 meeting because we are holding this meeting using a virtual platform and we will take a real call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. I'm here. Great. And Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair. I am here. All right. We'll get started then. Today is December 8. It is public meeting number 408. And again, I ask for your indulgence. My fellow commissioners and team members, but I will read into the record, not just for the record, but for our applicant today and those stakeholders who have not heard these comments. I'd like to set the stage and give a little bit of guidance about our plan for the day. Before we turn to General Counsel Grossman, I'd like to make these introductory remarks. We begin our evaluation of these applications. We as commissioners are reminded of our principal responsibility to ensure the public confidence in the integrity of the gaming industry here in Massachusetts. And the strict oversight of the gaming establishments and now sports wagering operators through rigorous regulation. We are reminded that the MGC's licensees will be held to the highest standards of compliance, including an obligation to maintain their integrity. As we have said in the past, the award of a gaming license in the Commonwealth is a peerless privilege. And our laws require gaming licensees to be held to those highest standards on a continuing basis. The MGC mission permits us to creating a fair, transparent and participatory process that engenders the competence of the public and its participants. By law, that process is to maximize the benefit to the Commonwealth, but critically it must minimize potential or realized negative or unintended consequences. Again, as I said from the beginning of this busy week, thank you to my fellow commissioners for your commitment to that mission and for your thoughtfulness and diligence today and over the next several weeks as we evaluate these applications. As I've said, I feel very fortunate to serve with each of you, particularly as we work tirelessly to implement this new law with the public's interest in the forefront. And as I said and continue to strongly believe our last several months and the months ahead have been very demanding and will continue to be demanding on our MGC team, a team of excellence. We are very grateful for contribution, each of you make individually and as collaborating colleagues. We thank you for your dedication as public servants and your commitment to the MGC mission. So with those statements, I'd like to give a brief overview of today's agenda. First, you will hear from our general counsel Todd Grossman, who will review the statutory and regulatory framework that will guide us as we evaluate the applications. And then when Mass LLC will present its application, of course it's doing business is on Corpuson Harbor that will present its application for category one license using 205 CMR to 18.063 as guidance. In this presentation, we're likely to take a short break, then we will hear from GLI, the IEB and RSN relative to the technology suitability and finance components of this application. And that will lead us to a section by section review and analysis of the application during which the applicant will answer your questions. And our legal team in addition to GLI, IEB and RSM will also be available to answer questions. To ensure that we have ample time to reflect, finalize any personal notes, memorializing our impressions and follow up with any unanswered question will break occasionally in between the section by section analysis. Then after any further questions for purposes of review of the category one applications, I'll seek from the group. So we've done the last two days a census to whether we have a consensus regarding the quality of the applicant's response to that section. The applicant and its application not meet expectations relevant to the standard of review that we're obligated to follow as outlined by General Counsel Grossman. Or did the application or the applicant meet expectations, or did the applicant exceed expectations? Again, that review helps us guide our ultimate disposition. At any time during this public meeting, the commission may determine that an executive session is required for us to fully review and evaluate certain information in the application as set forth in the agenda. And should we vote to go into executive session at that time, we'll determine whether or not we will reconvene today in the public forum. And we will turn to our General Counsel for guidance in that process. And after our review of the application, we'll consider whether we wish to proceed with our determination process, again, outlined in the agenda, fully or in part, or defer that decision entirely to another day. With that, let's turn now to item number two on the agenda. Good morning, General Counsel Grossman. Thank you so much, Chair, commissioners and all who are joining us here today. Of course, we are here so that the commission may evaluate the application received for a category one sports wagering operator license from Winmass LLC, which is the licensee that operates on in Harvard. A prior to commencing the review, however, and may be useful to set the stage by walking through the legal provisions and principles that will inform the commission's decision making. So with that, I'll highlight a few provisions of the Massachusetts Sports Waging Act, which has been enacted as chapter 23 and of the general laws, and then we'll take a look at a number of sections of the commission's recently adopted regulations. Of course, as always, questions and comments are invited along the way. With that, allow me to begin with chapter 23 and in the first place, I think to take a look at a section six B one, which says quote, the commission shall issue a category one license to any holder of a gaming license as defined in section of chapter 23 K that meets the requirements of this chapter and the rules and regulations of the commission provided, however, that any holder of a category one license shall not be issued a category two license. In the present matter, Winmass LLC is a holder of a gaming license under chapter 23 K. Accordingly, if it otherwise meets the requirements of chapter 23 and 205 CMR that I'll discuss momentarily, then it shall be issued a category one Sports Waging Operator License. Before we look at the regulations that will govern that licensing process for this category one applicant though, we should discuss what a category one Sports Waging Operator License is. And that term is defined in chapter 23 and section three to mean quote, a license issued by the commission that permits the operation of Sports Waging in person at a gaming establishment, as defined in section two of chapter 23 K, and through not more than two limited mobile applications or other digital platforms approved by the commission provided that the mobile applications or other digital platforms shall be a qualified for an issued a category three license and quote. So, if this applicant were to be awarded a category one license, it would be authorized to operate an in person retail Sports Waging operation at Encore Boston Harbor and through to mobile operations. This category one license is the tool that enables the licensee to offer operate through those two mobile platforms. But remember, the entities that will actually run those mobile or digital platforms would also have to first obtain a category three license. And I just like to pause there to talk about the category three license for a moment and note that there are a few opportunities to review those particular operators. It will be done first by way of their tethered category three applications that they have all submitted and will be reviewed next week. I do believe so they will be given a close look. And secondly, to the extent that a category three operator or applicant for an operators license is also involved in the retail operation at a category one operation. They would also be required to go through a vendor review. So there are a couple of opportunities under which the commission can take a look at the same operator. It's important to remember that these retail operations that are being aided by these category three entities are contractual relationships which means that they are subject to change at some point. And it's that reason why we haven't reviewed those category three applications together with the category one applications they are in fact separate entities. Of course, the category one operators also have access to other operations. So there are two category three operators that each category one entity will be engaged with. And so that's why it was important that they be reviewed separately, even though there is clearly overlap between the one of the category three entities and the category one entity. Just to kind of put in context what we are doing here. So that's the category three piece and of course we can come back to that and drill down a little further as to that piece of the review. But before we do that let's let's have a look at the commission's rules and regulations that have to be met by the category one applicant in order to be issued a license. The place to begin is with 205 CMR 218, which as you know is the section that sets out the application requirements standards and procedures. The process itself has of course already begun an administrative sufficiency review is performed upon the submission of the suitability portions of the application, and then the commission can be convened a public meeting. Two days ago, in order to receive public feedback on the category one applications. We'll walk through the factors and standards the commission has set out for the award of the license, but prior to doing so there are a few other provisions and principles that are important to bear in mind as we go through this process. First is that the regulations provide the commission shall analyze the factors and considerations set out in the regs, but need not do so in any particular order, or give any individual factor any particular way. And in fact can assign a factor no weight at all if deemed appropriate in the circumstances. Next you'll recall that the regulations provide that the commission may require or permit the applicant to provide additional information or documents as the commission means appropriate in its review of the application. If you're evaluating the information provided in this application relative to a particular factor, and you determine that further information is required or would be helpful, you may direct the applicant to provide it. Similarly, if during the course of the commission's evaluation the applicant observed that there is additional information that was not provided that may be abused to the commission may request an opportunity to provide that information. So whether it's noteworthy that this present review is being conducted as part of a regular public meeting under the open meeting law, and not an adjudicatory proceeding setting. That means a number of things, including that all deliberations must take place in public, and that if necessary the executive session provisions of chapter 38 may be utilized. As it pertains to this matter section 21 a seven of chapter 30 a allows the commission to move into executive session to comply with or act under the authority of any general law. In the present situation there is a general law that gives the commission authority to move into executive session. Specifically section six I of chapter 23 and provides that quote applications for operator licenses shall be public records under section 10 of chapter 66 provided however that trade secrets, competitively sensitive or other proprietary information provided in the course of the application for operator license under this chapter, the disclosure of which would place the applicant added competitive disadvantage, maybe withheld from disclosure under the public records. And quote. In some, if there is any specific information that the commission would like to discuss, but the applicant identifies as falling within that provision that I just read. The commission agrees that it's covered, it may move into executive session to discuss that specific information. And while the statutory provision of chapter 23 and relates to the public records law and not the open meeting law to require that that subject information be discussed publicly would nullify the whole purpose of the provision, which it's designed which is to provide such information from public disclosure. Accordingly application of the executive session provision I referenced is appropriate in this instance. And finally before moving into the factors themselves it's also important to recall that any finding the commission makes must be supported by substantial evidence. This term is defined as such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Making a determination as to whether there's support in the application to find that a specific factors and satisfied, or has not been satisfied. The commission will have to ensure that there's substantial evidence in the record to support that conclusion. The exception to this rule, and an area in which a heightened standard is applied relates to the review of an applicant suitability by the terms of section 215 of the commission's regulations. Any durable finding of suitability, meaning a final decision on suitability in the sports wagering context must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, not just substantial evidence which is a slightly lower standard. The first prudence tells us that clear and convincing proof exists when the evidence induces in the mind of the fact finder here the commission. A reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, but the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they're false or do not exist. It must be clear and convincing. It must be sufficient to convey a high degree of probability that the proposition to be proved is true, and it must be strong and positive and full clear and decisive. So those are the two standards of review if you will that will be in play during this evaluation before you here today. We need to move into the factors included in section 218, and they're specifically set out in 218.06 subsection five. Each factor falls under the umbrella standard that the commission included in the regulation which directs that in determining whether to award a sports wagering operator license. The commission will evaluate the application to determine whether a license of work would benefit the commonwealth. The main standard that will have to be met in order to award a license. In reaching that conclusion though the commission provided that it will consider the following factors, and you'll recall that the application itself was designed so as to elicit information in these categories. And they are. Number one that the the applicants experience and expertise related to sports wager. The economic impact and other benefits to the commission if the applicant is awarded a license. Number three the applicants proposed measures related to responsible gaming. Number four a description of the applicants willingness to foster racial ethnic and gender diversity equity and inclusion. Number five the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation. Number six is the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers and I will come back to this one momentarily and factor number seven is any other appropriate factor in the commission's discretion. So those are all the factors that will be reviewed by the commission here momentarily, but I would like to circle back to that suitability factor for just a moment. And I recall that the commission adopted section 15 of the regulations to govern suitability in the context of sports wagering operator evaluations, and it included provisions, allowing for a durable finding of suitability, meaning the so called final determination, and it also included a provision related to preliminary fighting so there are those two avenues of review that the commission has established. So before you related to women at LLC, you may choose to award a durable finding of suitability. If you conclude that the applicant and each of its qualifiers has already demonstrated their suitability by clear and convincing proof by way of meet the means conducted under chapter 23 K, and that they have maintained such suitability on an ongoing basis up to the present time. In this event, no preliminary finding need be entered and this applicant could move right into durable finding territory. In support of that principle I direct you to section 6d of chapter 23 and which says that in investigating the suitability of an applicant, the commission may use information obtained from the applicant pursuant to chapter K, chapter 128 a chapter 128c or information from other jurisdictions where the applicant is authorized. So those are the factors that the commission must consider in order to make a licensing decision. As you work your way through the evaluation though, it may become clear that a condition of licensure will be appropriate any particular area. For example, you may find that the information relative to a particular factor is lacking. In that event, it does not mean that the applicant cannot be awarded a license, and may simply mean that the area may require to be supplemented with an appropriate condition. License conditions are described in section 220 of the regulations. I recall that there are a number of automatic conditions, like an obligation to obtain an operation certificate prior to commencing operations, and that the operator comply with chapter 23 and and all commission regulations. But there's also a provision that allows the commission to impose any other conditions that it determines appropriate to secure the objectives of chapter 23 and and 205 CMR. As a practical matter, I might suggest that the commission begins discussing any additional conditions as part of the review of each individual factor. Then once the commission has made its way through the enumerated factors, but before any final decision is made as to whether to award a license, the commission should shore up what it believes those final conditions will look like. In the event the commission is inclined to award the license. Once that's done, the commission will decide whether it will award the category one license. It will determine that the applicant or it can determine that the applicant is eligible to request a temporary license. While the complete suitability assessment is being performed, or the commission can deny the application for failure to meet a requirement of the regulations, or for having violated section 60 or section nine of chapter 23 and. The commission will issue a written decision commemorating its decision at the public meeting. And we'll keep in mind that the award of the license itself does not mean that the licensee has the green light to commence operations. It simply means that they are eligible to work towards the award of an operation, which is a prerequisite to conducting sportsway during operations. That process is described in section 251 of the commission's regulations and requires an approval of such things as the internal controls the operator will use, including its house rules and compliance with any of the conditions that the commission may impose. So that is an overview of all the governing rules, regulations and principles in play here today. I'd like to just pause and address any questions and turn matters back over to you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any questions or clarifiers that you're seeking from General Counsel Grossman with respect to the framework. Okay. Then we are going to turn now to the next item on our agenda and that is the presentation of application for category one sports weighting operator license submitted by when the main LLC doing business as an encore Boston Harbor. Good morning, Tony Chrome, actually, and vice president. I think I want to make sure that I have all your roles straight but good morning Jackie how are you. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners thank you for that introduction. Would you like us to begin. I'm not sure. Do you have a presentation to a PowerPoint. We do. And my colleague Joe, who I'll introduce in a second I believe is is going to try and share. Okay, excellent. Thank you. I'm sure now can everyone see the screen. Not yet. Nope. That's okay. Let's try one more time. Here we go. There. And it's not quite the full screen yet Joe if you want to keep on. I'm seeing the display settings and then switch to presentation. Right there. Swap. Yep. We go. There we go. Okay. Good morning chair and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of uncle Boston Harbor here today. We are incredibly excited for this next iteration of gaming in the Commonwealth. Before I begin, I would like to thank all of you and the commission staff for working tirelessly to get sports betting up and running. We understand that this is not simply a matter of flipping a switch and taking bets. We've spent considerable time and energy trying to optimize the customer experience, making sure that we preserve the experience for our current guests while making room for and welcoming our new guests. And of course, making the experience one that our customers have come to expect from us. And to go further, I wanted to introduce my colleague Joe, it's our banner. Joe is our directive sponsorships and so much more. He has spent a lifetime studying sports particularly New England sports and brings a wealth of knowledge to our organization on this matter. And as you are aware, we filed our application on November 21 and a redacted version of it a week later on November 28. The purpose of this presentation is to supplement that original application so we won't be covering everything that we had in that application. The projects that we made were based on Massachusetts public records law and its regulations, specifically the protections afforded by section C, the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy section G, the protection of trade secrets and section and the security and safety of persons or buildings. If you would like to discuss any of the information that we did redact, we would respectfully request to do so in an executive session. As a publicly traded company, we are always mindful of releases of certain information to our investors. So first, who we are. Well, I'm sure you are very familiar with us. I'm going to take a few minutes to brag. Since opening, we have generated over 460 million in tax revenue for the Commonwealth. We have provided over 35 million to mitigate our impacts in our hosts and surrounding communities, and another 11 million to over to over 300 greater Boston charities. We have received numerous awards here in Boston, including the coveted Forbes five star award for our hotel and spa. And we have forged powerful partnerships in our community. And most notably in this context, we are proud. We are proud partners of the Patriots Bruins Celtics and Red Sox Joe did I get them all. Yep, Patriots Bruins Celtics and Revolution. Got it. Thank you. Little bit about our parent company. I know you're also very familiar with our parent company. When results are parent company is a publicly traded hospitality company with properties also in Las Vegas and Macau. When results has received many awards including fortune magazines 2021 world's most admire admired companies. The 2021 civic 50 by points of light recognizing when results as one of the most 50 most community minded companies in the United States. Forbes 2021 best employer for diversity recognizing when results for its diverse board and executive ranks, as well as its proactive employee diversity and inclusion initiatives. We also received the global gaming awards 2021 land based operator of the year, one of the most prestigious and trusted awards within the gaming industry, recognizing the innovation leadership and performance strength strength over the previous 12 months. What we do proud ourselves and our beautiful facilities we recognize that our employees are our most valuable asset and we do not take it for granted. Our proprietary and extensive training programs are among the reasons why we are a leader in luxury hospitality. We have added a comprehensive leadership development training program to support supervisors managers and directors covering topics such as effective communication conflict resolution emotional intelligence and time management. We have also significantly significantly expanded the scope of our diversity programs led by our new VP of diversity and inclusion. We are so proud of our employees they've contributed more than 620,000 to the one employee foundation in 2021 and donated more than 14,500 hours of volunteerism in 2021, which we fully intend to crush in 2022. We also have an extensive history of operating regulated sports betting, including online sports betting in Nevada. And when results has operated one of the Las Vegas strips most successful retail sports books since it opened in 2005. It went through a major renovation in 2017, and the win Las Vegas sports book is widely considered best in class, generating over 200 million in annual wages. Win Las Vegas is a leading event way during destination, generating 13% of total sports betting handle on the Las Vegas strip, despite only having 3% of room count and 7% of gaming positions. When