 Excellent. Good. Good morning, everyone. This is a convening of the mass gaming commission. We've already had an agenda setting meeting. So we started early today. Thanks, everyone. We're holding this meeting virtually. So good morning again. Commissioner Brian. Good morning again. I'm here. Good morning. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning again. Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And morning again. Good morning, madam chair. Okay, thank you so much, everyone. We're going to turn to our agenda today is Wednesday, June 21. And it is the longest day of the year. Take advantage of that. Son, and so happy summer everyone. It is public meeting number 461 and the team has allowed me to take the agenda slightly out of order. So I'm going to turn to item number, I guess it's now number three on our agenda item number eight. We've had some changes because we did complete what we were able to do with respect to our review of the Rainham Park application. I appreciate everybody's good work on that. So I'm turning commissioners update. I first want to say that again, we are acknowledging that our executive director will be departing by July 14. So we have some work to do to fill big shoes. But we want to make sure to get our process underway. And the first step will be that we want to look at our the existing job description. So I've asked, they've been modeled through our chief people and diversity officer to fold that. And I thought, and thank you, Commissioner O'Brien for your thoughts today at the agenda setting meeting that we would reach to you on the 29th. And then, unless we needed another date, depending on to make sure all the commissioners will be available on the 11th, we would vote on the job description then we would use that as we pursue the hiring process for a permanent executive director. However, that process will take some time. And so we will be looking to appoint an interim executive director and I've decided based on kinds of conversations with outside council in order to meet really the rigorous and stringent components of the open meeting that we would set up a screening committee for the appointment of an interim executive director. And I have asked individuals to join me in that effort. And I thank you in advance for your graciousness. David module our chief people and diversity officer will will assist as well Commissioner Skinner. So thank you very much I appreciate that we will be again in accordance with the open meeting law. The requirements will be considering those of the gaming Commission team who have graciously expressed a willingness to take on the responsibilities of interim executive director. We will plan a meeting and post it in accordance with open meeting law requirements, and then we'll be reporting back to the commission. As soon as we have updates for you on our progress in training that key has agreed to assist or one of his colleagues from NK has agreed to assist along the way. To make sure that we meet the demands of open meeting law and other requirements and of course engage in best practices. Okay. So, Madam chair if I could comment I really would have loved us to have an open conversation about process before this was announced at a public meeting. I suspect that this is how apparently we're going to go forward on the interim, but I would like to have conversations about the five of us deciding how we're going to do things like this, rather than being announced in the matter that it just was. So particularly going forward for the posting and the actual search. I would hope we have an open discussion amongst the five of us about how that's going to proceed. Absolutely. I don't know how the other to feel that have not been part of that interim conversation. Actually no commission it's a bit of a challenge in terms of of open meeting law and of course I also did receive the guidance of our legal counsel on the process and so this is how we'll go forward. I'm turning back you maybe I'll speak with you after them. Okay, I'm available. Thank you. And then if you want to ask any questions now to you may. I just would have preferred that the process be discussed in public amongst the five of us prior to it being announced in the manner in which it just was that's all. And I would expect having voiced that now that the process for the ultimate full time filling will be done in just that manner. I think right on, you know, as you requested with respect to the job description, you've got that going we'll start next week. The interim will be, you know, started in a way that I just. Thank you. And that's the process that in the future I would like to discuss amongst the five of us. Just for the record. Yeah, and I'm a commissioner Brian. Thank you very much. Brian, just a quick response. I want you to understand that there has been no discussion about this interim process at all. But that involved me beyond the request from the chair to serve on the search committee. I believe 100% in transparency. And so it is my intention. You know, as we move forward in this process to keep you've all informed us as best we can, but then as we're discussing the permanent ED, it is really important that the five of us come together to make a decision not only on process, but absolutely on a final basis. And I believe that that is the intention of chair as well. I don't have an issue at all with how this is going forward. Commissioner Skinner, it is the fact that the chair on her own selected to go this way without consultation with the full five. That's my issue I voiced it. I'm pretty confident that going forward in terms of the substantive replacement that it will be handled appropriately. I appreciate your perspective, Commissioner Brian, but I would say that what I announced today was very appropriate. And in terms of meeting the demands of it. It's just a process. No, we can obviously agree to disagree