someone is a qualifier. And that is because at a certain point I understood. Our reg allowed them to come to the commission, or had to come to the commission, because of the timing of their request. Right. Yeah, I get that. And so what. And also on just who's determines a qualified I think you're quite right. But again, I'm not sure an application for a horse racing I don't want to belabor this but I'm just saying, if there's any clarification as to where it's, it's coming from, if we're following 23 and somehow, or if we're following a practice that IEB should be making these applications and maybe we should just make that clear here. In the application and then have the red follow. And I think I see counselor hall leaning in. And I don't because I don't know otherwise. Let's just imagine we do have some debate between an applicant about. We just experienced that. So it's fresh in my mind. Thanks, chair. And obviously I'll defer to Judy and legal as well, but it looks like. Based on 5.1 subsection. 5 and 6, you know, there already is a provision in the application that specifically references the division of licensing after consultation with the IEB. So, you know, I think that's that language is similar to what we have in regulation for the sportsway drain applicants. Where's the language about when they get to come to the commission. That will probably I'm assuming will be in the reg chair. You know that. If you're talking about the designation versus withdrawal request, you know that right now. And what we just experienced was under. To 13. And it was to 13.01 subsection to is why that the commission heard the withdrawal requests on the application that was just reviewed because of it fell within that provision. Like you said, the timing of, you know, the application had come before the commission. At the point when the two requests for withdrawal or withdrawal or file. Commissioners that we want to, if we want to continue on on the review, that's fine. I don't know if you have any other further questions on suitability. Or if you're just you're you have any questions. Can I go on to public interest then section 6 to the. Absolutely. I'm sorry. I'm just toggling back to the application. Section 6 begins on page 35 of your packets commissioners. Again, we make note of GLA. I listened to me. I apologize. I haven't had breakfast. We make note of 128 a section 3 I. And in each case we still make notice of the interest of members of the public and race competition honestly manage and of good quality. Laying out specific questions, but nothing within section 6 was changed this time around. It is the same that was brought before you in July and again voted upon by the commission in June of 2022. Are there any questions or any questions about those specific sections or questions within the section? If you have any, though. Questions commissioners. Okay. Moving on next to section 7 that begins on page 36 of your packets. This section was largely unchanged. I think that we ask a brief question on question 7.3. That isn't necessarily a new question itself. However, we have asked that if, if the answer to the question, whether the premises of the where the racing meeting is to be held. We are owned by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision. We've asked the licensee or perspective licensee excuse me to submit an exhibit explaining that said ownership and their plans for either converting the ownership. We're taking full ownership of that land. So the question itself isn't new. However, the commission's request for more information surrounding the land ownership is kind of an added sub question. If there are no additional ones I can move on into section 8. I will just note that a large amount of kind of questions regarding the stable area that I think we had a few comments on are enumerated in section 7.7 subsection J. And then lastly within subsection or excuse me section 8 in regard to wagering and simulcasting. We have added language from the updated 128 C section 9 that went into effect on August 10 stating that a running horse racing meeting shall conduct not less than 20 live racing days out of thoroughbred racing track so just as a note commissioners that that does kind of codified down to not harness racing applicants if there were any that would fulfill or complete this application but just thoroughbred racing applicants. And that is in question 8.2 on page 38 of your packets enumerated in a second paragraph. This language was actually added. I do believe this this language was added last year if I'm not mistaken. In the fall after the promulgation of sports wagering. However, it didn't come into to affect until until August 10 of this year. Next moving on into section. I'm sorry. Next moving on into section 9. These are the general conditions and attestations that an applicant or potential applicant has to fulfill. Commissioner Hill I think you asked a question earlier if there was a federal compliance requirement and there is on page 40 it is I think the third or fourth paragraph down we asked that the applicant specifically comply with all federal and state or local laws. So that language is there. And the next few pages commissioners leading up to page the end of the meeting application, excuse me end of the meeting packet and and racing application all the way through page 45, or just the affidavits that are signed by the applicant depending on their corporate structure. Yes. We not asked about the going to offer sports wagering. We do I apologize I should have noted that one it is within section. It's either section seven or section eight madam chair let me find the exact question. Waitering and simulcasting and I have just I feel like I've seen that. So we ask in 8.1 if they intend to offer account deposit wagering. I apologize there is a specific question in which case we asked about least premises that is new language that we've added. In which case they attempt to enter into contract to have another operator conduct sports wagering on the facility. Give me a second. I apologize I should know this. I believe it's 7.6. Is that right? Yes. For you, sure. Two years to understand regulations. It is question 7.6. I apologize. I'm not sure why it's in why it's not included in red line. I have a full question madam chair on page 37 of the meeting packet and 13 of the application asks if the applicant anticipates leasing or renting any part of the premises to a third party vendor, or allowing any entity other than the licensee to operate any part of proposed premises, and then kind of codifies