Pasco was overturned in 2018 when resort set out to develop a premium premium differentiated mobile sports betting product and service offering by pairing state of the art mobile technology with world class customer service. Win Bet is the US facing operating subsidiary of when interactive limited, the majority owned and control digital gaming division of when results. When Win Bet stall is to delight the mobile sports betting customer in every facet of their experience. Win Bet's ambition is to build when bet into a major player in the online sports betting business, leveraging the strength of when results reputation and premium brand positioning alongside an innovative, innovative best in class mobile sports betting product. Win Bet is now making significant investment towards its growth goals with a significant product feature rollout in 2022 and 23. Win Bet brings a wealth of experience and expertise and regulated online sports betting. It has well established sports betting operations in Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Tennessee, Virginia and Louisiana. It also anticipates near term launches in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, Illinois and Iowa. The experience and track record of when bets online and mobile sports betting leadership team is built around the extensive background of its leading executives. Collectively, they have decades of combined digital gaming experience, building and running some of the industry's leading companies. In terms of roles and responsibilities. Our retail sports facility will be operated by us, Uncle Boston Harbor. We will be responsible for recruiting, hiring, training and managing all employees working in the sportsbook and ancillary areas. We will also be responsible for accounting and compliance and marketing. Just a word on marketing. There's been a lot of talk about the inundation of marketing as it relates to sports betting. With respect to Win Bet's marketing. We have refined they have refined I should say their marketing approach spending far below market average. We intend to remain disciplined in response to consumer feedback and in accordance with the guidelines established by the commission. So what will win bet do win bet will provide us with advisory services. We would be remiss to ignore the substantial industry experience as well as the experience that we get from the sportsbook in Las Vegas. And we will consult with them and our colleagues in Las Vegas while we build our own expertise. We will use the win bet brand for our sportsbook and bar. In addition, we will rely on win bet for trading services. As I mentioned earlier, we remain focused on the customer experience and Joe will discuss our proposed rollout to meet and exceed the expectations of our guests while providing the ultimate gaming experience. Thank you Jackie and good morning everyone and thank you for the opportunity for allowing us the platform to discuss how we are planning for the sports betting experience and on for Boston Harbor. Depending both application and necessary approvals, we believe our resort will be the premier sports betting retail destination in New England. At encore Boston Harbor, we have already invested significant time and resources to ensure the best guest experience possible, keeping in mind there will be various degrees of needs when it comes to sports better. Meanwhile, we are planning to offer 10 live betting windows and 120 win bet sports kiosk throughout eight proposed locations within the resort. In early 2021. The location would one day be passed in the Commonwealth but also with the understanding that sports, particularly Boston sports is part of the culture here in Massachusetts. Winner'sorts made a significant investment of over $20 million in the construction of the win bet sports bar area, complete with food offerings from shake shack and franken nicks and highlighted by a 10 foot high 123 foot long video wall. The win bet sports bar opened in September 2021 and has been a welcomed and well received addition to on course offered amenities. From watch parties to football Sundays and even private gatherings hosting such events as the Sean Thornton Foundation in the Massachusetts chapter of women in sports and events. Our venue has quickly demonstrated it's capable of providing a multitude of experiences for our guests. We're excited for the next chapter in hopes that the win bet sports bar can become the win bet sports book. Equipped with 10 live betting windows and 29 sports kiosk, the win bet sports book will serve as our flagship destination for sports betters and offers as close of an in stadium viewing experience without actually being in the stadium. As mentioned, we have we have given a great deal of thought as to the different segments of guests we anticipate and what their needs will be. With that in mind, we will have multiple locations on property that are intended to serve our customers various needs. The win bet kiosk room located on the main casino floor adjacent to our win rewards desk will have 32 win bet sports kiosk. This area will be ideal for new guests to our property and for those sports betters who are interested in making bets before during and in between games. Moving to the win bet express sports book pending MGC approval to serve guests who would like to quickly place a legal sports wager and watch the game elsewhere. For example, the comfort of his or her own home. He or she can do so by utilizing the win bet express sports book. Located in the B1 section of our parking garage, 21 bet kiosk will be available with convenient 15 minute parking steps away from the betting area. Dedicated security and full severe surveillance will be present in this location as it would be in every other gaming area of our resort. Next we have the on deck sports bar on deck offers classic American sports bar favorites and with dozens of TVs along with offering keynote on deck will serve as a great place to bet and watch the game. This location will have seven kiosk. The promo room located on the second floor will be equipped with 23 win bet kiosk. Although we'll have team members available at many of our sports betting locations to offer assistance to guests who may be new or have questions about sports wagering. This room will serve as the prime destination for education. The poker area located on the second floor as well will have three win bet sports kiosk to accommodate our poker players. Finally we'll have six win bet sports kiosk in our high limit area dedicated for those high limit and private gaming players. To further enhance the guest experience. We're excited to also offer sports betters a feature in which we're calling bring your own device. We're also very mindful of possible long lines at the kiosk and with the intention of giving guests the option of not feeling pressured while actively trying to place a wager. This option allows guests to visit our bet build website so they can take as much time as they need deciding on what bet they ultimately would like to make. Once they do that, they are given a QR code which they can then take to any kiosk and scan the bet immediately pops up making the experience enjoyable and without feeling pressed for time. And with that I'll send back over to Jackie for the floor area plan. Sorry needed to unmute again. In anticipation of Commissioner Hill's potential question. By the end of the day today. I thank you for the prompts Bruce band. I would like to commend the petition to amend the gaming floor to include additional locations where we would like to add kiosks. Just a quick overview of these locations I do realize that we'll have to do this at another presentation on the main casino level. You'll see the sports book highlighted in blue, where we would propose adding 13,747 square feet of gaming area. Also a slight reduction highlighted in green of approximately 162 square feet due to a proposed reconfiguration of our entrance next. On the mezzanine level, we will propose adding approximately 3200 square feet of gaming area to enable us to add kiosks outside on deck and in our black tier lounge area. And finally on the be one parking level we are proposing the addition of approximately 800 square feet to facilitate express booking express sports back about express sports betting as described by Joe. Obviously the formal submission is it would be is pending. Moving on to employment opportunities. As you know we have approximately 3400 and 80 employees and are continuing to hire. We intend to add an additional 100 employees in the following categories manager sports book sports book operations when rewards card representatives assistant shift manager cash shares cage lead cash share cash share security officer bartender apprentice bartender cocktail server bar porter and lead hostess. In addition, we are also very pleased to introduce at least by photograph, our brand new director of sports book, Mark marino. Mark has over 20 years of experience in the sports gaming industry. He has worked at various race and sports books, including Barbara coast casino, Orleans casino, Gold Coast casino, draft Kings, and most recently, Angel of the Winds casino in Washington State. Mark brings his vast expertise and knowledge of the sports wagering industry to ebh as director of the sports book and we're excited to have him on board. In terms of benefits we offer a wide range of benefits to employees including medical dental vision, flexible spending accounts behavioral health care options, employee assistance programs, life insurance and the ever popular pet insurance. In 2021 we reinstated the company's 401k match. There we go 401k match resulting in 7.3 million in matched contributions. We also awarded scholarships to 42 employees or their dependence in 2021. We offer tuition reimbursement and ebh just graduated its first ESL class and already has launched another class. As we noted earlier, we invest heavily in training, including in diversity equity and inclusion leadership compliance responsible gaming for five star and other department specific trainings. We continue to engage in our hosts and surrounding communities. Our employees have volunteered 26,000 volunteer hours include pantry assistance park cleanup package creation and animal shelter support. In the sports industry, we have engaged with the charitable endeavors of our sports teams, including the pan mass challenge, Red Sox Foundation, Boston Sports Museum, Shamrock Foundation, Boston Bruins Foundation and Patriots Foundation. With respect to diversity, equity and inclusion. We previously introduced at least some of you to Glenda sway our first VP of diversity and inclusion. Glenda has been spending about a week or quarter in Massachusetts ensuring that we are fully integrated with every corporate initiative. She works very closely with our diversity and inclusion advisory council comprised of individuals from when Las Vegas, Uncle Boston Harbor, when resorts and when bet. We are focused on ensuring diversity at every level in our company. Numbers talks so we track and study them at every level and with frequency. As you know, we have met or exceeded our goals at EVH with respect to minorities and veterans and are inching towards our goal with respect to women. I am excited about the addition of 100 new employees and have strongly encouraged our recruitment team to use this unique opportunity to try to narrow that gap. We continue to utilize the workforce development and diversity plan that we developed for opening and reached out to our important partners in the community to assist with these efforts. Our recent initiatives include the launch of our diversity talent management program, which will identify 10 high potential performers for pipeline into leadership roles with the goal of increasing our diversity representation at the director level and above. This will launch in 2023. In addition, Glenda has been very busy launching our HBC you historically black colleges or universities recruiting initiatives. We have selected Morgan State University in Baltimore, Tennessee State University in Nashville, and Delaware State University in Dover. She hosted all the deans of each of these schools at when Las Vegas, at when Las Vegas to give them insight into the type of environment their students would experience if they come to join us. We are at phase two of that project. We are very proud to announce that when Las Vegas hired for students from their hospitality and tourism programs, and the first cohort will start in February. We continue to remain focused on our supplier diversity spend, and we'll roll all vendors that we utilize in the sports wagering portion of our business into this program. We are very proud that as of the end of Q3, we have we have met or exceeded all of our goals for MBE, VBE, and WBE spends. We remain committed to responsible gaming and have reviewed the MGC is applying principles of the Massachusetts responsible gaming framework to sports wagering policy and practice. As discussed earlier, we have taken a measured approach to marketing and will continue to adhere to all of our advertising and marketing commitments that we previously made in our responsible gaming plan. We have also demonstrated our commitment to preventing underage and voluntary self excluded persons from accessing the gaming floor. In recognition again of the importance of our employees, they are our first line of defense. We have continued to train each of our employees on an annual basis to assist with identifying signs of problem gaming. We also work closely with Game Sense and appreciate their continued support. Like our competitors, we sponsor responsible gaming research and attend conferences. Finally, we are extremely proud that we have successfully launched Play My Way this year. Just a quick update on suitability. We wanted to let you know that following your interim approval of the retransaction, we were able to complete the sale of the EBH real property assets to realty income on December 1 so that transaction has now closed. Finally, we understand the responsibility of being one of the few operators to have the privilege of offering legalized sports wagering in the Commonwealth. We understand the gravity of this historic moment, particularly for our very, very passionate Commonwealth sports fans, and we're committed to providing our guests with the best possible experience. In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to present to you today and are available to answer any of your questions. Thank you. Thank you Jackie and Joe. And congratulations to the sports wagering director. I think that is just before 11. Commissions would you like to again hold your questions for the applicant until we go through our process, particularly if I'm assuming Jackie Joe and your team are available to us. We are available to you as long as you need us. Excellent. Thank you. So commissioners I think it makes sense to take a short break. It's 10 of 11 should be. Should we reconvene at 11. Does that make sense. Thank you and thank you for the presentation. Thank you. Well set day. Thank you for your patience. Okay. This is a reconvening a public meeting for eight of the Massachusetts gaming commission and because we are holding this meeting virtually we're going to go through our roll call. Good morning commissioner Brian. Good morning. I am here. Great. Thank you. Good morning commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Right. And commissioner scanner. Good morning again. I'm here. Thank you and commissioner Maynard. Morning idea. Thank you. So we just had. There's regular business that goes on as we conduct these meeting so in my apologies for being a couple minutes late had to address some things. All right. So we are now turning to the next item on our agenda and we have presentations and analysis from. First, GLI, then as I mentioned earlier on Heather Hall for who will be coming on for suitability and then RSN on the financial piece of the application. So I just want to reintroduce GLI. So for those who are newcomers to today's public meeting. GLI was the first to write and set gaining technical standards which are now considered to be the industry benchmark worldwide. GLI has continuously responded to the industry by innovating new standards and testing, allowing regulators to feel confident that they are providing a safe responsible method of revenue generation for their stakeholders and preserving the integrity of the sports wagering systems. I see you are here today. Kevin Mulally is nice to see you senior vice president of government relations and general counsel he has 40 years of diversified leadership in law. Regulatory policy outcome measurement economic analysis and organizational administration. And as GLI's primary liaison to elected and appointed officials he regularly interacts with regulatory agencies like ours. He organizations devoted to developing gaming policy and senior level executives of gaming equipment, manufacturing companies casino operators lotteries by gaming operators. He is also a senior neutral wagering facility sports betting operators and all related vendors. Then we have Joe. Thank you again director of client solutions. We appreciate your guidance throughout this week Joe over he has over 16 years of experience in the gaming industry with extensive experience in developing fantasy sports online game platforms. He also has over 16 years of product management and operations management experience, and has been recognized. Excuse me. We're demonstrating a natural aptitude for overseeing all stages of the product development lifecycle. Appreciate your, your guidance today. Thank you, Kevin. I'm actually joining you from the National Conference of legislators from gaming states meetings where they've got about 240 policymakers from around the country. Joe has watched the replays of the meetings while I was traveling and he's been doing an outstanding job and I don't think I have anything to add and I'll turn it over to the, to the engineer to talk about the technical oversight that we will provide as you move towards launch. Happy to be here as good 25 years ago my first job was at one Broadway Cambridge Kendall Square about 10 miles from where this on core Boston is little did I know I'd be sitting here. Full circling. So, thanks for having us Madam chair and members of the Commission. My name is Joseph Bonaventura classes GLI. I'll give an overview of the submittal service certification and field verification process regarding implementation of retail or referred to as over the counter and chaos sports wagering. Before Tesla can take any submittals the mass gaming commission will have to prove to a five CMR 1381238247 and 248, which are on schedule for next week. After approval, the operators will prepare to submit their code bases for the entire sports waiting system the intended deploy. The submittal process includes an architecture review which is a complete comprehensive and technically accurate description and explanation of the sports wagering systems. A description of all hardware devices in virtual servers, a description of all server and client software modules including the software versions. The layout of all network communications between various software and hardware modules, modules, and an explanation of all third party integrated systems. Post that review of technical documentation, the critical files regarding compliance will identified and documented. The lab will run a supervised compilation of those source files, the signature of those files and compilation steps and the signatures of all compiled code. Once complete, the source code can be submitted for testing in a lockdown environment. The lab will verify events, markets, point spreads, bed acceptance and the corresponding time sense and all logging of of said elements. Verification and enforcement of all betting limits and educations will happen at this time verification of pre event and live data feeds post event better bet settling corresponding time sense and all logging reporting of all those elements. And we will, they will review change management process and procedures that will lead us into the certification process. The test lab will verify the changes made for the Massachusetts specific deployments. This includes the source code differential and change testing. Sorry, and change review of the last version, the lab will evaluate the product to all the Massachusetts specific requirements and then transferring kiosk machine hardware devices and firmware. Then the certifications will be issued and mass gaming commission will be able to approve them. Post issue of the certifications a field verification will be conducted in conjunction with the MVC. That procedure will be finalized in the upcoming weeks. During that time the following will commence a verification that the machines in the floor match the certification report by model number. The same will commence for devices bill validators and printers and verification of signatures for all the installed firmware on the kiosk and bill validators. Plus the verification of the production server and all critical file signatures. At that point, we'll run test data through a sampling of kiosk and retail point of sale locations, likely a two day to three day process to place wagers, let them result settle overnight and reconcile all data and reports. And we will also review internal controls and procedures to operate the sportsbook check tech technology for configuration such as a proper setup of roles in user rights management. And potentially interview key personnel to ensure they know and will follow procedures from the eternal controls. That's the tire procedure for the technical certification process. So for that, we'll move them to the report on the suitability of the applicant Heather Hall Chief Enforcement Council. Good morning. Heather. Councilor Hall. There we. Good morning. That's one of those moments where you're hitting the button and it's not connecting so. We'll see you now. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the patience and apologies. Great. Go back to my notes about the judgment free zone. Yes, so thank you. Good morning, everyone. It's nice to see everybody again. I know you've heard a similar presentation, but I think for the record is important that I say, essentially what I've said the last couple days, and with respect to the suitability of this particular applicant. And as you've heard, in evaluating the suitability of EVH for a Category 1 sports wagering license under Chapter 23N, the commission may leverage the information obtained in the suitability investigations performed pursuant to the casino gaming law under Chapter 23K. The criteria for suitability in the gaming law substantially aligns with the criteria for suitability in the sports wagering law. And as stated in the IEB's executive summary, in 2013, the commission found EVH and each of its then qualifiers in connection with its initial application for a casino gaming license suitable. And that included the individual and entity qualifiers referenced in the IEB's executive summary provided to the commission. And those suitability findings were issued after full investigations by the IEB. And then as new qualifiers who are listed in the executive summary joined the company, they were also required to submit to full backgrounds and were subsequently found suitable. And as stated in the IEB's executive summary, EVH's license to operate a Category 1 gaming license under Chapter 23 remains active and in good standing. And as we also noted, they have the continuing duty to maintain suitability, as well as the continuing duty to update the commission in the event of various occurrences set out in the regulations and as required by the commission. And with that, I would just also like to note, I know Attorney Crumb mentioned this that since we last met on the realty transaction that has since closed. And that's essentially all I have with respect to my presentation and happy to answer any questions. And if I have to hop off because I may have some HD meetings today, I will certainly be available and log back in. Thank you for staying on call. Commissioner Skinner, are you asking a meeting in for a question now? Well, I am I think it makes sense to ask this question now as opposed to holding it for later, especially given given Heather's schedule. According to the application, Heather, Wininteractive and WinBet have a CEO in common with WinResorts. And an interactive and WinBet are not entity qualifiers to encore, but WinResorts is. And in Craig Billings capacity as CEO for WinResorts, is he required to report on items relative to WinInteractive and WinBet as part of ongoing suitability for encore and WinResorts? Thank you, Commissioner Skinner, for that question. Once an applicant is awarded a license, if that is what the commission decides to do, then yes, they would be required to continue the ongoing notifications to the IEB in terms of continuing suitability. I hope that answers it. And then Mr. Billings, it's already a qualifier for EVH. He's already gone through the suitability process. I should say the investigation process with the IEB and was found suitable by this commission. Okay, so I want to make sure I understand your question. So in that capacity as qualifier for WinResorts and encore, Mr. Billings is required to report on any items of concern relative to WinInteractive and WinBet. And it may not be Mr. Billings, but it would certainly be our normal contacts. It might be WinResorts or Craig Billings through WinResorts. Right, and with respect to suitability of the applicant, which as we know, in this particular case, there's the applicant for the category three, which is WinSports Interactive or doing business as WinBet. And so if that entity is awarded a license, then yes, they would have the same continuing duty that EVH currently has. Okay, I'm not sure I'm articulating the question. Heather. Could I give it a shot? Commissioner. Yes, please, commissioner. I think they know what you're asking. I think, Heather, what she's asking is in the context of the snapshot and the question of suitability on the CAT-1. And I think the answer to this is not at present, but correct me if I'm wrong, that the WinInteractive, WinBet, WSI are not sort of, they have not actively been named as a qualified entity, business entity, nor have they gone through suitability findings. That would be correct. Yes, absolutely. They are new applicants. Go ahead. Sorry. Right. I'm sorry. I cut you off. Let me just get clarification with respect to today's category one application review, Councillor Hall. WinBet status from IEP's perspective is as a vendor. Is that correct? With respect to today, they would be a vendor, but they are going to be named as a category three applicant. Right. And we'll be hearing category three. And I think that goes to what General Counsel Grossman was stating at the beginning. So they would be a vendor. And even though this vendor is actually very much integrated into the corporate governance structure, and I will ask this question or we can ask this question. I just, I'm not sure it's my question to ask, but we could get clarification from Ms. Krum later. But is it your understanding, Councillor Hall, that for the services that they expect to receive for WinBet under the category one, they happen to choose WinBet. And that's a business decision they chose to use WinBet. But they could actually have used XY Corporation and that would provide those same kind of trade services that we talked about yesterday and that we have in front of us through a different company all together. And but you and IEB would be then evaluating that XY Corporation in its capacity as a vendor for the services that the CAT-1 applicant is using to stand up retail and trade during Massachusetts. Yes, Chair, that's an excellent summary. I appreciate that. And I agree that Todd also, you know, I think had some good preliminary remarks with respect to this issue as well. And I think you've captured it is that they happen to have chosen WinBet. WinBet is providing services to or going to provide services. And WinBet also happens to be the category three applicant for a category three applicant, I should specify, with respect to the category three license. So yeah, our application for sportsway drain license. And so I, yes, I think you've just summarized it very well. And then just to thank you for that because I know it's for me, a process of understanding, but it is for me too. And I appreciate that. But then let's just say the CAT-1 license would be awarded with this role of WinBet anticipated. And let's say the business decision were to be made by the CAT-1 applicant in this case on Corbuston Harbor to actually not continue with WinBets. You know, it's the same in two years. And they would have some kind of whatever arrangements they wanted to make with WinBets would be theirs. They would be able to choose a new vendor. But that would come before us commission through IEB ultimately as a vendor qualification for their new, their new choice. Is that how it would work? Yeah, I think the only adjustment to that statement that I would have is that in our practice, the vendors have not come all the way up to the commission. This commission here for confirmation of suitability, but instead the IEB has conducted those investigations and then, you know, found them suitable or not. And that happens at the IEB level. But that, I think you've captured it. I think that is essentially accurate. And we would, you know, we would go through the process with respect to determining qualifiers of the vendors. And those investigations would proceed as they have very similar to under the 23K landscape. Excellent. And that's all in accordance with the regulations underway. Todd, Councillor Grossman. Yes, the only caveat is, is that if an entity is actually awarded a category three license, they may not need a vendor license too. They would have already satisfied a higher threshold. So that's in their role as category three. I was really focusing on category one license, really their ability to choose who is providing the services. That in this case, when is providing, when I'm sorry, when that is providing to Uncle or Boston Harbor. But that would be the category three processes separate and apart from that discussion. Right. And I think that's a, I think that's a good way to look at it. And if it was vendor service provider for sports books, you know, that would be taking the cat three totally out of it. I think you've definitely captured it. And Todd also makes a, I think a good point in that if they're already qualified and found suitable in the context of the cat three, then it would also be, it would be redundant to find them, you know, to go and do an investigation as to their vendor status because they've already gone through it with respect to the cat three application. Very, very helpful for me. Commissioner Skinner, is that helpful for you? It is helpful. It's helpful. I just, I was wondering, you know, because when resorts is a qualifier to encore. And also majority owner of when interactive, I was interested in understanding, you know, what, what the obligations are. And with what, what obligation when resorts has to report on that entity in particular when interactive, who, you know, of, of which in bet is a subsidiary. I think that connection in terms of the IEB, the information available to the IEB with respect to the suitability of those two entities, understanding that they're not qualifiers to this applicant right now. Right. I think that I think we, I'm getting, I'm hoping I'm getting the sense that we all are kind of understanding this more clearly today and I, I think everybody is on the same page and if I'm wrong, I'm certainly happy to, you know, discuss it further. It's really an opportunity to maybe be able to articulate it today. I know that I think that I guess I want to give the impression that all of us didn't understand it yesterday, or the day before. But perhaps we're getting a chance to articulate it a bit and then we're having some follow up questions just as we imagine. Well, just for a point of clarification to I think the application today does not rely in the same manner on the the cat three vendor, what qualifying entity slash vendor as it did yesterday so I think it's a different context today. As I reread today's application, I'm sure all of us said it remind reminded us much more of the structure, and, but we don't need to belabor yesterday, right, but I do understand Commissioner Brian White, the experience was probably very helpful. But I want to make sure Commissioner Skinner have Heather still on so if there's anything and she's going to be available. We don't want to disrupt her schedule too much. Is there if you have another question that would be helpful for all of us. I don't have another question I just I want to just say that I agree with Commissioner O'Brien and you chair that you know we are dealing with a different application. But you know that my question is still relevant and it will become even more relevant as we get to sections F and G that talk about financial stability and integrity and compliance. Those questions are answered with respect to the applicant, but because when that and when interactive our new entities here, even though they're in the vendor capacity. I still would want to get comfortable with an understanding of what their compliance, you know what what the answers to those questions are relative to when interactive and when that. So just to maybe help help me with my concern. I'm afraid then that if we are in and I'm afraid that if we're concerned about that issue and I may not be understanding entirely so forgive me, then we may not be recognizing that again, strictly hypothetical business decision on the part of when resort slash ebh, you know, because it could come from ebh come from when resorts that they decided, let's say, next week, after all of our process, perhaps, you know, giving the license under cat one and then approving a win bets three that they could still be completely free of win bets as a vendor as the supplier of the services so if we go to deep into the suitability analysis and the controlling analysis, then we then we might be being a little bit, we might be getting a little bit more analysis, sort of mixed up and and and perhaps you want to make sure to to be clear with the applicant what we're expecting of them. You know that's my, my concern. Does that make sense, Commissioner Skinner like if all of a sudden today we're asking them questions about that, that it might be something that they're really not obligated to answer today, I don't know. Yeah, no, I understand what you're saying but it's not really all of a sudden, I have the same inquiry. I made the same inquiry of MGM and PPC, so it's not all of a sudden. And I, and I guess I'm, I'm, I'm now reflecting upon those inquiries to wonder if it's, you know, going to somehow push off a decision that's in front of us today in a way that's not reflected in the law or our regulations and that's what I'm, I'm really trying to get some guidance off. I mean, General Counsel Grossman in other words, that Michelle Skinner is quite right she's asked the same question for each entity because each entity happened to be using for their vendor, someone who is within their business model, you know an affiliate to their corporate governance in fact controlling entities so how do we address that issue with and be able to move on our decisions is what I'm concerned about. I feel we should be able to move on our decisions without answering that but I also don't want to be dismissive of Commissioner Skinner's question because I also may be misunderstanding right. I appreciate that and Todd before you respond, if I could just, you know, clarify, you know, I'm fully anticipating that we will be able to move forward, you know, with a with a determination on this application today at least I hope that we will. You know, so, you know, I don't know what what those discussions will look like right now I mean we haven't even gone through the application yet so I think we can should kind of back up and do that first. But, you know, I envision, perhaps, you know, a discussion of certain conditions, as we, you know, start to deliberate on the application and that's where I turn to talk to help us understand what our options are there. Okay, thank you for that because I want to make sure your concerns are fully addressed. I appreciate that and thank you for allowing me to just follow up a little bit so we understand what our process is going to look like going forward. Yeah, we all set then on the suitability for right now, Commissioner Skinner. Yes. Excellent thank you then we'll move right on to the presentation and analysis of my RSM. And again, I will, I will reiterate it's kind of fun to have your, your program described each day but it's important again because we may have different stakeholders in the room but RSM is helping us in our evaluation on the, particularly on the, the financial of this application. RSM US LP is one of the leading providers of audit tax and consulting services in the United States RSM, as I said has been working with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission required insights and analyses to help commission. To introduce the, the individuals will be presenting, they will then go through their own qualifications and backgrounds, but I, and I'll turn to the components that we've asked them to address. We have Greg Navella who's a partner RSM Teresa Merlino, Jeff Katz and Connor Laughlin, and, and I'm looking to see if we have others right now but we'll go with that. But precisely the RS team has been asked to join the meeting and make a presentation related to certain aspects of the applications. Please note that the RSM is not presenting on all aspects of the application. We've asked them to provide insights based on their experience and research into the following sections. B2 subsection D which is on the sports wagering experience. That's the description of the sports wagering operation. RSM has been asked to focus on applicants, estimated market share with each jurisdiction. We've asked them to look at C2, the sections C2 projected revenue. RSM has been asked to provide insights into all aspects of the applicants projected revenue. We also have section C3 subsection AC construction, gaming establishments. RSM has been asked to focus on the construction timeline and reasonableness of the proposed gaming area. G3 financial stability and integrity. RSM has been asked to provide insights into all aspects of the applicants financial stability and integrity, and then they will provide any other insights that they feel are appropriate within their, their arrangements with us and would be helpful for our evaluation of this application. With that Greg, thank you very much. Good morning. Thank you to Commissioner Judd Stein. Pleasure to be here. RSM appreciates the opportunity to present to the commission. We certainly understand the importance of the licensing process and importance of these meetings. And we've accumulated our team here today to discuss the topics that you had mentioned. I'll briefly introduce myself. I'm a partner here in Boston and responsible for financial consulting practices, 25 years of audit regulatory compliance and financial and reputational due diligence services. I'm joined by a well rounded team. Teresa Merlino and Conor Laughlin, I think we'll be doing most of the presentation not trip. Jeff Katz was able to make the call. I'll let both of them do quick introductions. If they will, Teresa you first. Yeah, my name is Teresa Merlino and I'm a principal in our gaming and hospitality practice based out of Las Vegas, Nevada and happy to be here today. Conor Laughlin, director of the strategic finance and financial planning and analysis practice. Prior to joining the strategic finance practice I was with BDO and their business restructuring services and in term financial management practice. Pleasure to be here. Perfect. I don't think Jeff's on today so just I guess a note before we begin this presentation is based on documentation that we received as of December 2. The discussion prepared by the team here is based on our preliminary research to date and the subject to change if new information becomes available. Questions posed to our team may require further research. So if we're unable to respond to any questions before the meeting, before the end of this meeting will certainly circulate a response to the commission as soon as practical. Like turn over Teresa where she can discuss the market share analysis as well as some of the projected revenues. Great. So I'll start with the market share retail as noted in section B2D, which I'll also note is closely linked in the application to section C2A. And in this analysis on core Boston Harbor provided assumptions of the total market and particularly broke down the differences between anticipated mobile market and retail market, which I think was quite helpful from an analytics perspective to understand the retail market and its components specifically as part of this category one application. They estimated down court estimated the retail market in application C2A with very conservative amount, as noted in the application, but it does seem reasonable for other markets and for the commission's reference other jurisdictions and other jurisdictions the retail of the total wagering market typically falls between five and 15% of the market. So this is quite a conservative estimate, as noted in the application and it could be the volume could be could be quite a bit more. It could creep up to 10 or 15% based upon, you know, the preferences of the players and their preferences to visit the property versus wager online. So this in C2A that the encore estimated a significant capture rate for the Metro Boston retail market for the for the retail market in particular, which seems very reasonable, based upon the encore is advantageous location for this market. So if they if people in the Metro market do you want to play it is it is highly likely they will visit the encore and and so their estimates appeared reasonable to us based upon that assumption. The encore also anticipated a retail premium for the first year. And what that what that seems to indicate in the application is that due to the mobile, the mobile wagering being slightly delayed versus the retail. So this is an estimate that there's going to be an interest for retail market that will be higher in the first year, and we'll taper off in subsequent years as people become more comfortable with with gambling online. And this is consistent with what we've seen in other markets. So you'll note that their estimate of the total market share does appear to align in general with their current market share of the of the gambling market overall in the state of Massachusetts. So Connor I'll turn it to you for additional info on the revenues. Sure. Thanks, Teresa. Yes, as part of our since engagement and assisting the MTC, this financial suitability review, our same analyze the current capital structure of on Corp Boston Harbour's parent company, wind resorts limited on Corp Boston Harbour is financially supported by their parent company through its access to and current sources of capital and liquidity. According to public available information, as of September 30 when resorts has approximately 12.2 billion in total debt commitments, comprised primarily of 9.2 billion in senior bonds and notes. The balance of the parent company's total debt includes one and a half billion in total term loans, one and a half billion outstanding in the company's revolving credit facilities and approximately 100 million in total lease liabilities. As of September 30, the parent company's total debt balance 12.2 billion represents a decrease of approximately one billion since the fiscal year in 2020. According to public SEC filings, when resorts has mitigated the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic had on their operating income and cash flow by currently suspending its dividend program for the foreseeable future. Given the company's liquidity position as of September 30, the company believes it will be able to support continuing operations and respond to the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and any other related economic disruptions. In conclusion, it is apparent to RSM that Encore Boston Harbor's parent company, when resorts has historically and currently maintains a suitable level of capital and liquidity to support its sportsbook operations at the Encore Boston Harbor casino and other ongoing operations. When resorts has maintained an average total liquidity, total available liquidity position of approximately 2.9 billion from 2018 through September of this year. As of September of this year, when resorts has approximately 2.8 billion in total available liquidity comprised of 1.9 billion in cash on hand and approximately 835 million in availability under its current revolving credit facilities. With that, I'll pass back to Teresa. Other other sections that we'd like to hit on now include section to be which is non gaming revenue. In that section you'll note that the there were some projections that were included in the application however it is unclear if this non gaming revenue noted is incremental non gaming revenue. To the current non gaming venue operations or if it is kind of consistent revenue with the current footprint of the sportsbook. So the commission may may find it helpful to understand incremental impact to non gaming revenue. Section to G speaks to competition for nearby jurisdictions and in this in this section the Encore application noted the quality of the venue strategic placement of the kiosks and the high degree of access to wagering kiosks as well as the media to specifically market to Massachusetts patron are some would like to note that these plans are all specifically address the retail market applicable to the category license which all seem to be consistent with promoting access and experience for retail customers. From an operational perspective, easy, and this is just from an industry and operational perspective, easy access to wager kiosks and cashier windows along are very advantageous for the wagering experience. Typically what you'll see with big games or high volume weekends of a lot of sporting activities that there will be significant lines because people take a long time at the kiosk you know trying to figure out like how to how much to wager and what games to wager on and if they have any kind of specialty that's during that process, along with just trying to navigate the kiosk so these long, these lines can be significant, and it does appear that that on core has taken these into consideration, especially given the anticipated demand of the retail market, and through their anticipation of this they've placed kiosks throughout the gaming floor, and appear to have kind of thoughtfully considered where there's a high likelihood of interest and demand for sportsbook. And I noted that they have, as they noted in their presentation, express sports betting wagering with corresponding a limited parking area, which would allow for easy access to the wagering activities, while not necessarily having to go to the full property. And some observations as it relates to the specifics that the application provided on wagering options within the gaming floor. We have seen some difficulties with other other systems and other jurisdictions related to the loyalty program so continuing for the commission to continue to consider and understand. The wind bet loyalty program will remain separate from the on course loyalty program or whether those will be combined. The final piece is related to construction, and we did observe in the application managed shared in the on core presentation the retail sports book location has already been built, which is currently the wind bet sports bar, which we understand will be repurposed as the wind bet sports book. It is unclear per RSMs review the application, and also our review of the casino site map on their website, as to whether this venue is currently classified as a gaming area that the actual bar, and, or if this area will need an additional GC approval for additional gaming space. Based on our understanding of the presentation earlier today which which wasn't super clear but it appears that possibly an expansion of the gaming areas being sought. We did note that there is a request for additional 900 square foot of gaming area in the basement for the express sports book. So that would be a separate space in the basement. So if the construction was to be completed this month and we were unable to determine if this timeline is achievable based upon the information our assumption is if, if they estimated this month that they had a pretty high degree of confidence that that could be achieved. The anticipated decrease in retail wagering after one year, as, as noted earlier, the Commission may wish to understand on course projected demand for this express sports book. Once mobile sports wagering comes online, and whether the on core intense to dismantle or redeploy these assets somewhere else in the casino, or change the mix of the footprint of gaming. We did compare the proposed square footage to other sports book markets, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan. The square footage for the wind bet sports book is generally larger than most venues in these selected markets. But it is comparable to some of the larger venues in these the selected markets that we utilized. Given the location and the overall gaming volume of the Boston Metro area the square footage footage does appear reasonable and consistent with industry and industry demand. In other applicant hearings, during our representative square foot analogy at footage analysis, we did observe little correlation between square footage and revenue collected through retail, meaning that larger venues did not always correlate to larger revenue. But retail revenue will will be heavily driven on player demand and accessibility of the the sufficient wagering stations to meet that demand, which, which the on court did seem to contemplate as they proposed their, their, their plants. And we do, we do know based upon other research that we performed that there are other gaming space that the on court is contemplating as part of sports book but it was unclear to whether or not that is intended to be included in this application discussion or not. And with that that that concludes RSMs overview for today. Today commissioners. Unless we want to ask questions of ours. And now we'll start our next item on the agenda. Should we proceed commissioners. We at least commissioner hill nodding. I'll set. All right, then the next item on and thank you to RSM and GLI and, and