on that. I don't want to belabor the point. I think that going forward, we'll all be on the same page. I just wanted to weigh in here. I, I respect the authority of the chair to point all sorts of subcommittees. I would say that as commissioner Brian just just stated, I am hopeful that as we do the permanent search that and I'm really saying this for for Dave as much as anyone else that we can use every tool in our disposal to ensure that all five of us have an equal voice. At the end of the day, you know, we this is someone who reports to all five of us, and it's someone that we are going to have to work with and so I'm hoping that we can use every tool at our disposal when looking at the open meeting law to not to not pervert it in a way or read it too strictly in a way that we can't have candid conversations to make sure that we get the best person in this position. For me, Maggie, sir, anything you want to offer. No, I don't think so. I am happy. Commissioner Brian and others to have a conversation about this. Obviously, a one on one conversation lines with the open meeting law, but happy. I'm happy to do that. Commissioner Hill, are you all set. I'm all set at this time I I feel comfortable moving forward will all be included but I too. I feel comfortable moving forward now to chair. Thank you. Okay, and the process will again we'll be able to get more updates as we move along on the intro entire. And then I can just say, a big thank you to those members of the team. I appreciate they offered to to step in at this time. It's a big job. And we are very fortunate that we have members of the team who have expressed that willingness so again, thank you to them. And again, I am. I'm sorry that the process is restricted to those of you who know me well. I, I really thrive on collaboration and I thrive on us working together. This is just a construct that I'm kind of put in right now so thank you and thank you for your patience. All right, let's move on then to the media affairs division. Good morning, John. Morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. So today we are taking up the one application that had not been decided upon earlier, which is the city of Springfield project of regional significance which is for the construction of a parking garage across the street from MDM Springfield. In our initial meeting on this I've attached the original memo that we put together and and initially the review team did not recommend funding for the project. The reasons one, because the review team did not consider it regionally significant. And secondly, because we are intent was to only award one grant to the region be in this category. So since the last meeting, I did repoll the review team to see if there were any changes and opinions on the on the project. And the review team still does continue to see this primarily as a local project, and does not believe it to be regionally significant. Now look, that's not to say that this is not a good project. It is a good project. It's just that the review team didn't feel that it sort of passed that bar to be, you know, considered regionally significant, which is, and I think that's the key word is regionally significant that's you know right in the title of the category. We did look at the commission at the last meeting asked us if we had looked at other avenues for funding, which we had not at that point. So we did look at the transportation construction grant, which is another grant that's available for construction projects. The review team certainly thinks that this project would fit better under that category since it certainly is transportation related. And we've already agreed that this would address a casino related impact. The problem with the transportation construction grant is that you know the parameters of that grant don't don't coincide with the request from the city. The problem grant in that category is 1.5 million, and the project needs to be under contract by June 30 of next year. This application requested $3 million, which is the cap for the projects of regional significance, and also asked for a start date of June 30 of 2025, which again is what's identified in the projects of regional significance. So if the commission did want to provide funding for this project under the transportation construction grant, it would it would require waivers to do so of the dollar value and of the the timing of the project. And then lastly, since all of the other grants have been voted at this point, we were able to tally up the total amount of money that's been committed to Region B. And as of now that total is $4,061,200. And our guidelines established a maximum grant for Region B of $7 million. So we would have we wouldn't have quite enough money available in in Region B to award a full $3 million to this project. We would be that sort of $61,200 short of that amount. So with that I guess I will open it up to questions comments and so on. Madam chair. So as somebody who sat with the team over the last few months to go over these applications, I'm going to stand by our decision not to fund this through the regional application that was put forth. We had thought about this the last time we met and I was going to suggest that we take a look at the construction grant, instead of the grant that was the application that was put before us. And under the scenarios that Joe has put forth and I just want to make sure I have them up so be with me please. I would suggest to the committee that we move this application over into the construction that we would fund them at one and a half million. And that we would look to allowing the date to be moved to 2025, which would allow them to come back before us next year for the other million and a half which we're totaled with $3 million. And I think that would get us to where we need to be. I think it sets the tone that we do support this project, just not under the