a list of catchalls, including restaurants entertainment simulcasting and a sports book. So the question isn't is the same. However, we've added the mention of the sports book within 7.6. I apologize for not catching that red line. Anything else? Any additional questions commissioners or comments or notes for myself or Dr. life on I think she she is still here but just likely off video. Commissions I wonder if for transparency, if seven, if that seven point six, you know, we do say some operations as well and seven point six, but the sports book if I recall, are meeting out in Harwick, the sports betting piece was a big piece of the local concern should we be adding a little bit more prominent like section eight is wagering simulcast should we also throw in sports wagering there or no. Are we comfortable because it would be sports book. I get that that's about a third party vendor but we include simulcast operations and when I went to section eight because I was looking there to Judy. I just wonder just for transparency or the valid addition we could simply, you know, add in the mention of sports wagering and simulcasting in the section title. And then add a drop down question after. I think, technically speaking, I would prefer doing it before seeing as 8.1 discusses adw wagering, then 8.2 sets out the the statute in regard to simulcasting so you could ask in the new section 8.1 does applicant intend to offer. Sports wagering as categorized under MGL chapter 23 and I think it's a suitable question to ask. It highlights it right in the same way, because they don't they may have to have a vendor for simulcast right that's and that's clear and the same thing for sports book, what do you think commissioner meaner. No that's not I'm sure I was saying the same thing it's kind of a nerdy theoretical legal argument but theoretically maybe they're offering your own sports book and they're not going to go with a vendor or. You know, there are many different reasons to ask it I would I would separate it. Absolutely. Thanks. Okay, so that will become the new section or excuse me commissioners I apologize that will become the new question 8.1 and then everything else will drop down and kind of be added by section. And that's probably, that's probably a good, a good move. Anything else commissioners know we're looking to move on this measures. We got no more questions. Are you prepared today to move on. Madam chair, I am ready to move on and I'm actually ready to make a motion. How do you know. I know he's got a great job. The motion is. I commission their point but I think I have a sneaking suspicion I know where he's going. I think you're probably right. Okay, I'm not going to second guess you commissioner Brian. That was a pun commissioner Hill. Madam chair, I move that the commission approve the application for license to hold or conduct a new racing meeting as included in the commissioners packet and discuss here today. Okay. Any questions or edits. Okay. Commissioner Brian. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. I vote yes five zero. Thanks everyone. We'll get that done. I'm looking forward to the regulations coming. To us. Coming to us soon. That's right. Judy. Thank you. I appreciate it very much. Okay. Thank you for your good work, Judy and Dr. Leiband. Thank you. And commissioner Hill. I know you've been right there with them. So thank you. So now we turn to items five on our, on our five and six actually feel indulge me. We have two matters that we anticipate using the executive session for. And as you know, we have to have a chair speak read into the record. The open meeting law provision that applies and one of courses would be regarding continuing conversation that we've had relevant to public safety. And in this case a particular letter that we had asked to be crafted to MGM and resorts. And if we were to go in to executive session on that matter. This would apply be that we would meet an executive session in accordance with general laws chapter 30 a section 21 a for to discuss the use and deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect. There to add a gaming gaming establishments. And we would vote on these separately. So with respect to that particular item on the agenda by a do I have a motion. Commissioner, I think Commissioner Hill, were you moving your muted. I'll wait for you if you're moving. No. I moved that the commission to go into executive session for their reasons and on the matter just stated by the chair. Second. Any discussion. Commissioner Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. And commissioner Maynard. Hi. Right. Yes. So I believe that we would be, we would not be coming back into public session provided that we are. We decided on the next matter as well that we could combine them. So at this point, a public session is not anticipated, but let's look at item number six. So in that case, we would be getting an update from our legal team on particular litigation. Commission anticipates that it'll meet in executive session, according to general master chapter 30 a section 21 a three to discuss strategy with respect. To get married versus when mass. See. As discussion in an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the commission. Don't have a motion on that exact anticipated executive session. Does anybody want to go into executive session? I can move again. I moved that the commission going to executive session on the matter. And for the reason just stated by the chair. Thank you. Have a second. Second. Thanks. Commissioner Hill. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. Yes. So. That's. Five zero. And again, we would not anticipate coming back to public session because I think that we can move. From one executive session into a second. I think Grace, you confirm that with. With council Grossman. So. With that commissioners. Grace has provided a separate link for us. To go into those executive sessions. Let's discuss lunch and everything once we get there. I know I am. My questions to keep us and I'm sure we'll be able to. Apologies for that. And then. We'll. Not return to public session. We'll adjourn. And. Out of our executive session properly. So for the public. Thank you for your attention to the team members who are not joining the second session. Thank you for all your great work. Appreciate it. Right. So we'll go to our separate link and it's in our email and in our calendar. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Right. So we'll go to our separate link and it's in our email and in our calendar. Thank you.