Councilor Hall again, and thank you for standing by. So we're going to turn now to our review of the application for the category one sports wagering operating license submitted by EVH. And as I mentioned earlier, we'll walk through the sections. We certainly now have your ability to ask any questions of the applicant or of the team members that the conclusion of the review of each of our session. I'll ask for comments and we'll see if we have a consensus on what we feel is the quality of the applicants response to each section. If we need to pause. We'll take that opportunity to pause to reflect, but why don't we get started with questions on section B of this application missions. Mr. Brian. Yeah, thank you. Jackie, the, I was looking at the, the temporary kiosks in the garage that plan that you guys had in B to a one it says 23. But in the discussion and the PowerPoint today, and in C three a you say 20. So I'm just kind of get is it 20 or 23 for the anticipated kiosks in that temporary area, or express area I should say. I can answer, I can answer that and say, right now it's 23. Okay, we're at that number. We, there's a ton of, we have 120 kiosk in total. So there could be one or two that get moved from space to space but right now it is 23 for the express sports book. And then it was, were they correct just now and saying that the nine have a square feet in the basement was for the 23 express in the garage. The request to expand the gaming floor. That's correct. So the, it's not really the basement is the first level of the garage. Yes. And from a timing perspective we did go ahead and construct that. And it's approved it's approved if it's not, we will have a lovely looking lobby. So yeah I mean I, you probably saw my eyebrows go up when you guys said that in the in the preliminary discussion it's, it's, while I understand the desire for it. I still raise an eyebrow at putting it in that venue, not only just for sort of the, you know, best in class casino experience but also security issues, etc. I do I do want to talk about that this may or may not be the venue also that maybe have to be something that's discussed in another setting in terms of security but was this a temporary, because when you first brought it up. It was sort of going to be a temporary to make sure there was a, you know, steam valve release, if people were flooding and wanting to do that but this presentation makes it sound like you guys want it to be a long term thing so I'm looking for clarity on that. We are looking for it to be a long term feature. I think it's something that's important to people. There are people who are always going to want to use a kiosk who may not ever want to use the mobile. So it's because of our parking situation right now and our limitation on parking. This does provide another option to people. If you'd like to come look at it, it's actually done very nicely. It's, it is wind standard. It looks very much like other portions of the casino floor. It's completely enclosed from a security perspective, we will of course have someone stationed there 24 hours a day to check IDs and making sure that we follow the same procedures that we do on the casino floor. I'm also worried about sort of cash transfers and that sort of thing which is not a, this isn't a venue for that but I have concerns about that. I have a question on something else. Excuse me commissioner, I thought maybe Miss Chrome wanted to at least this appropriate respond to that security concerns. Were you going to or no. I'm happy to provide information on those security concerns, I'd prefer not to do it in a public setting of obvious reasons, but yeah, and I don't want it in this venue but it is something that I would look to. So we have thought through it, we've had a lot of discussion about various potential security issues and how we might address those. I see director band just came on. And I'm assuming that you have been working with with Bruce Jackie, through some to the extent without getting into any details, if you want to give any kind of level of comfort around those issues. You're on mute. I wonder. Yeah, I can't hear you, Bruce, I don't know what's going on. Why don't you just check your key, your key, the laptop itself to see if you disengaged something. I don't know if anyone's nearby to help them out. Darryl, can you jump on on that. I can't hear him either. I mean, that's, that's interesting. Can we just pause for one second. I saw, is there any guidance from the team that we can give Bruce to get first? If you want to check if your computer is on mute, I'm sorry I have like no voice today. Go ahead, it was me chatting. I'm going to turn up the sound itself because if it's all the way down, it would be through. I have another question on that. Thank you. Thank you. I've looked with as long with state police at what their plan is and we were satisfied with what they proposed. Is that your full answer, Bruce, because we really heard nothing. So just start again, you've been working with with the state police and with on core, and we were satisfied with what they proposed with the security for that area. So I know that in, in other scenarios, I think PPC in particular, we went into executive session so we could get more detail on this topic. Yes. More detail. Yeah, I would, I would propose to maybe get a little more information on the second session. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that we, you know, in fact, our team has been working alongside there. That's excellent. Okay. And did you want to have another follow up commission on Brian, I think you know I'd be that was it on B. Other questions for section B. I see commissioner Maynard. Are you leaning in just to follow up commissioner Skinner. I'm not sure who went first. Commissioner Maynard, I think you have a follow up to this. Commissioner Brian's question. So go ahead. Oh, thank you. So to follow up. What's the parking space look like around this newly constructed space is it going to be temporary parking to kind of walk me through that is the idea that I'm going to do like a 15 minute parking, go to the kiosk and back to the car. And then furthermore, you know, I think Michelle Brian and the whole commission has expressed some concern around children in particular being left in cars. So would you deal with that matter as much as you can talk about it in the form. So we will have security and parking attendance in the area. We will be regularly monitoring the cars that come. There will be a setup and it's permanent parking spaces essentially, but it'll be designed so somebody can pull in, and the car will be allowed to be parked there for 15 minutes. So we're anticipating a signage, a lighting system so once you pull in the light will go whatever color it goes you're in the parking spaces, let's say orange and then after 15 minutes will go red. We are going to enforce that 15 minute limit so that we, we do make sure that people aren't parking there for the entire day and utilizing those spots. So it will be heavily staffed particularly at first so that our customers know exactly what to expect from that, and you will have to exit your car, walk into the space have your ID checked place your wager and then obviously come back to your car. And because we anticipate having transportation personnel as well as security personnel in that area. We don't anticipate that it should be an issue for people to leave children or elderly persons in their cars. Thank you. Other questions indeed. I think this is. Yes. So, I'm understanding the, the idea of, I believe this is in the, forgive me, bring your own device. Yes, it is. If you mind the commission, one of your intent to provide RG I know we're going to get into RG later but because the wrong device is really what I'm asking about. You're going to I'm presuming and correct me or clarify if I'm wrong. I'm thinking about RG materials for the chaos experience in the window experience, but this bring your own device is going to be the QR code, it's going to pop up and in essence, they really would be able to just swipe right then at the kiosk and then the bed is registered with the intentionality around RG and any issues around KYC using the QR code which is seamless and the reason will also be beneficial to cultivation of your, of your database. Using the QR code will give us more insight frankly into who the, who the sports wager is. So I think that's actually advantageous for us in some respects. In terms of responsible gaming, we will have messaging throughout, including on the app that that anyone uses to build their, you'll bring your own device on that app as well. And then at the kiosk of course. So when they build that your own device you're actually going to get some KYC data that you wouldn't get at the kiosk that's what I'm understanding. Well my understanding is they'll have to register for the app. So we will have information on on who they are based on that. Thank you. Other questions for the chair's question about the bring your own device. What we learned I think, during our sports wagering training provided by GLI is that the bed odds are rapidly changing and so they could change between the time, you know you make your bet selection. And you, you press the button to submit. And so will this, this software this app will will will will will on corner have to make allowances for that kind of shifting in the, in the odds. So between the time the patron enters all their information in their, in their app on their device and the time they go, you know, what physically walk to the kiosk. You know, let's say they're having dinner or something and they physically walk to the, to the kiosk to scan the code, and the odds are changing. How would you, how do you respond to that. I can take this one and that's a really good question commissioner Skinner. You go on your phone and then walk to the kiosk and it takes you five minutes to get to that kiosk and you scan the QR code. If the odds have changed, you will be alerted that those odds have changed and you'll be shown that new spread. On the screen before your wagers accepted before you put cash into the kiosk. Okay, it's all done in real time. Okay, it's the same as if you were doing it, you know, in a, in a mobile environment. Exactly. Okay. Exactly. Okay. And then I had a question about the advisory services. You indicated in the application and the application that you would be receiving those from win bet. But B1C references WSI US LLC. My understanding and I will double check this for you but that that is the actual entity that owns win bet. Okay. Okay, thank you. And can you tell us what the advisory services will entail. Sure. So, I think the primary one is trading. And just, just to go back a second, I think it's very important that when that does actually handle our trading, having the consistency in the traders and odds across all the states where sports betting is legally available protects the integrity of the system. So, for example, if we had different trading and odds in different locations where win bet was operating, you risk better is taking advantage of that differential. Also, they have extensive experience in the sports betting industry in the space and a lot of expertise. So we can manage the trading risk management integrity monitoring and this, this will mean that win bet will establish the types of sporting events and wagers that we can offer to sports betters, obviously as permitted within the Commonwealth. And I believe that is that's the extent of their advisory services. Okay. You know, I've said this before because I consider the trading services, you know, a form of control over the operation. I think that's where at least the questions contained in sections F and G are going to become important and in, and I think they are very important whether win bet is a vendor or an entity qualifier just given the fact that they're not currently licensed as a vendor in Massachusetts right now and just the nature of the services that they're providing to the retail operations I think requires at least, you know, a cursory review of that information. Commissioner skin and could we just follow up with that because I'm hearing you suggest that the trading services are more of control. And I think that's an important question and I'd like to see if you could maybe help clarify exactly what the nature of trading services is with respect to corporate governance. Sure. And the way we look at it is trading trading is setting the price, a price setting it's not operating. The window when that trading team will create the odds on particular bed types and sports. They'll set the prices for placement of bets for example whether a bet should be at minus 110 or minus 150 that will fall to their expertise. It's not, we don't see it as is operational though. And additionally they'll also set manage weighting limits on offerings and monitor and evaluate the data from suppliers as the sportsmen are occurring to determine whether the odds and prices should change but we see that as a service, rather than as control over operations. And in terms of corporate governance. Would win bets ever be able to control that relationship or how does that work. Of course it's, you know that the idea of controlling. It's as you distinguish from operational. Is there that any point in time would win bets as the trade services provider be able to control governance decision making through when resorts on court Boston Harbor. Obviously not so we both we both report up obviously to when results limited, but we have separate compliance structures within each of the organizations, obviously under the rubric of the corporate compliance structure. So will there be oversight from from on for will there be oversight in those determinations made by when that in terms of the trading services. There's always going to be our, if we feel like there's something wrong if the odds are not set properly if we see a disparity. Of course we will be, we will be watching that as well. That's going to be part of Joe's job. Okay, so then we would move on looking at section C now. If everybody's all set, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard, Joe, Brian, you're all set to move on. So just clarifying what we've been doing process wise over the last two days. We wanted to know if it met expectations but knowing that there's a reminder. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. That's, that's where I really, we are a body of. I've been I appreciate that prompt. However, there is a question from that we all have actually to do with public safety that we want to hear an executive session. I would say we met expectations with the exception of that question being answered so I don't know if we want to meet that expectation right now, or wait till after our executive session. I think we all want to hear what they have to say about public safety in the park and things of that sort. Otherwise, it met expectations, except for we just want to hear the answer to that question. I'm trying to remember what we did in the past two days, when we had a question for executive session. Well, we didn't have an executive session yesterday and we did not reconvene after the executive session. With respect to the last of the first day. So this is an if it's an executive session matter that we want to move quickly in and out of we are nimble. We could do that. We could address it now. And then move on to section C. As one commissioner, I like that we did it at the end where we got to go in and hear all our concerns at one time. I don't know how my fellow commissioners feel about that. I agree. Yeah, I agree. Awesome. I'd like to reserve the opportunity to come back though to the public meeting, if we decide for disposition. Okay. That would be in terms of timekeeping. We understand that that would be a goal, at least. Okay. All right, then, let's get a consensus then generally with the expectation that our concerns will be addressed. Or, you know, or if we have another concern we would, we would express that. Otherwise, with that, otherwise, we, otherwise we met it's expectations. Mission leaders. I have one more question that I think I'm sorry. No, that's good. That's why I, we have this process. Thank you commissioner hell on the, on the bring your own device and the QR code and what you're learning on the data. And I've asked this last two days I'm going to keep asking it because I have a real. I'm sensitive to the argument that with two different starts for sports way during there's there's some disparity involved in what information is being gathered with is the information that's gathered through that system. Is it shareable with the mobile app on when that is this information going to move, you know, from, from the self, you know, to, is it contained or is it shared. That's what I'm asking is the information contained or is it shared. I'm going to dig into this if we can a little bit more during the break. My understanding is that when and if when bet app goes live people will need to register for that app at that point. However, we would have some information and much like we have a database right now, we would be reaching out I assume to people to encourage them to register for the wind bed app but I, I'm going to say this with 90% confidence that that information doesn't automatically become part of the wind bed app. Okay, thank you. Perhaps Greg. No, I'm sorry not Greg. Joe or Kevin from GLI. That was a question that I asked about the, the, the industry's practice that right now, whether or not you have been awarded and licensed by the Massachusetts gaming commission to operate category one, I mean a category three, tethered or untethered that that the general practices that cultivation like this could be occurring now that accounts could be being set up. And even dollars could be being deposited into those accounts because like mission may not I'm on the public record, being concerned about equity. My concerns were addressed about equity, when you, when that, when I learned that the general landscape is such that this is happening in any case. So, Joe, if you want to help me out to make sure I didn't misunderstand that and maybe to clarify. Ms come as well and, and Commissioner Maynard. No, that's the correct understanding and technically there's nothing. You know stopping operators from having other means or databases, or account creation that doesn't lead to actual betting. Like in this case, as far as my understanding of the product. You kind of consider it like loading up your online cart, and then bring it to an actual physical location to pick up your items. It's this, that's, you know, there's no money exchanged at this point there's no actual wage replaced for this. My understanding of this and obviously on court can correct me. So, and similar marketing or acquisition type products do exist. And, you know, some of the bigger casino companies have large databases as well. Account creation, and on the very high level like username first, last and email is quite common. And in fact, do I think I asked a question to other jurisdictions have regulations that restrict that activity in any way, including the deposit of dollars. I worry about that because you know there's, there's no consumer protections necessarily but I understand that those monies couldn't be scooped I don't believe. So, your answer was that you haven't seen any other jurisdiction with regulations. That's correct. Technically, it's allowed. I think that there are operators already in the space who are in our are encouraging people to sign up and pre populate accounts in anticipation of potentially receiving a license and going live. What's happening in the case of wind that in Missouri in California right that not California. California doesn't have sports wagering. Yeah, so I'm just going by the application it says it says California here. I think that's before before it's legal. Yes. It's legal right so so you know it talks about it talks about wind that capturing that market access, you know, sort of in advance is that are we talking about the same thing here. No, I think this is a little bit different so I think there are some some companies will have databases right so but some what some competitors are doing right now is. Would you would you like to sign up for an account with name the competitor, you can go in and pre populate all the information and we'll let you know when this is when we're allowed to accept a legal wager. So that's one way of doing it what some states allow and what some states don't allow is the additional step of you can set up your account plus will give you a bonus. Do you put $1,000 into your account right now, or $100 whatever the, their amount maybe. So, and, and in fairness I haven't been going to our competitors and trying to sign up for accounts with them so I don't know exactly what the state of play is on all of those but we'll know that people are collecting information. You know that you may have people promising bonuses promo play et cetera and we haven't even determined what we're going to allow. So, I'm going to turn to Council Grossman should we note that as a potential, either a regulatory issue that we might want to address or potential condition that we might want to address. I'm not sure whether there's one route or not, but Commissioner Brian did immediately respond to that new. Well, sort of the suggested activity that hadn't been yet addressed to us. It's not come up I think every time so it certainly would be appropriate either for a condition or a regulation. We can come back to that. Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Maynard. I appreciate the conversation regarding this and how this is a mitigating factor, the fact that people are already cultivating data in anticipation of the launch. I also want to be on the record saying that there is still a equity issue, given the information that was given to us at the round table that once someone commits to a certain app. They tend to not sway from that app right and that was I think given across the board that information to us. So, yes, this is a mitigating factor. Yes, it's the reason I've asked about it every day. But there is still an equity issue when one place and one electronic means of gathering information is live and accepting best. And one place or one organization is not live and not able to accept that but can accept data. There is a difference. And I'm still. Commissioner Maynard, if I could just respond to that briefly. To be really clear, this is not a WinBet product, a WinBet app. This is not registering for the WinBet app. It's a completely separate application software. Thank you. It's actually a high to the retail. It's a web, it's a web link. So, yeah, you visit a web link. It wouldn't be on an application. You would have to download an app application. So helpful. Commissioner Maynard. That is helpful. Okay. Excellent. Madam chair. I have a quick response to our compliance department. That there are no jurisdictions that restrict bonuses and promo play. And there are no jurisdictions that restrict depositing pre launch to mobile. Or did internet wagering. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Other questions. I'm section. Follow up on section B. And then we were just reaching a consensus if we felt that they had met. With the exception of the security issue, which we understand needs to be vetted and discussed in appropriately in an executive session, we have to vote upon. Any other questions you want to ask with respect to section B. And then we have a consensus that they've met their burden with the exception. Yes, right. Yes. Michelle Brian. Yes. Commissioner Skinner. Yes. Yes, just noting that it's not a, you know, it's not an approval necessarily on all the proposals in there. Subsidibly for me, but in terms of did they meet? Yes, they did. And remember, we're doing this process because at a certain point in time, there would be a disposition. And the factors are listed as a criteria listed. And then we have high level ones in the agenda that general counsel Grossman met stated, I'm sorry. And then, ultimately, our disposition is to find have they met the burden. I just wanted to point it out, which is substantial evidence, except with respect to the durable issue, durable suitability issue, which is a higher standard. So for these factors, as I understand it, it would be a really meeting the burden of substantial evidence. So, I just want to put that framework in mind. We're taking the high level review of the applications that they meet, so that we can really pinpoint a deficiency. I understand that perhaps there are issues that we're highlighting that we want to make sure we think about our standard of review, which I know we all are. Well, we'll move them to sections. Council Gressman, did I need to be corrected on any of that? Sure. Okay. Okay, then we'll move on to section C. What questions do we have for the app in on respect to section C. Madam chair. Yes. We already touched upon C three a which I think we all had a concern about and we're going to hear from later. Can you explain to me about the the windows the wickets that are ADA compliant. I have actually a question about the kiosks and ADA compliant, because if my memory serves me correctly. I'm not sure that they are AD compliant so ADA compliant so what happens when somebody with a disability is having issues at the kiosks not necessarily the wicket. Well, so sorry, the wick, you're right the wickets we have to ADA compliant wickets either side of the at either side of the window. In terms of the kiosks we're actually still looking into that my understanding is they're they're actually fairly low to the ground to begin with so it is something that we believe I don't want to I don't want to call it ADA compliant because I don't know if it's we've gone through that process to be vetted and approved that way, but it is something that we're, we are looking at with the supplier as well from our initial take, it appears that how we mount the kiosk may allow person to maybe in a wheelchair to utilize the to utilize the machine and if for any reason that's not that doesn't happen we will of course have people available to assist anyone. Okay. Thank you madam chair. Thank you. Other questions on section C. I wanted to compliment the applicant. Under ADA work and they're continuing work. It's stand out to me that you continue to make changes every day. As as issues arise, so I do want to compliment that. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. I have a couple questions one I can throw in to see probably because it. I don't know where else to put it in some of the gli training last week they talked about how some of the kiosks have the capacity to have surveillance cameras on them. And again, we don't necessarily have to talk about it in the setting but I throw that out there for maybe something that further discuss when we get an executive session about security, because I don't know if any of the kiosks, you're getting are going to have that capacity. And then the application that talks about wanting. I'm sorry, go ahead. I can respond to that rest assured that if they do not have the camera there will be full coverage, regardless. So, either way. The, there's a reference in this section I believe about wanting to be able to use conference space to set up events is that is this the section where you reference that and see. You know that that's kind of on our wish list of things if we wanted for example to have a, a playoff party or an NFL, you know, a some big events, we'd love to be able to have kiosks in the conference center so that people can place a wager during those events that we realize that that's a wish list item. I was raising my brother again because that obviously would mean having to redefine the gaming floor and I'm not doing it temporarily would permanently that's a whole other kettle of fish so that will not be included in the current petition. Okay. Thanks. On C. Well, I would, I'd like to just commend the applicant on the, really the, the overall submission on C, but it's particularly with respect to your workforce and development planning. I know that we've, we've spent a little bit of time over this past week asking about leadership on development and opportunities for advancement. And I know your leadership development program and I think Jackie you did actually say qualifies for that. I'm interested in, in learning. I think it's been effective in advancing your employees. I know we all are concerned with that. And so, I want to give you the opportunity to elaborate. Sure. So we actually initiated that program this year for the first time, and it's available for anyone in a leadership position, starting starting at the very beginning so whether you're just learning how to be a new manager. That was one of the, that was one of the, one of the reasons why we initiated the program because we had a lot of people who were promoted into first time management position, who didn't necessarily have the skill set or the tool kit to enable them to be effective managers. So the first level was train everyone to be effective managers that they could succeed in their new role. And I would say it has been working because we have managed to create managers and management workforce now that are really comfortable in their roles and have the have the skill set to advance. We know that people have advanced into management roles what we need to see now is how people go up through that management process, but because it is a fairly new program. The results aren't in on that one yet. I suspect you'll be sharing it in the quarterly report so thank you. I like the components and I can imagine that each of us looked at that going. Oh, only we could be lucky enough to participate so thank you. I think it was Teresa of RSM mentioned. I appreciated the fact that you are anticipating in the placement of the sports bar and anticipated sports book makes it quite obvious that you're anticipating non gaming revenue. I think she mentioned that, and I had to think back about the, the particular sections response that she couldn't tell whether it was incremental to what's already non gaming revenue, or if it's in addition through the just a sports wagering piece. No, that's incremental to non gaming revenue. We anticipate that due to extra volume. Absolutely the two outlets that are in the sports book should see incremental revenue from sports wagering, as well as the other facilities throughout the entire result. Yeah, and then I did see that I think that she address the fact that it would be peak and is she right that the assumption is that it would be great excitement to be at the sports. Well, and then as sports wagering comes on. It may decrease. I think what our projections were the primary the primary issue in the projections is when mobile sports betting that goes live so if for example retail is live for six months and mobile doesn't go. We obviously will see higher volumes and as soon as mobile goes we know that there'll be a drop off in that in in visitation impacting the incremental spending. Thank you. And just to again go back to the construction of the space in the word that I have a hard time saying correctly garage. Can you. I understand that there's this notion that folks really want to place their bet personally and not they will never shift to never shift to doing it on their own. It's just not in their nature. Yes, absolutely. We are we absolutely are aware of the fact that some of our customers will never use a mobile device to place a bet that they will continue to come in and not even watch the game they just want to place a button and move on. The other the other consideration is when you use your mobile device. Everybody knows who you are. When you come in if you want to place a $10 bets. We don't we won't necessarily know who you are so there is a sort of There is there is a group of customers that we know will prefer that method of waitering. Okay I'm going to do a couple of follow ups real quickly. So that raises a question. If you don't know who they are you, how will you verify that they're of age and that there are other concerns related to gambling and gaming that I would capture. Sure, I would say it's just like a soft machine. So we have a lot of customers who come in who will put $20 and a soft machine that they will be asked for ID if they appear to be below the appropriate age upon coming into the facility. And the same group of people would come in and be required to show ID if they appear to be below age so we will know that they're correct the right people. We also have surveillance in the area. So our surveillance is constantly looking for voluntary self excluded persons, as well as persons on our trespass list. So that would be just like any any person coming in to put $20 into a soft machine. And this is my assumption to because I, like Commissioner Brian says, oh, you know, drive through betting that. Park. Right, so I understand at least it's park and play, right. But I thought about this part of I, you know, part of the discussions as as lawmakers considered legalizing sports wagering is that, and this is only a part because there's so many consumer protections, public safety issues, the idea that we're doing sports wagering into into a regulatory framework that will protect patrons. In addition, though, they have been thinking and it's a part of our application about the repatriation of dollars and neighboring states. I'm just mentioning that there were patrons in Massachusetts who crossed over to New Hampshire, but they didn't just stop at the border and use their phone that they made their way to a place where they could place their retail in retail. Because like you said, they just weren't ever going to use their phone is and perhaps the same in Rhode Island is the proposal for your, and I'll say park and play space, you have better express space. Will that work to recapture those border states or is that part of your assumptions. We're hoping that that's one of the assumptions and we've spent a lot of time looking at all the different different segments of customers who the customers who want to come in and place one bet leave the customer who wants to come watch a game sit there for a few hours. The customer who wants to place many bets over the course of a couple of hours and the customer knows nothing about sports betting so we've thought about all those different people and how we might move them through the result and how we might give them the appropriate offering. And so for the customer who we anticipate using the express bet would be a customer who perhaps is driving to work who just wants to place a bet quickly again doesn't want to use a mobile device. The other thing is, we're also thinking about moving people for illegal market into the legal markets, and we want to make it convenient. Again, they may not want to use their phones, but this would be an opportunity for them to place bets quickly. But absolutely, we're focused on getting everybody who's driving up and I know there's a lot of people. We did a bit of a survey we know that we saw a whole bunch of Massachusetts license plates, you know, neighboring states parking lots. So definitely, we want to get those people back and we want to make it as easy for them as we can. Okay, thank you. And then finally I want to give you a get on C five. That's the community engagement, you know, we just applaud on court Boston Harbor in its being a in its capacity as a casino licensee, a very good neighbor and a neighbor that extends beyond your host community but well into into Boston Community and in the common love. You know, I note that your, your application indicates 11 million dollars donations to 300 Boston charities. And we know that those are real impactful dollars. And I think the one area that hasn't been addressed is the lottery. And this comment going to let you know that we had a technical difficulty on our end. With respect to that response. It is now in our email, but I will say I have not had the opportunity to read it. So if you could go over your plan with respect to the lottery it's a priority for us we heard. We are this, I'm Treasurer Goldberg and of course we have a long time commitment to 23 K. So maybe if you would indulge me to explain what on court Boston Harbor has in mind of the lottery and measures, we can follow up with your questions. Sure. So you are of course aware of our current relationship with the lottery we have a number of terminals throughout our building. We, we feel like those terminals have done very well we've worked with the lottery in terms of discussing the locations to optimize that as well. The next thing that we do is we purchase lottery tickets which if Mark VanderLendens on the phone or on the call. Please note that we do not encourage people to put them in children's holiday gifts so that is not the goal but we do purchase lottery tickets. We are going above and beyond the agreement that we have with the lottery on an annual basis that we provide to our guests it's one of our most successful giveaways promotions that we do every year and our guests really seem to appreciate that. So I, without speaking for the lottery I'd say we've had a very successful run so far and we will continue to have that relationship. Just to quickly piggyback off of Jackie's response. Kino is available at undec sports bar, and there will be seven chaos also available at undec sports bar. So if guests want to have both those types of experiences they can. Excellent. Questions on section C and and also the moderate response. Just a very quick question. Do you put lottery machines in this new area that we're going to open that hopefully open some point. You know we had we actually had never thought about that that certainly something that we could consider. I think it would see a lot more traffic being being that there's going to be a lot more people in that area. The lottery machines are currently located right across from that area. So we do have to write. Is that right. No, no you have to go in so absolutely will will consider that. Thank you. Michelle Brian. So my follow up question Joe is the, is there a way for you to track whether those particular machines. If the usage goes down, once you put the sports wagering kiosks in there, and then, you know, would you move them accordingly so that they don't get it. Yeah, so those are the Kino machine. Absolutely we could track all that we track it by machine. The lottery provides us the data. So we know exactly which ones are performing under performing, and we'll certainly keep an eye on that and if we see any change we can make adjustments. And our licensees do report on the lottery experience to which we appreciate. Okay, we've exhausted section C. Now, a reminder, you have another question or a reminder. I was not a reminder I was just actually going to just that see has been met with expectations. Thank you. I agree. Thank you. Michelle Maynard. Okay, we're all set then. All right, then we can move on to section B, which is of course, a separate section of priority for the gaming commission on diversity, equity and inclusion. And if you have particular questions for Jackie on this. I'm chair. Yes, Jackie I think you gave us an update during the presentation, which was great and thank you for that. Can you just expand a little bit more about the diversity hiring and more importantly once they are employed how they move up the chain of command. So obviously, you know, we have our, we have our goals. And so from the very, very initial point, we are completely focused on it. We also have commitments to our hosts and surrounding community in terms of priorities. I think the most success that we've seen in terms of hiring is collaborating with the organizations that are set up throughout the Commonwealth to assist under employed or unemployed persons who are looking for a job. And we work very closely with those organizations to make sure that they're giving us the candidates. What's, what's, I think, wonderful about our organization is we can bring people in without any training in some of our departments. We can provide full training and then opportunities for growth. And we've got a bit of a battle going on in the building right now because there were some departments who are constantly bringing in the new people training the new people and then as soon as somebody is eligible for promotion off they go to another department. So they feel like they're getting rated and want limitations on that which we won't apply. But yeah, there's plenty of opportunity I think the training programs that we offer. One of the biggest ones I told I think we spoke about this with our last quarterly meeting was the ESL program. You cannot imagine what a huge impact that made for the employees who went through that program. Huge difference in terms of their ability to communicate. And, you know, I, again, I think I raised this as well that our PD program. That's our public areas department just promoted to lovely diverse women into management roles. So we're hoping to continue looking at those opportunities. We're still small enough and agile enough to be able to identify people and know the people who are stars that we need extra support or and so that we're able to guide them into the more senior positions. Very good. Thank you madam chair. Thank you. So Jackie, I have a question I have been, you know, like a broker record but it's the stats on women. And then you put in the 2018 work force development and diversity plan. I'm just wondering if you can speak at all to post coven trying to get those numbers up particularly for the women in your employment force and the new hires you're going to make any specific changes since this 2018 that you put in the packet. No, I mean, the 2018 is definitely the starting point. And so when I talked about the the next 100 people, I, I've thrown out a challenge to our team if we hired all hundred and all hundred women, we would increase our percentage of women I believe to 48%. So that's definitely a goal. It's a challenge that we've got going. It's probably not possible, but it's certainly something that's the best way for us to try to get the number of women up is to the new people that we're hiring to bring the men to bring in women. You know, understanding of course COVID and the impact that that that COVID has had largely on the female workforce. We certainly will give some thought to that and see how we can potentially attract more women to come back, whether it's a childcare issue. And we, we consciously went out and advertised different, the different schedules that we offer. And so that people can see that if you choose to open overnight schedule because that's when you have childcare, we do offer those so we will continue to promote that and see if we can change our numbers. I very much prefer to get it up to the 50% never have this conversation again. I would like that too. Well there we have an agreement. But it's important work and we all know it takes intentionality so we appreciate that response. Other questions on on on on this section D. I guess I'd like to just know in commissioner of Brian, you may well have noted it as well that I commend the corporate parent for now having all of its committee members chair chair committees chaired by women. That's exceptional. And perhaps not even intentional, because we know the strength of the women who are on the board at win resorts but you are right now indicating it's 63% the independent board is now 63% diverse. There are eight directors for our women. And there is one racially diverse director. I know that those positions, they don't just come up and you just can't augment, but I appreciate the intentionality of increasing it with director strong. And I know that with that same commitment that you're working on. We can anticipate only growth in that area but I wanted to commend the board for having nominating governance board having that policy to be intentional and then to to have those. And I think that's one of the ways all chaired by women. Michelle Brian I'm sure that you noted that piece in the application as well and I only say commissioner Brian because this was an issue that we've worked on a few years ago, and progress has been made and we want to note that. None of that is taken for granted. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. With respect to section D. Would you just add even at our property here, our executive committee is comprised of full women and three males. Thank you for that. So in terms of this section, do we have any other further comments or questions that we want to share before we do our. So I think we'll just add through section D has been expectations have been met. I'll say commissioners. Okay, we're all set then. Before we break the lunch, could we try to get through section E. Okay. I'm not sure if, oh there he is on cue. Good afternoon, Director Vandalinden and he's our resource. Should we have any questions that we need for clarifications from Mark? Thank you for being available Mark. My questions for the applicant on section E and their responsible response? If I could Madam Chair, I think it's E182. You have the responsible gaming plans sort of redlined, you know, looks like updated in an effort to deal with sports wagering. Is that fair? That's which largely seems to mirror what's been done in the past. And I know that we've lauded you in the past for what a great job you guys do on the training of your employees on the way in the door in terms of responsible gaming and the framework. I did want to ask if you could speak maybe to participation in the trying to find it again, I just lost it. I think it's like working groups that talk about the RG committee. I think it's sub three on page two. Can you talk a little bit about how that's functioning? Is it working on a quarterly basis? Do you anticipate it maybe increasing the participation of that? So we meet on a quarterly basis, albeit during COVID, maybe it wasn't quarterly, but we're back on schedule and we're also meeting with our counterparts in Las Vegas and we want to start that up with WinBed as well because the idea would be to share the information. We have like, we struggle with a lot of the stuff that goes that's how to apply things and we want to make sure we're doing it consistently as a company. So it is an effective working group. The input that we receive from GameSense, we go over that in that meeting because that's valuable data to us. But and we talk about a lot of the trainings that are implemented. So I'm wondering the comment about wanting to be consistent. I understand, but are there are there areas and reasons that maybe Boston would be different than Vegas? Oh, absolutely. You know, I'm curious about how the group, how that committee would really focus on that or maybe communicating with GameSense, so the RG people on the MGC? No, so we have an entirely different model than Las Vegas and WinBed, of course, as an entirely different model because they have to comply with regulations in many different states. So we, I think one of our huge advantages is having GameSense and having having the presence on property at all times. On the other hand, and Mark and I have had this conversation, we never want to relinquish our concern or authority over responsible gaming to GameSense. We still want to have an independent role in training our employees in looking for signs of problem gaming. And so we talk a lot about the trainings that they're doing in Las Vegas. We talk about the additional information that GameSense brings here so that we can develop a program that obviously takes into account all of everything that we need to do in Massachusetts, but also takes into account some of the other issues that they're identifying Las Vegas as well. Mark, I didn't know if you had any follow-up. That was the question that I had. You're on me, Mark. Yes. Hello, commissioners. Hello, Madam Chair and Jackie. And first of all, Jackie, I did hear that you spent a lottery ticket and then it's not an appropriate gift for children. So I appreciate that very much. The responsible gaming committee that is identified in your application, what I noticed is that that's not a group that tends to engage with the, for example, the five monthly GameSense collaboration meetings. And I hear that you're saying that you bring information from GameSense to the responsible gaming committee, but could there be more of a two-way communication where there's further engagement between the property's responsible gaming committee and the GameSense program? Sure. I mean, absolutely, we can do that. And we're always trying to be mindful of people's time. So we absolutely, if you would like them to participate in that, that's, of course, completely fine. Even on a quarterly basis, some way in which there's more community-to-way communication. Sure. Great. Okay. Ms. Cheryl Bryan, I noted I believe it's in that draft document. And just to know our application did say to plan to provide a draft. So it might have been updating, but it did note that the applicant will not promote on college or in college publications. I want to make sure you follow up, because I know that you've taken a lead on that area. And I think it's a good time to explore that. Yeah. I think, again, being mindful of sort of CAT-1, WinBet versus, you know, CAT-3, maybe have some different questions for people in that regard. But I know we had another CAT-1 applicant who basically said they had committed obviously not to doing that, which you say in this as well. I'm just wondering if you can expand a little bit more on making sure that you're staying away from the efforts to not target under 21. And particularly this is such a big college town, such a sports town, whether what thought you guys have put into making sure that the marketing doesn't, you know, inappropriately go into that demographic. So our marketing team has been completely trained. And in fact, they are rejecting requests that they are getting from some of the schools who would like to not promote gambling, obviously, but who would like to include our information as a hotel for parents to stay, because a lot of the parents get copies of these publications as well. And we've turned those, we've turned those requests down as well. We're not promoting our hotel, we're not promoting our food and beverage, and we're not promoting gaming in any sense in any of those publications. We're, we try to, when we promote ourselves generally, we try to do it in a tasteful manner. We've tried to, I don't know if any of you have seen the billboards, but we try to do it without using images that might be attractive to underage people. But it definitely is at the top, absolutely at the top of the list of things that our marketing team is focused on. Joe's nodding because he's, how many times have you asked me if you could do something and I've said no? Yeah, I mean, there have been opportunities on, let's say college campuses that don't have anything to do with college or university, let's say a concert that we have turned down. And that's pre-sports wagering you're talking about, just historical. Yes. And again, we were going to do the marketing for sports wagering for the retail portion of the business and we would apply exactly the same principles. Can I build on that, Jackie? You said we. I think I noticed that you're going to use KHA for brand activation. And there's been a lot of regulations, regulatory discussions as we build out our regulatory framework include questions around the third party affiliates. Can you educate us a bit? Do you have control or retain control over content on all the way through your branding partner and other marketing partners, advertising partners so that if it gets passed down through to a third party affiliate somehow, do you maintain control over content? We do. So I'd say over 90% of the marketing content is created in-house. And so what goes to KHA might be assisting us and they've worked with us for a really long time and are very, very familiar with all of our restrictions in terms of marketing. They would be more helping us develop different concepts, but we're responsible for engaging with who sends out our emails. And I mean, obviously we contract with a third party to do those email drops, but we provide the content to them. We provide the list to them and they're essentially just sending it out on our behalf. We don't subcontract our marketing to somebody else to carry out without our approval. And that's with respect to, of course, the list because we're, of course, concerned about VSE. Also, in terms of content, you really do keep, I heard you say it's a high percentage I've already forgotten. Oh, I'm probably wrong. It's probably closer to 99% but you know, we have dedicated personnel in our building who are responsible for developing our marketing content, our promotional content. So they get that approved by legal. They get, all of that is reviewed and they've all been trained. They're all very, very familiar without restrictions. Commissioners, other questions on, which of course flows from the responsible gaming all the way through advertising? I have a question. Yes, commissioner. I know that there is a shuttle program used by our court. Is there any anticipation on adding stops, changing stops because of sports wagering? Not because of sports wagering. I think we're looking at that generally to see how effective it is. So, you know, we know that we have some routes that are running somewhat empty and how to make that more efficient and so, but not specifically for sports wagering. Okay, thank you. Other questions on responsible gaming? Okay. Well, again, we'll check in on a consensus on the quality of the response to section two. Commissioners, thumbs up from commissioner Hill. Yeah, I think it met expectations. Commissioner Maynard. I agree. Commissioner Skinner. I agree. Okay, we're all set. I'm in agreement as well. I think this makes sense to break for lunch, commissioners. Does that make sense to you? It's just a round up to 110 will return 140. I think that's an indicator that I probably need something to eat because that was hard for me to calculate just now. So, 140 will return. Thank you so much, commissioners. Gabe. Yes. I think if you could just bring down the screen for a short minute, that would be great. Sounds good. Okay, commissioner Hill. Commissioners, I'm going to ask if we could just extend our lunch break a bit. I would say that probably for to bring it to a 205, please. Okay. Eileen, if you're talking, you're muted. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll go into 205. Thank you. I'll set, Dave. Thank you. I'll set. Okay. So, good afternoon and thank you again, everyone for the public's patience and for the team's patience. I want to say that we're reconvening the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's public meeting 408 because we're doing so on a virtual stage. I need to do a roll call. Commissioner O'Brien, thank you. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. The wrong button. I'm here. And commissioner Maynard. I'm here. Okay. So, I appreciate everyone taking a little bit of extra time. When the applications were first submitted, we received for category one the first three and our team has done an excellent job making sure that all the components of the applications come to us because they are all individual files. And I had noted that there were a few missing components that had been uploaded to us on Encore Boston Harbor. And in fact, those were all fixed except for, I noted today, the lottery piece and that was fixed earlier today. That was a one folder. But in fact, section F3, which was not available, was still not in our folder at lunchtime. And I realized it wasn't on our end after Executive Director Wells did some further increase. And it just turned out that there was a technical difficulty on the other end. And in fact, Encore Boston Harbor had prepared them and immediately shot the subsections. I think it's four or five over to us for F3. So, we have received those and we've had the opportunity. I believe commissioners need to review them. It was not a technical difficulty on our end. And it didn't seem like a difficulty for you, but just perhaps an uploading challenge. So, we did anticipate these kinds of issues happening in our regulation. So, Councillor Rosemont, I don't want to speak for you, but I believe that we have the opportunity to accept supplemental information or address this kind of a scenario. And if you could advise the commission, that would be great. Sure. There are two places in the regulations that are relevant to this type of situation. The first is in section 211.010, which you'll recall discusses the extension of time for filing of the applications. And it reads that the commission may, in its discretion, extend the time for filing a complete application to enable the applicant to cure a deficiency in its application, provided that the application forms were submitted and the applicable fee was paid before the established deadlines, which seems to be the case here. The second section, just to bring back up, is that relative to supplementing information. And we talked about this a little bit earlier. It's section 218.04 in part C in particular, which says that the commission may require or permit, in the commission's discretion, the applicant to provide additional information and documents. So, I think both of those sections would seem to apply here to allow for this circumstance. So, commissioners, with that, I think we would have to make some kind of a determination here if we feel that we can grant encore the permission to complete their application with today's submission. And I guess I would say it might fit more into that regulation than supplemental, because it is a piece we expected. To be to note, F1 and F2, we did receive those and quite properly on the response was consistent with the application, which was that they're not particularly applicable to the retail portion of the applicant in this instance for category one. Commissioners, the chair has asked a question. I don't want to answer my own question. Are you looking for agreement? Are you looking for motion? I mean, are you looking for procedural next step? Is that what you're asking? Well, I guess maybe discussion first to see how we feel. And then if we can think about the regulation that I think Councillor Grossman has presented. The only reason why I said that was to be a bit funny, because I realized I didn't really want to answer my own question. But I think it's a fair question that you asked. It could be straight motion if commissioners are okay with that. Commissioner O'Brien to address what we did anticipate. Yeah. Yeah, I didn't mean to, you know. I appreciate your speaking, Commissioner O'Brien. Jump to the queue. I was just trying to figure out what question you're asking. Madam chair. Yes, Commissioner Hill. Yeah, if you're looking for consensus, if we should be accepting these, the answer is for me, yes. There was a mistake made on the upload and we all recognize that. I don't think it was done on purpose. So I have no problem accepting these today after the due date. If you're looking for a motion of such a thing, if the rest of my fellow commissioners feel the same way, you certainly can do that. Thank you. Can I add something just for the public? Yes, please. These applications are hundreds of pages, right? And of what we're talking about in this sub section here is seven pages of hundreds approaching thousand page applications. Clerical errors happened and I am happy to accept something that to me was a clerical error in how quickly these were given to us. And that's fair because as I said, you know, within our own team that they, we had our own challenges uploading the pieces and we were monitoring that and fixing that. So, and actually it's amazing, there were very minimal challenges in our own uploading process. I think it was with respect to three subsections. So I don't want to overstate that either. It's just that I assumed that this was again internal. And I'm glad, you know, what is interesting and a part of our discussion is that, in fact, Ms. Crumb had them done. They were ready to go. They came right over to us. So it was, it was technical. So do we have a consensus around that, Commissioner Skinner? I appreciate Commissioner Maynard's context and I'm going to add my own. From my perspective, I was confused about the sections F and G. If you recall, during the meeting I had been referring to the financial stability and integrity section as F. And in fact, that is part of G, the compliance. I think my fellow commissioners and staff know that, you know, I have a great attention to detail if I do say so myself. And I'm actually pretty shocked that I didn't catch this in advance. But that being said, and notwithstanding my concerns about section G, which I understand we'll get to, I think the application is otherwise sufficient. And I would venture to say beyond efficient. And I don't have a problem moving forward with the acceptance of that section today. Thank you. Thank you for that. Commissioner Maynard, do you want to add or do you want to make a motion? Yes. I'm scribbling because I figured you were going to ask me for the motion language. So I'm just going to go to sites with Todd before I actually do that. That's why I kind of, that's why I appreciated your earlier question. Because yeah, I was like, I'm going to start drafting now. So let me ask the question up front and then we can discuss. Thank you very much. And I think we appreciate the little bit of levity here. So thank you so much. Todd, at 211.012 and 10, are those the relevant subsections? 10, yes, two. Two talks about survey, right? Incomplete administratively closed list authorizations given pursuant to 10. Is that only the initial survey? Yeah, that's, yeah, I think that's just the scoping survey. That's why I didn't. Okay. So just 10. Yep. Certainly. So, Madam Chair, I move that the commission authorize the late submission today of so much of EVH's category one application as pertains to sections F3, I think subs A through F, consistent with our discretion under 205CMR 211.0110. Second. Any further discussion? And then I'll go ahead and take the vote. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. You moved on me. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you. And so we've taken care of that. And I think then we can begin with our discussion, which we had anticipated earlier. And again, thank everyone for your time. So I assume that everyone has had more than enough time to look at those sections. Okay. So let's go to section F. Any questions? So, Ms. Croma, I will, I will ask the question around the monitoring piece for integrity. If you could explain the relationship that you have using WinBet for that as well as the US integrity platform. Thanks, Jackie. Sure. And I thank you for your consideration and allowing us, of course, to get this to you. Frankly, we were a little confused on this section because some of this pertains only to the mobile. And we spent a lot of time going back and forth saying how is this done? But from an integrity perspective, much like we were talking earlier about the traders and how they monitored the bets, this would be done through the WinBet side of it. So as the bets come through, they'll be able to, they'll be able to push it through their system. And if they do get that phone call that says there's an issue, then, then they can, they can implement their procedures to stop it from that end. And we'll, of course, work very closely with us to monitor that. Right. And in terms of the US integrity platform, that's integrated in, can you just, for purposes of everybody understanding fully what that means, that would be clear? Sure. So that's a platform that is through the trading system, essentially, and monitoring all the bets that are being placed. So if there's any sort of issue, it's a, it's a group that many, many operators subscribe to. And they're monitoring bets across, across any particular sports in sports or events. And if there's issues, they will notify all the subscribers of an issue so that they can immediately hold trading with respect to that, or make whatever decision is appropriate. Does that explain a little? Yeah, I guess. And so I just want to make sure everybody, you know, understood that the US integrity is a different platform and either WinBets contracts as a subscriber or, or both entities. It sounds like it would be through WinBets. That's, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. Other questions on section F? Okay, then let's move to section G and a reminder because, and then honestly, Commissioner Skinner, it's a, it was fair for, I knew you had conflated the two earlier when you said F and G, but you had quite properly mentioned that you were wanting to address suitability, which is in G, then of course the financial stability and integrity, and then the compliance issue, all in, in section G. I'm sure you want to get consensus on this section. Oh, I'm so sorry. You beat me to it, Commissioner. Thank you so much. Do we have a consensus on section on F? Yes. Meeting expectations, particularly given the, okay, our earlier action. Commissioner Skinner, are you lost that? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Now for G questions on, on section G. Evidence that takes a village. I appreciate everyone's assistance along the way. Okay. Commissioner Skinner. No questions about the substance of what ABH has provided in this section. I would just turn again to the discussion around wind bed and, you know, that, that their response, I guess, or, or Encore's response on behalf of wind bed to the questions, particularly to G4, D, E, and F, as well as G G3, G and H. But really overall, I mean, you know, this is where I turn to Pod to kind of help, help me and the rest of the commissioners navigate, you know, how we go about getting answers relative to wind bed for sections, section G in the, in the context of on for application review. Well, I think it's certainly fair to inquire of the applicant to the extent they know the answers to the questions. I think that the, we can look at the other application for this limited purpose. I just know that this is a different situation than the one that we dealt with recently, which relied more heavily on the other application. So this is a more limited inquiry. So I think it's different and it would certainly be fair to look at that application itself if you needed clarity on a specific issue. And between those, and again, keep in mind that this is a public meeting and not an adjudicatory proceeding. So there's a little more flexibility when it comes to looking at materials. As long as your decision is based on actual information discussed at the meeting, then you can rely upon it. So I think those are the two tools that you have before you to try to answer those questions today. And I would, I would turn to Jackie. Yesterday, we heard from a representative from that MGM on behalf of MGM Springfield. And although she spoke in a very limited capacity, I'm wondering if we, if you could invite someone from WinBed, if they were available, to join us with the chair's commission to be able to speak to those questions. I guess, Commissioner Skinner, just before we have Jackie answer that, do you mind repeating the questions that you would like answered? Well, all of G in general, with a specific focus on G3, G and H. G3, G and H. And G4, D, E and F. G4, D, E is in point. D is in David, E and F. Okay. Jackie, are you comfortable? Are you able to answer that or do you need to have somebody from WinBeds and if you don't have anybody available? I guess I want to remind on my understanding is that these are questions that will be answered by the WinBeds in its capacity as a category three applicant. They're going to be filling out the same application. And that will happen next week. For the purpose of today, suitability of WinBeds, these lines of questions would not be done with respect to other vendors, if I'm correct. And I just want to put that out there that there are other vendors right now that will be working with Bumka, Boston, Harvard who are not being asked these questions. And so I just want to make sure I'm comfortable with the fact that we're asking this of the applicant in a way that's somewhat different to be fair, unless the applicant is comfortable. The reason why they can do it is because of their or for affiliation perhaps. If not, they didn't have that. We probably wouldn't have them readily available or vendor XYZ as I indicated earlier. Commissions, I yield to the others to see your level of comfort on these questionings. The distinction for me here is that WinBed is providing a service to Encore in connection with its retail operations, the category one application that includes trading services, for instance. And that's unlike any other vendor that Encore would be doing business with. Although vendors, particularly primary vendors, as this as WinBed would be deemed if we're not being considered in connection with the category one application, they do have to undergo a suitability review. Under 23K. Under 23K. Yes, under 23K. Thank you for the clarification. You know, but because WinBed is new to Massachusetts, I think, well, for me, it's important that we at least get an understanding of, you know, kind of what their compliance history is, whether or not they are, you know, financially stable. So that so I just wanted to lay that framework as the distinction here between their role, WinBed's role in this category one application and a general vendor. Councillor Grossman. I apologize. I was actually in the middle of reading something else. Can you give me that question again? Well, I guess I just was turning to you because I'm a little bit, I want to hear from the fellow commissioners, but Commissioner Skinner would like to do a line of inquiry concerning this vendor that we wouldn't be doing with other vendors. So I'm just wondering about that. And, you know, like, I know yesterday we did bring in and they were very helpful. And if, if Attorney Crum is positioned to do, to answer, but if she doesn't have a WinBed's person available or they're not prepared, I guess I'm just being careful that it's not held against them. You know, yesterday I didn't anticipate the question and it all happened quickly. So. Yeah, I think. Oh, sorry. Oh, go right ahead. I was just going to say, I think the, the inquiry itself is entirely appropriate. The concern I think would be that we would, it could be viewed as though we were treating different applicants dissimilarly. And so we'd want to be able to draw distinctions between this situation and the others, which I think you can do. Again, I think this is a far more narrow inquiry than the one that was contemplated yesterday, for example. And that's because the application kept on referring to the WinBed's application. I mean, not the WinBed MGM. I think, I think it's different, but I, people could view it similarly. So we just want to be clear that we're just inquiring and a couple of very narrow issues and not, you know, looking for the holistic answer to what their operation is like and who they are. Commissioners, Michelle Bryan, thoughts? We can turn to Jackie if she's whatever you'd like to do, Commissioner Bryan, but yes. So I've been, I've been struggling this since we did all of the ones in terms of, you know, the conceptualization I had that this was simply adding another option to the services of batting at the gaming establishments is not exactly how it turns out. So there is a complexity to the suitability of the corporation and the, and the cat one that bleeds over in my mind a little bit into sometimes the cat three co-partners, depending on who they are. I think yesterday it was so integrally intertwined. I don't know how we could separate them based on the presentation of the application. This is a little bit different, but there are references to WinBed and then Caesar's a little bit in this, which I'm having, I'm trying to parse out in my mind where the line is drawn for purposes of today. And so I hear Commissioner Skinner, she's got some questions that go into WinBed and I certainly wouldn't want to go forward in a way that makes her uncomfortable making a decision unless you know, Todd, you're telling us that it's kind of crossing a line that's affecting the integrity of the process. I don't think there are bright lines here, first of all. I think that again, discussing WinBed here is I think entirely appropriate. It's clearly related to this retail operation. You do have an application before you, and so I don't think it would be unfair, certainly, to discuss that, not for final consideration, of course, but just as it relates to the category one application for you. And to the extent you find this different from the issue from yesterday or even on Tuesday, then I think it's fair to go into this area today. I think all three of them are a little bit different for me, but I can see I can see why going into all three. I can understand Commissioner Skinner's desire to go in. I kind of would like some of the answers as well. You know, certainly we, you know, each one has been different and and even between Tuesday and Wednesday it was treated, you know, it was appropriate at the time, you know, and so right now that's Commissioner Skinner, you know, I really am so respectful of your your questions. I just, it's completely process making sure that we are straight on it. So Madam Chair, on the equity issue, it is an important one, and I thought thank you for raising it. But I do see these as the applications as different. You know, PBC I'm not even going to discuss. I think that's in a category of its own in terms of the issues that we dealt with on Monday. The difference between this application and the MGM's application yesterday is I did not feel as though I could make a determination on that application without reviewing the that MGM application in its entirety. Here, I do feel comfortable moving forward, you know, in making a determination. Despite not having the WinBet application in front of me, I would like to have Encore or WinBet speak to those specific items in Section G. But I'm not thinking at the moment that that will be an impediment or the lack of a response relative to that section will be an impediment to the Commission moving forward in its deliberations today. So, Todd, you know, I hope that is clearer in terms of my rationale for digging into this aspect of the application with Jackie and clarifies the distinction between the applications as I see it. I think that's appropriate. The only thing, again, just that you should not do is make final judgments as to the WinBet application since those proponents aren't here to defend anything in the application. So, to the extent that there's information in there that would be helpful in addressing the Category 1 application, I think that's okay. But you should not make final decisions as to WinBet in any way today. Yeah, I think that goes without saying. But thank you. So, Councillor Grossman, I just need a little help. We've got Ms. Crumb who is doing a great job at listening. And she's been asked to answer questions concerning on information that she may well be able to answer. She may not be able to answer because WinBets is not available or WinBets just isn't prepared to answer. So, Jackie, if you'll indulge us, I think what we would say is that Commissioner Skinner has pointed out a few sections where there are some level of comfort you could give her comfortably. And then I'll allow the two of you to clarify. So, if I could just clarify, you're not asking questions about our Section G3, GH, G4, DENF. You're asking questions, you would like to ask questions about WinBets application, the sections from WinBets application. No, I guess I'm asking, you know, whether you are comfortable answering those questions in Section G as those questions pertain to WinBets. So, I don't have WinBets. Well, I can probably find it. But I would need to bring in someone from WinBets to answer questions, which is completely appropriate and not an issue for us at all. Just as another, if I could add this to the discussion, we, if we're fortunate enough to receive a Category 1 license, we would