application that was put forth this year. So my feeling would be we move it to construction. We funded at a million and a half. And that was in 2025 for construction. And they come back next year for the other million and a half. That's what I would suggest to the, to my fellow commissioners. And if I can just add on to that Commissioner Hill that the, our guidelines do say that applicants can apply for money on a particular project in a future year. So obviously that's subject to the availability of funds in that year. As we saw back in 2020, we know that our source of funds could possibly not be reliable. As we saw, you know, when the casinos had to close down for a few months, we weren't generating money into that fund. But so I think that stipulation, you know, they're certainly eligible to come in and request that additional money in a later. And Madam Chair, if I could just add for those to add what Joe just said, you know, we took a look at this project and I think we all agree that it really is transportation related. And we believe the parking graduate qualify for that under the scenario that I outlined. We looked at the project being related, you know, an impact to the casino. And I think the committee all agree that this would absolutely address a casino impact. Joe talked about the maximum amount of that particular grant being a third of the total project cost, you know, up to a maximum of a million and a half so the project would meet the third requirement but would need a waiver. If we did award the 3 million I'm not suggesting that we do that. You know, we the project under the current rules would have to be under construction by June 30 after 2024 I am proposing that we allow it to go to June 30 25 so we would need a time waiver for that to happen. And I think again that brings us to where we would need to be financially and setting the tone that we do agree with this project moving forward. Thank you Madam Chair I support what Commissioner Hill has just proposed I my only question was related to the timeline the timeframe here the June 30 dates 2024 2025 and whether we should be considering this for funding for next year, but Chief Delaney has responded to that question without even knowing that I had it. So I'm satisfied with that answer. And so I think this is an excellent project. I like Commissioner Hill, don't think we should be revisiting the original determination that the project is not one of regional significance but I think we do. We can get to funding the project in a way that I'm comfortable with by designated designating the project. Under the transportation grant option. I think that what Commissioner Hill proposed makes sense. I mean I think Madam Chair you did a recitation of the perspective when you go back further in time in terms of the parking garage and the regional impact and all that in terms of the importance of the project and I think what Joe described and what Commissioner Hill described in terms of what's in the money what's the import what's the nexus what's the purpose I think this is it hits it hits the right balance in terms of giving the funding where it should go in a manner that's consistent with the grant structures that we've set up so I'm for it. Thank you. Commissioner Lane. So I have, I guess one more question I was jotting down the notes show quickly. How much money is left in that region today. 2,938,800. I mean I look at it this way I first of all I support. I support some funding in this project. I think it's a fantastic project. I think that Springfield is really going to benefit from it. I think how we get to that end goal is, I'm thinking about the end user here, right, the people that live in that area. They really don't care what bucket it comes out of as long as it comes out of a bucket and it's being used right that's a lot of what we think about as as public servants. I would like to see it funded. I appreciate commissioner Hills perspective. I guess I would say if there's money left in the pot, I would be more likely to get closer to the number they asked for but I hear a consensus here and I'm able to support that consensus. Commissioner man and I think it's just again just to go over the one and a half million would require an additional waiver from from from the guidelines. If we were to approve it fully under the regionalization that would require a waiver as well we had agreed to that. I guess the term waiver is maybe not appropriate in that case if it was under the regional significance you're just awarding. It was a target of one per region. I mean the commission can award more than one per region. I wouldn't say that's technically sort of like a waiver. In this case it's a waiver of a hard guideline that says you can't have more than a million and a half and you can't and it has to be done by a certain date. Thank you because I was just looking at the draft motions and wondered why a waiver was attached to it. Okay, so that's. But so in terms of right now, but commissioner hill is offering would not require a waiver as to the amount that would require waiver of the time. Yes. Yeah, correct. If I want just for clarification I think commissioner skinner this is what you were asking so forgive me if I'm repeating, but should the project. Go more timely or faster than what we may anticipate if they needed funding that exceeded the 1.5 they could come back to us before the next deadline. Oh, I see nearly going now. Well, I think I think chair the you know schedule that they provided to us had this project going out to bid. You know, in June of 2025. So, you know, there is, I would say there is. Well, it's a less than zero chance but not much less than zero chance that this project would be ready to go before our next fund itself. I mean that's we're talking six months from now. Right, but when our next 2024 grant round starts. I mean, I there is there, I'd say there's zero chance that this