be the person standing behind that, WinMA LLC, not WinBets. So, if one of our vendors, whether it's WinBets or any of the others, some who are gaming and some who are not gaming related, caused us to breach any of the regulations or internal controls, we would accept responsibility for that. Having said that, it's really not an issue for us to get. If it gives anyone comfort, it's not an issue for us to get someone from WinBets to answer any concerns. The only thing I would say is those sections that you raised potentially contain information that we would ask if it could be discussed in the executive session. I'll say I haven't read that application yet. So, it would be, it would be cold to me, too. So, Commissioner Skinner, I think I really appreciate Ms. Crown reminding everyone that the control and the responsibility lies with the applicant, the Category 1 applicant. Commissioner Skinner? Well, maybe let's put that pin in that and let you think about that. Commissioner, do you have other questions with respect to Section G that relates directly to the applicant? No other questions? Sorry, yes. Here we go. Mine is more. And Heather, are you still on? Yes, there she is. I'm here. I wish I was here a little earlier, but I heard the Section G and I realized I need to tune in. So, if I can't answer it, I might need a refresher of what you were all been discussing, but I'm happy to give it a shot. Well, completely. For you, I'm jumping to a completely different number. So, the application itself for G1, we have suitability and corporate integrity. And in that is what they filled out in terms of the BED and the report that you summarized earlier for us. But then there's also any joint venture agreements, applicants, businesses, contractors, vendors. And so, I think some of the conundrum I'm having is the application calls for more than what the traditional suitability, you know, the Four Corners report addresses. So, I have some RG questions, particularly as deceasers, but I'm looking basically to see from Ivy's perspective, suitability on the Catlin application today. Whether reserving any questions on joint ventures or vendors for another time waves anything in terms of my ability to ask questions going forward. I think, you know, it's a good question. And if I, following what I heard from the earlier discussion, I do think if there are questions with respect to Caesar's RG program, those, I think would, and I obviously will certainly want to hear what Todd has to say as well. I think those could be addressed when we talk about Caesar's their application as a category three. Does that make sense, Todd? I think we're on the same page with that. I just, I'm just looking for confirmation of that on the record because we do put it in as part of this application in G1. I'm comfortable waiting until we get to the Cat3. I guess my wouldn't be if they, if there wasn't an opportunity separately on a separate Cat3 for them. But I just want to make sure that I'm procedurally handling that the right way. Commissioner O'Brien, do you mind just allowing Jackie to say why that was included? Because it is in response to a very narrow question, right? A narrow question. And I want to be fair that it wasn't, you were complete in your application by including it. So Jackie, if you just want to explain the document that Commissioner O'Brien is referencing, it's in G1. It's G1. And I know some of it is portions of it are redacted, but it's, I think you put it in there to be over inclusive and in abundance of caution, but I think the substance of it we're going to address at the Cat3. Oh, sure. So when we had some calls with Director Wells and the team, Executive Director Wells, I should say, we were asked to include any of these joint vent, any of the tethered agreements as part of the response to this question. Right. And I think it might be, there's, it's the inclusion of that in our app that I think, and I'm not going to speak for Commissioner Skinner, but I've been, it's, we have to figure out where to draw the line and some of these cross over more substantively than others. On this one, I'm comfortable holding my other questions on that until we get to the Cat3. Thank you for that, Commissioner O'Brien. Other questions on G, there are three very quite separate sections. That's why I've gone over the titles each time. I guess I would just ask RSM generally, is there anything if they're available still? They may not be. They may have all left. Which is interesting. Chair, if you'd like, I could punch face Monica about seeing if they could come back. No, there's Connor. Okay, great. Thanks. Thanks, Connor. Just generally from a high level, I didn't hear anything from RSM that indicates any particular matter that was a flag concerning their finance, the applicant's financial stability. No, nothing was identified in our initial review. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? I think that the lack of questions, and I'm not forgetting Commissioner Skinner's earlier questions, the lack of questions is an indicator of the completeness of the application. Commissioner Skinner, do you have some thoughts as to how you want to move forward comfortably or what we can do? Yes, I do. Given that Jack is offered to have a representative from WinVet appear, I think that makes the most sense. The only outstanding question I think is for Todd, relative to the executive session and whether this meets the criteria in order to do so. Well, it depends what exactly the commission would like to discuss in executive session. I can tell you that we have only noticed on the agenda that the commission may go into executive session for discussing issues that may arise under section 6i, which you'll recall involve trade secrets, competitively sensitive or proprietary information, which have publicly released would place the applicant in a competitive disadvantage. We did not notice the privacy exemption or any of the other exemptions to the other provisions of the executive session law. So if there are issues that are not don't fall under 6i, then it's not as clean, I would say. And we would really need to understand what we are going to be discussing in executive session. And the only way to get there would be to pin it under the matters that were not reasonably anticipated at the time we posted the agenda. This is not certainly something that came up, so that's why it's not on. I have to say that, Commissioner Skinner, I'm so respectful of your desire to have that information. I just do think it's outside of the scope of our review of this particular application. You know, Longford Boston Harbor appeared today to answer the questions that we're looking at. And well, you know, I might want to know more about their advertising vendor. You might want to know more about their price setting vendor. That's one, I know that we, as I hear from Councillor Hall, that that's actually the vendors, if our regulatory structure, they remind me, we've decided IEB is equipped to make that assessment. And I know that, you know, you're hearing trade services as something that seems more core to the mission. And I get that completely. I do, I understand that. But another Commissioner might say more core to the mission is, as I said, marketing, right? And so I feel like there's a little bit of creep going on here in terms of the scope of our review of the application. I want to be cautious, but I also don't want it to be dismissive. And I am trying to strike the right balance here. I also need to, I want to be very transparent. We've also asked for an executive session on another subject matter today, or I shouldn't say we. It was asked to maybe discuss the the safety or security issues around the express, express bet, is that okay? And I think that Councillor Grossman has touched on a point there that perhaps we haven't noticed an executive session for that purpose. So we would, if we were to decide to go anticipate going into an executive session, we probably haven't noticed that today for that purpose. If we don't deliberate today, I do want to point out that I probably would still feel uncomfortable having a vendor have to address issues in this application. In this application, given quality of the application and the way it was written, if we, if we decide, we have to go to another day. I just wanted to make sure that Todd, if you want to address the issue around, I think it was Commissioner O'Brien who raised the issue around security. And then there was a notion that it extended more widely. We would have to vote on, we'd have to vote to go into executive session if we never decide to go into executive session on that point. Yeah, I think it goes without saying that of course all commission business has to be conducted in public unless there's a very precise reason why we can go into executive session to talk about something privately. And ideally, you will notice those issues on an agenda in accordance with the open meeting law, i.e. giving 48 hours notice, whatever it is you're going to talk about. And of course, as you know, historically, we have always done that. We've been very careful to identify whatever issues we're going to discuss in executive session on an agenda so there is no uncertainty as to what we're talking about. In these cases, these things were not anticipated so they weren't noticed. And for that reason, if we were to do something like that, we would need to be very clear what exactly will be discussed without of course compromising the privacy or confidentiality of the information just to ensure that it meets the requirements that allow you to go into executive session. So as it pertains to the security, if you will, of the kiosks in the garage area, we would have to be able to find that the commission would be discussing the deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect to their too, or that it falls under the exemption in the public records law to the extent we're talking about documents of some sort that discusses security, cybersecurity blueprints and things along those lines. So we would have to flush those issues out a little bit more to make sure we're comfortably within the confines of the reasons you're allowed to go into executive session. So that applies to both of these issues that have come up, whether it's the again, the kiosks or the information related to wind bets. And since we did not identify those on the agenda, we would need to be extra careful to make sure that it's done very precisely. I have a hypothetical mental chair. So I was listening to you earlier, Todd, and you said that if we that we could look at their application when that thing they but we could not make a determination on that given the reasons you just gave could theoretically, if we had a five minute break, if I clicked around G on wind bets application and looked at it quickly in the areas that Commissioner Skinner questions or the subsection she mentioned, is that possible? Am I not allowed to click around and look at it? What what would be in relation to this application? No, you can look at it. There's nothing wrong with that. It was just that Ms. Crumb suggested that the information contained in there is of a nature that it they wouldn't be comfortable discussing it publicly. So you can read it. There's nothing wrong with that. I guess what I'm asking is good not to cut you off. I apologize. Is that if the information is answered for me by clicking into that quickly? There would be no need for any session, correct? Yeah, certainly. If it is for you, that's that's fine. And although there are other, of course, commissioners. Oh, I'm just this is a hypothetical. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. I think we'd be going into an executive session about a different application on G. I mean, I'm I'm feeling like we are actually complicating these matters and it's prolonging our discussion. But I do feel that to to there's two executive sessions that have been proposed. We typically don't struggle at all when we're thinking about going into executive sessions because we are extremely careful. And and and we know what's before us. So if there's an idea that today, Ms. Crumb could get one of her colleagues who's really representing a category three application to come and present to us. And then it's to present to us in an executive session that we we really haven't posted. I'm not sure I could feel positive to move into that executive session. I'm not sure if I would be a minority. Second, with respect to the other one, we need to discuss the parameters around the public via the security issue. But maybe we try to dispose of the questions that have been presented with respect to that. And I guess Commissioner Maynard, your your your practical solution makes a lot of sense. I'm just trying to figure out how I manage it procedurally here. Madam Chair. Yes, please. Let me ask if I'm being clear with what's happened the last two days. These have been similar questions that have come up. And I'm wondering why we aren't waiting till next week to hear a category three in this instance, as we have suggested in the other two before deliberating. I actually think that three very different scenarios with different legal issues. I think that's where that's where they are being conflated. And I don't I don't feel that they are all the same. Commissioner O'Brien, you started to articulate that. And we have to be careful because this is a really an applicant, you know, this is on Corbus and Harbour's moment, you know, by. And so I want to make sure we're looking. Don't let history dictate. You know, we're looking at I look at each application before me in the light of what was presented before, you know, what was presented to me. But commissioners, I think maybe Todd was saying, well, we can include my approaches to look at each application. That doesn't mean we decide we reserve the right to dispose of it at a different time. I think tying it to a category three application. For me, I'm just I don't. I don't see that I see them as separate issues. But Commissioner O'Brien, maybe you can help me. So I mean, I think I'm coming up with a solution that is akin to what Commissioner Hill said, which is we have two issues. One, we have the security issue that I raised that wasn't explicitly noticed in terms of going into executive session to deal with today. We also have one commissioner who's expressed the desire or the need for additional information and connection with references that were made in this application that may require that applicant to talk about sensitive information. That's not appropriate to talk about in the setting. I don't know that necessarily means diving into the substance of those G subsections so much as EVH being able to answer any questions for Commissioner Skinner in that regard. And so what I'm wondering is, can we properly notice an executive session narrowly on those two that goes into next week that allows us to then get all of these voted on and adjudicated next week when we come back on the tether three, not necessarily taking tether three information into this analysis, just from a logistical standpoint, putting them all together, we can properly notice and get through this next week. And I think I can simplify that proposal a little bit. It's not my intention to overcomplicate this issue. I just simply disagree with you, Madam Chair, that my questions are outside the scope of this category one application review. I did ask Commissioner Hill is right. I asked the same questions of the other two applicants. The difference here, as I said, is with, so I'm going to again take PPC off the table because there were other issues outside of the suitability of their retail sports wagering partner. But the difference between today's application and yesterday's is that I am comfortable with Commissioner Maynard's proposal. If I could have 10 minutes to go and review that application, those questions and when that's category three application, I can do that. And the reason why I'm willing to do that today is because it's much more straightforward and much more limited in terms of the information that's missing for me from on course application. I was not willing to go and review MGM FETS application yesterday because, as I said, I felt like I needed to review that application in its entirety in order to get comfortable with deliberating, let me say, on the MGM category one application. So I hope that helps. Without going into executive session provided that I'd be allowed to review that information prior to a deliberation if we are going to deliberate today. I do also understand and respect that Commissioner O'Brien is looking for some outstanding information. And so regardless of how I am willing to move forward, there still may be that outstanding issue on the security discussions. It does help clarify. I think my level of discomfort about the scope is to just require somebody, require an entity that isn't the applicant to have to come forward. I'm just struggling with it. Well, I don't think we'd be requiring because Jackie has offered and in fact, I think she expressed that it would be relatively simple to get someone here. So I don't look at it as a requirement. If I may. I have spoken to my colleague at Winbeth's, I'll text it, and she would be willing to join the conversation if it would be helpful in moving things forward. And she would be available now or is available. And can we, do you want to break first to look at the application, Commissioner Skinner, that they put forward? I think that makes sense because it would potentially, you know, limit the need for the Winbeth colleagues over here. I think that that's very practical. And if it really would help you, then we would be less disruptive to her schedule and others. So why don't we, does everybody agree to allow Commissioner Skinner to take a look and see if her questions are answered? And that would be, you know, how many minutes should we break for Commissioner Skinner? I think 15 minutes should do it. I hope 15 minutes will do it. And, you know, a little respect if you need more time, you can just give me a wave a little through at the 15 minutes, the Indian and other five minutes, and I'll cover you for that, okay, or however long it is. We'll take a break. It's already 308, probably a good time for a break. And then I appreciate you, Ms. Crom, making your colleague and vendor available and should that be necessary. We'll contemplate the other request about the executive session and decide what we can do today on that versus next week. Okay. Any other comments before we break? Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Dave. Also. Thank you. Mr. Hill, I see that I'm not sure if you can hear us, if you're going to video on. I just want to make sure Commissioner Hill, if you can hear us, I'm not sure if you know that you're not on. There we go. Oh, that's that's Councillor Hall and not Commissioner Hill. There he is. Excellent. Okay. So again, we are reconvening Massachusetts Gaming Commission meeting number 408. And because we're holding this virtually, we'll do the real call. I'm here. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. And I'm here as well. Here we go. Okay. So we left it that we're going to give our fellow Commissioner Skinner a little bit of time to just do a check on what was a legitimate concern that maybe could be answered in a practical fashion. So, Commissioner Skinner, do you, are you comfortable addressing this now? So first, I don't think that we need to attempt to go into executive session today or next week around this particular question. I did have an opportunity to review section G of WinBets application. And it does reference some very concerning activity relative to its online sports wagering operations. And I understand that that's not what's in front of us today. But that's where I struggle with trying to understand where we draw the line, what the fine line is. So is that in the, when you say it's very concerning, is it in fact confidential or is it open? I did not go back and look at their application. So I can't imagine what you're referring to right now. So we should all be either understanding it or go reading it ourselves. So I'm going to defer to Todd to answer that question. Madam Chair, if you don't mind. The sections that I believe Commissioner Skinner reviewed were marked by the applicant as confidential. And as we discussed a day or so ago, the legal department has not reviewed all of the documents that were marked as confidential to ensure compliance with the public records law or including the statutory exemption in 23N. But they have been reviewed through that lens by the applicant and so marked. So those are areas that we should not discuss publicly at the moment. And again, I understand that that activity relates to when that's online operations. And that's not what we have at issue today in on course category one application. But it is one entity, right? So that's again where I struggle. So I don't, you know, I understand the importance of allowing wins application to stand on its own. And I was I was I respect that. And so I guess, you know, I'd love to hear from my fellow commissioners and you chair, you know, how we should proceed on this particular question. Commissioner Skinner, I am I express that the process that we were going outside the review of the the application that was before us. I stand by that. Commissioner O'Brien. So I can empathize with where Commissioner Skinner is coming from to some extent, because when you have the same name and the same entity performing in dual functions, it is sometimes difficult to draw the line on where does the vendor become part of the suitability of the applicant and or a qualifying entity in its own right. So I cannot, you know, Commissioner Skinner, in terms of procedurally, whether you feel comfortable on a vote on that question today. But for me, and every application is different. And so for me, and this particular one, the vendor line in this four corners of this application, I feel comfortable with. However, to your point, you know, they cat through questions that we have for people coming up in the next couple of weeks are entirely different. And it's entirely different posture when they come before us in that way. But I also don't want to see any commissioner if you felt like you needed more questions answered that maybe you did feel like an executive session was going to provide to you. I don't want to be anyone that takes that away from you. Yeah. No, that's that. Sorry, Commissioner Maynard. That's where that's where I think I come down. I mean, I just, you know, I'm comforted by the fact that we will have an opportunity to review the Wendat application next week. So I think, you know, with respect to to the application today, you know, given what Jackie indicated earlier in that Encore is ultimately responsible for the provision of the retail sports waving operations. I'm comfortable, you know, with what I have seen in the entirety of Section G. Talking about Section G of this application. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. I just wanted to echo Commissioner O'Brien and say that, you know, it is difficult to divorce some of these applications, but I'm able to do so as to the category one license versus the category three license. And like Commissioner Skinner, we'll have questions when we get to the category three licensee of the category three, but we can I can separate the two in my mind and am comfortable moving forward based solely on the category one application. I think Commissioner Hill is talking to somebody. Commissioner Hill, I was going to ask your opinion. I'll give you a pause on that for now. You can ask away. Okay, thank you. What is your feeling on this? So I I have been very quiet over the last two days because I don't think I have been in agreement with some of my colleagues on qualifiers versus licensees before us. I have looked at the category one applications as just that. I've tried to not bring both three and one into one application. I have sat and listened intently and respectfully to my fellow commissioners because you've brought up some very, very good points. What I feel very strongly about is that what's before us today in regards to WinBat is they are a vendor that is before us today. And that's how I'm looking at this application. And I feel very comfortable as the vendor for E.B.H. that we should move this particular application forward because I do believe that we are looking at a vendor and under our regulations as has been explained to us a few times now, the vendors go before a division of our commission. They don't come up to us. And they do wonderful work. And if there was an issue as a vendor, they would have let us know, I believe, in their report. So that's how I'm looking at our category ones. Understanding that Tuesday and Wednesday, there were some issues brought before us that absolutely need to have some answers, some questions answered. But for today's purposes, Madam Chair, I think we should be able to move forward looking at this as a vendor and not as an applicant in a or putting together a category three applicants in with a category one applicant. Does that answer your question? It helps me a lot, Commissioner Hill, because you've been quiet, but I knew that there were opinions there to be shared. So thank you very much. I want to make sure the voice was captured. Yes. Commissioner Hall. No, Councilor Hall. Another promotion. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. And if I didn't make this clear earlier, then that's, that's my fault. We have not reviewed the vendors that are attached for these new sports functions at this point in IEB. That is a process that is kind of in the terms of the steps, you know, it's category one, category three, and the vendors are coming after. So I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about that. That IEB has not has not done preliminary or full on any of the vendors that have been flagged with respect to the sports wagering, unless we in fact had already reviewed them in the gaming context. So I just want to make sure everybody's okay and understands that piece of it. Understood. Okay, thanks. I appreciate it. Sorry to interrupt you. And that's part of your continuing process. Every time a new vendor is added to a licensee's portfolio, how does it work? You... Right, the licensee would identify the vendor, and then we would go through the scoping process. And then we would then, you know, proceed with the investigation of the vendor. And I think it's good to compartmentalize those for now, because there may be issues and questions about, well, in the sports wagering context, does that come up before the commission or does it stay with IEB? But our practice with the gaming side of the house, so to speak, no pun intended, is that they have gone only up through IEB with respect to suitability. Right. And right now, with respect to our three licensees, IEB is probably reviewing vendor vendor suitability. That's it. Okay, thank you. Yep. So commissioners, I want to be mindful of the fact that in addition to Commissioner Skinner's questions, we also had earlier when we were taking... I think we haven't taken our temperature on G because of this outstanding issue. Am I wrong? So if we could put a pin in that, I want to go back to that. We took a sort of a straw ball on... It might have been Section C, right? Commissioner O'Brien regarding the express that area, which is going to be in the garage, and it will entail 900 square feet and maybe 20-something kiosks. And as I understand, it will be an expansion of the gaming floor that will come before us at a certain point in time. We talked about that, but then we talked about some of the security issues you had. Right. So yeah, so if I can... I think that the way to address that is... I've made it clear that I'm not 100% convinced one way or the other on whether the gaming floor should be expanded to include that. There's an entirely different mechanism that they're going to have to come back in front of us on. So what I would like to ask is for staff to brief me on the conversations that you've had with EVH already around security, and it may be we need an executive session at the time of the request to expand the gaming floor if I have questions of EVH on that. I don't think it needs to hold this up today. I just make that point that my thumbs up on sufficiency of this application has absolutely no bearing on what I'm going to say or vote on when it comes back in front of us procedurally for requests to actually expand and create that space. Commissioner O'Brien, I agree with that process that it could go forward. I would share that. I know that others had expressed concerns about the public safety. So I think what I want to make sure is that all answers will be questioned in the proper forum. Bruce could, of course, get back to you if you wouldn't mind if we can plan on these issues coming up in our full-sum discussion properly in the public or properly in an executive session as available to make sure everybody's comfortable because I know I heard Commissioner Hill say we are many of us. So I want to be cognizant of that. So does that mean that you would be, if we decide to move forward on some kind of a disposition today, we could either attach it as a condition or some clear understanding that when Ms. Crum and team come back in front of us for that request, we would then fully address the security issues and Jackie certainly would be on notice that that would be a paramount concern. Absolutely. Okay. So now back to what we put a pin in, section G. Commissioner Skinner, I think I heard you say that you have concerns but now that you do see it being something that could be satisfied in the category three analysis separate and apart from today's review of the category one application, but I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that was my impression. That's correct. Given the assurances that we got from on board today, I think I am, I know I'm comfortable moving forward and particularly given that the issues that I'm concerned about and I suspect others will be concerned about as well relate to the online sports majoring operations and not the retail operations. Okay. So does that give sort of a that meets expectations? Are you comfortable with meeting or exceeding? Yes, I am. I'm comfortable with meeting. Okay. Commissioner Hill thumbs up. Commissioner Mayter and Commissioner O'Brien. Yep. Yes. Okay. Excellent. So we've gotten through all of the sections and thank you everyone for the flexibility around this process. You know, I think I do think it reflects a lot of thoughtfulness and care and attention to detail, Commissioner Skinner, which I will give you full credit to. And can I say I will give full credit to all of my fellow commissioners as well. But I do appreciate it. I'm glad thankful that Commissioner Mayter came up with a practical solve. We always start with that. But we also know that we've got as I started with a big responsibility about being that rigorous regulator. And yet also fair, transparent and participatory. I think we've accomplished all of that today. With that said, we have in front of us that the agenda does allow for us to go into the process of making a determination, which I've led with perhaps not properly today. Council Grossman in detail. But I think when you first laid out the legal framework, you explained that the guidance for us, well, we've done that high level review of the application, we would have to make some kind of affirmative findings, findings with respect to the factors laid out in our, our regulation commissioners. Is this a process that you would like to pursue now? Are we comfortable pursuing that going on to the next item of the agenda now with the Council Grossman's guidance? Because it is different than what we've done with the other two. But I think we are treating each in their own proper appropriate fashion. That okay. Council Grossman, everybody nodding their head. I've got an agreement. Yes. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. Yes. Yes. All right. Well, let's see how this proceeds. Thank you, Todd, for your guidance. We certainly have engaged in this kind of analysis in the past. So thank you very much. Sure. Well, essentially having found substantial evidence that all of the factors have been satisfied and assuming that you do find that it would benefit the Commonwealth to award this license, it would be helpful just to talk about the section of the regulations that discusses the, let's call them automatic conditions of licensure and then the operation certificate briefly. So, Todd, Todd, are you saying that this is still the process? It's just assuming, because you are going to walk us through each factor, right? I don't think, did I misunderstand? Did you say that? Oh, no, maybe I misunderstood you. Okay. No, we can go through the factors. We should go through each one to make sure, and I think we should vote to make sure that we have substantial evidence, because we haven't talked about meeting that threshold. We've all been comfortable on the high level. I do think you need to walk us through those factors, correct, commissioners? And then, and then the ultimate finding the substantial evidence to benefit the Commonwealth. Yeah, sure. So, we're back into 218, 25CMR 218, this is .065, talks about the standard and the factors. And the, again, the umbrella standard is whether a license award would benefit the Commonwealth. So, that's the ultimate question that you want to answer. In making that decision, you would want to be able to say that there is substantial evidence to support each of the factors that you have gone through extensively this afternoon. And they are, A, the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports wagering. And there are a series of sub-factors that were set out in the regulations as well. They include the applicant's background in sports wagering, the applicant's experience and licensure and other jurisdictions that sports wagering, and a description in the applicant's proposed sports wagering operation or description technical features and operation of the platform as applicable, which is not applicable. Should we pause? Do you, commissioners, and you want to remind us of the standard? I know that you've given us that definition a few times now. Yes. So, this is the substantial evidence standard, which is that quality of evidence. Okay. I should have this memorized at this point in my career. But the definition is that it's as such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. That is the definition of substantial evidence. Commissioners, should we have them run through each factor and then take our vote? Or do you want to do, I mean, go through all of the criteria, or do you want to vote incrementally? It seems like we've reached consensus on the individual criteria. So, maybe if you list them out, unless someone raises a point, it seems like we're all heading in the direction of substantial evidence. Excellent. So, this is for the record. Yep. Thank you. So, B is the economic impact and other benefits to the Commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license, including one, employment opportunities within the Commonwealth, two, the projected revenue from wagering operations and tax revenue to the Commonwealth, three, for category one and two applicants. The applicants proposed plans for construction and capital investments associated with the license award, and four, community engagement. So, that's factor B. Factor C is the applicant's proposed measures related to responsible gaming, including the following. The applicant's responsible gaming policies, two, the applicant's advertising and promotional plans, and three, the applicant's history of demonstrated commitment to responsible gaming. That is factor D. Factor D is a description of the applicant's willingness to foster racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, equity, and inclusion, including the following. One, within the applicant's workforce, two, through the applicant's supplier spend, and three, in the applicant's corporate structure. That is factor D. Factor E is the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation, including one, geofencing, which doesn't apply here. Actually, the second one doesn't apply either. Well, it's not as directly. It's the know your customer measures that does apply. And three, technological expertise and reliability. That is factor E. And factor F is the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers. And just to reiterate, this one is the situation where you apply the clear and convincing standard. And there are two options for you to either issue a, if the standard is met, a durable finding of suitability, or to issue a preliminary finding of suitability. And the sub factors to consider in making that decision are one, whether the applicant can be or has been determined suitable in accordance with two of five CMR. Two, the applicant and all parties and interests to the licensees, integrity, honesty, good character and reputation. Three, the applicant's financial stability, integrity and background. Four, the applicant's business practices and business ability to establish and maintain a successful sports major operation. Five, the applicant's history of compliance with gaming or sports majoring licensing requirements and other jurisdictions. And six, whether the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practice. So that is factor F. Factor G is any other appropriate factor in the commission's discretion. So those are the factors that you have reviewed here today and the sub factors that are subject. And then the ultimate conclusion is that whether a license award would benefit the common. That's right. Okay, so keeping suitability aside, should we vote on that with respect to substantial evidence? Yeah, I think you could move to find that there is substantial evidence in the record by the application and discussion here today to support each of the factors identified and that the award of the license would benefit the common. And we'll pull out factor F, the suitability piece for now. And before we're to vote, on that, do we need to think about the conditions or any conditions that we would attach to that? Or should we go ahead and vote? And thank you for bearing with me as we move through this process. I think it might be helpful just to refresh everyone's memories as to the conditions. So you have the full picture before you before you vote. There are a series of automatic conditions and I'll go through those really quickly for you. Aside from the pre-registration issue that we discussed earlier, I don't have any other notes as to other conditions that you may want to attach. As for the pre-registration issue, there was a question raised as to whether that would be an appropriate subject for a condition or better as a regulation. I might suggest to you that it while it is clearly an important issue and one of great interests, not just here but probably elsewhere, that might be a better subject for regulation of some kind so that we can spend the time to think it through. We don't want to move too quickly on that and that we word it exactly as it should be so we don't make any missteps there. That said, if it is something that there's interest in pursuing as part of a condition, we can spend time to try to get that together. But that was the only standalone condition other than the automatic one so that I had on my list. The automatic conditions if you will are that the operator obtain an operation certificate before conducting any sports wagering and we can talk for a minute about what that entails. That the operator comply with all terms and conditions of its license and operations certificate. That the operator comply with chapter 23 and in all rules and regulations of the commission. That the operator make all required payments to the commission in a timely manner. That the operator maintain its suitability to hold the sports wagering license. And that the operator conducts sports wagering in accordance with its approved system of internal controls consistent with 205CMR and in accordance with its approved house rules in accordance with chapter 23 and section 10A and consistent with 205CMR. I think it might be helpful just to also touch on what goes into obtaining an operation certificate since that is one of the key conditions here. And this is discussed in section 251 of the commission's regulations. And it says essentially in order to obtain that you they have to go through a test period which we can discuss in greater detail later on but that is a prerequisite to this. But they also have to have all of their system of internal controls which include the house rules approved by the commission. They have to provide a current list of all sports wagering employees, sports wagering vendors and non sports wagering vendors. They have to have the facility built of a superior quality and ensure that it complies with all applicable conditions of licensure. A copy of its emergency response plan has to be submitted and we detail what needs to be in there. It has to be filed to the fire department police department of the city of Everett in this case. They have to have a copy of the certificate of occupancy issued by the city of Everett building inspector or commissioner obtained and filed including compliance with the architectural access board regulations and there's some discussion here as to accessibility that's obviously a key component that's generally part of the building permit process and is likely already been satisfied but we will double check that as part of the operation certificate. Compliance and then compliance with any other condition that the commission may impose here. So that's that's what it takes to obtain an operation certificate. So those are the let's call them again automatic conditions that will attach to the award of a category one sports wagering okay so in terms of going forward with the vote we'd want to think about the whether or not we want to attach that condition I'll give my quick opinion I think the the topic around the pre-registration and the loading of the wallets I we did hear pretty clearly that this that it would be an exceptional measure for us to take but I do think it might be one that we want to explore I'm I'm thinking it might be better for us to explore in the regulatory context because if we did go forward with adopting a regulation we'd get input from the public that might help us on that and and I'm I'm also really yielding to the council Grossman's judgment on that so I would be comfortable not having that be an exceptional condition today I don't believe I've heard of another condition except perhaps Commissioner Brown I want to be mindful of the fact that the the public safety we could attach it as a condition but we are going to have it come before us in any case the matter of the the expansion I don't think it's a condition just me stating for the record which I think I've already done the the fact that the approval under 218 has no bearing on our adjudication down the road for the request to expand the gaming floor okay very very helpful thank you and I think we would have could have a motion that combines the the recognition that we've met the standard review both with respect to you know the suitability as well as the other factors if we feel that way again the suitability here if we were to vote on it and vote it and I think this is important with respect to a cat one application the durable suitability decision that reflects what 23 and anticipated if I understand correctly council Grossman I don't know if you want to just remind us again of that absolutely so there again there are two options when it comes well three one you could find them unsuitable but the the two primary options are that they be awarded a durable finding of suitability or a preliminary finding of suitability the durable finding of suitability is designed essentially for any entity that has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant and all of its qualifiers have been found suitable under essentially under chapter 23k but as can be carried over here by clear and convincing evidence and in this case that they have maintained such suitability since the initial finding and that goes up to the present day and so if you are to find that there is such evidence in the record then you can award this applicant a durable finding of suitability which would allow you to just award them the sports wagering operator license as compared to a preliminary finding of suitability in which essentially you are determining that there is further investigation that is required by the IEB to bring back before you so that you can make a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant in each of its qualifiers has demonstrated its ability in that event if an applicant solely gets a preliminary finding of suitability that simply makes them eligible to request a temporary license which would remain in effect if granted until the background investigation is complete and the commission finds that there is clear and convincing evidence of their suitability at which time you could then award the final sports wagering operator license so those are the two essentially two options here before you the durable finding of suitability or the preliminary finding of suitability. Councillor Hall do you want to add in on that you're um I want to get the language right you're you know is it is it the report it's fair that's what you thought it yeah report and suitability on the conclusion of the IEB was it was chaired that the applicant and all of its qualifiers listed in the IEB's executive summary have been found suitable after full investigation and findings of suitability by the commission and that they remain in good standing. Thank you. Councillor Grossman I think this also impacts the fee that the applicant should be paying so my understanding is a durable finding of suitability and they're comfortable with the application submitted they would submit the full five million as opposed to the one million for the temporary license is that right that's exactly right. Other questions now for um General Councillor Grossman or Councillor Hall with respect to the process as we make this we're considering making this decision. Any questions commissioners? Um Commissioner O'Brien I am looking to you um with some with with some empathy I was afraid you were going to say that but with empathy I wanted with all caps empathy um I I think you probably have it but we can get guidance from Councillor Grossman along the way. I mean what I would do in um it's two separate motions just for simplicity sake I think it's just cleaner given the different standard review in the first instance I move that the commission fine that the applicant on core Boston Harbor through its application submitted and as discussed here today has established by substantial evidence and met the criterion set forth in 205 CMR 218.065 subsections a through e and g and further that any awarding of the license of a category one license to the applicant would be in the benefit benefit the Commonwealth. Second can I ask of this question do we I don't think you referenced the conditions do we do that here or is that a third motion point of I could put that on with um so as of now we they have not done the clear the suitability portion yet so we could do it with the suitability portion and then have reference to the statutory conditions do you want to give me a particular site for that time sure it's um I think they attach automatically but it certainly can't or to mention them it's thank you it's section 220.01 I'm sorry 220 what 0.01 220.01 okay okay with that helpful um clarification are there further questions or edits oh did I get a second I'm sorry I second good because I would have been out of order so thank you um so with that clarification any further edits or discussion all right. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. 5-0 on that portion with respect to suitability do I have a motion? Madam Chair I move that the commission find that the applicant on core Boston Harbor be found to have established by its application filing the review by IEB and the discussion here today have established by clear and convincing evidence its suitability consistent with 205 CMR 218.065 subsection F as well as 205 CMR 218.065 F and that any conditions um and subject to a finding of suitability in this connection also reference the obligations of reference under 205 CMR 220.01. Second. Thank you any further questions or edits okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes 5-0. Great well thank you Jackie and thank you Joe it's been a long day um thank you for your patience as we we um made our way through out these issues I appreciate everyone's participation today commissioners do you have anything you want to say other than I know a motion to adjourn Commissioner Skinner. I do actually have something to say I just want to thank um you chair and my fellow commissioners for um the understanding patience respect and deference in allowing each of us the opportunity to be fully heard and supported during these uh past couple of days and I know we're generally good at that um but was particularly notable um this week so thank you also want to thank um our external presenters RSM, GLI um as well as IEB and the rest of the team thank you. Thank you Commissioner Skinner anyone else all right I'll Commissioner Maynard. I just wanted to second Commissioner Skinner and say I think that this is great for the Commonwealth I know we took the vote saying that but I do think it's great for the Commonwealth. Congratulations to Angkor. Thank you so much we can't tell you how excited we are uh I'm very pleased that we built the sportsbook when we did and that we finally get to open it and use it as a sportsbook. We appreciate the dedication from each of you the commissioners as well as the entire staff we know this has been a lot of work a lot of efforts gone into this it's not an easy process and we we very much appreciate it. Well thank you thank you yeah good luck congratulations and congratulations all of us but I I also just want I want to thank the applicant I want to thank you for the thoroughness of your application um but I just also want to thank the entire team in my fellow commissioners um this uh today is an example of why we started with this is a team of excellence and I include each of my fellow commissioners as part of that team so thank you and I'll take a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Second. Congratulations thank you. Commissioner Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. I. And Commissioner Maynard. I. And we will gather tomorrow in another public meeting thanks for all your hard work everyone really appreciate it thank you. Hi. Five zero.