project will be ready to go in a year from right now. That's why that's why we would recommend a waiver because it simply doesn't even fit within their own timeline this project hasn't been designed. And so to your point earlier, the, the idea in granting the 1.5 million for this cycle is to, you know, ensure that there are funds available in the total amount of 3 million over the two cycles this year and next year. That's right. That's right. So there would be, you know, there would be some money that would then roll over from this year into next year and then there will be the allotment from next year which would mean it should be sufficient funding for that second tranche of 1.5 million should they should And I think the other thing is, you know, the part of this project of regional significance is that, you know, it does give a bit longer timeline, knowing that all of the sources of funding may not have been put in place yet. And that would give them some certainty, I think, when trying to secure some of the other sources of funding saying that we've got, you know, a commitment from the gaming commission for the first million and a half and we think we have a real good chance at the second million, you know, based on, you know, availability of funds. And Joe, the total cost of the project is how much 30 million. And I know in some of the other grants that we've approved, we place conditions on those funds along the lines of must demonstrate commitment of funding from other sources. Is that some, is that not applicable here. Well, it would go It would go without saying they can't go out to bed on the project unless they've got their sources of funding. You can't you can't simply can't award a contract unless all of the sources of funding are in place. And what would be required for us is all in our grant instrument we outline what the requirements are for both transportation construction and for projects of regional significance. And they have to submit to us their, their bid documents and their contracts and so on and so forth. So, we feel pretty comfortable that we have that covered within within the grant instrument itself. Thank you. Well, I do want to note that we received, you know, letters from the mayor of Springfield Mayor Sarno. And also, they noted that PVPC was the recipient of the utilization grant has supported this. I think I'm not with the idea that I do view this project as regionally significant. I feel that the revitalization underway in Springfield. Has profound impact on the region. And so every endeavor that we can do to support that is critical to what I imagine was the legislative intent and vision of the governor, Governor Patrick at the time signed by 3k into law. So, and I just wanted to extend my appreciation for their submission and also MGM Springfield of course followed yesterday so we appreciate their support of this effort. I'm absolutely. I'm very grateful for Commissioner Hill in your leadership in this effort and kind to go along with your, your recommendation. And I'm completely relying on Joe's timeline of 0% chance or minus 0% sounds like my native Vermont temperatures but I'm going to go along with this and say that I support the funding and get the funding in a way and as Commissioner final voted it does. It's consistent with our past. And I think we'd be remiss not to keep going. Just one other thing I'd like to add in Madam Chair is that this is consistent with other grants that we have done. This is one that we did for Revere and saw us a couple of years ago where we gave them a waiver from the timeline because the project on one and we knew that it would be probably more time consuming than taking a just a year to get it done so we did that in that case where we gave them two years. So this is very much consistent with our past practice. Any other questions other than to thank Lily and Mary and Joe comments, Christian Hill. First of all, I want to thank you for your kind words about my leadership but please know that it was the team of Joe, Mary and Lily and the whole team that went back after hearing the commissioners comments to see how we could make this work. I think that would appease everyone. So it's, it's their leadership, not mine that that got us to where we are today. And with that said, I do have a motion. I was noting your leadership at this very moment today. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, so with respect to the application from the city of Springfield for funding from the Community Mitigation Fund, I move that the commission waive the requirement for transportation construction grants as included in the 23 Community Mitigation Fund guidelines requiring that applicants demonstrate that the project will begin construction no later than June 30, 2024, and that the commission extend the deadline until June 30, 2025. And further that the commission approved the application and the amount of 1.5 million is a transportation construction grant for the purposes described in the submitted application. And for the reasons discussed here today, and that the commission staff be authorized to execute a grant instrument commemorating this award in accordance with 205 CMR 153.04 Second. Any further comments. Michelle O'Brien. Hi. Michelle Hill. Hi. Michelle Skinner. Hi. Michelle Maynard. Hi. I vote yes. And again, thank you to the leadership on Springfield for for following up with your submissions. Okay. I believe that it's our meeting for today. Anything else commissioners that we need to tackle. And I just need a motion to adjourn and I hope everybody has a good first day of summer. Move to adjourn. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know. Commissioner Maynard who waited and could tell. Somebody will record that for us. Thank you. Michelle O'Brien. Hi. Michelle Hill. Hi. Michelle Skinner. Hi. Michelle Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five zero. Thank you.