 that this meeting is being recorded. I'll take a roll call just to confirm that we have our report. Commissioner Cameron. Hi. Good morning. Good morning. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Good morning. Commissioner Zinica. Here. Good morning. Good morning. And Commissioner Stevens. Here. Good morning, everyone. And there we have all five of us. We'll get started just to remind her that we are using remote collaborative technology today in accordance with the governor's advisory order that allows us to summary from the open meeting law, allowing us, as you are now well acquainted, to conduct our public meetings this way. So thank you for joining us today. It is a special agenda. It is public meeting number 300 and four nights. And it's Thursday, June 11th, 10 a.m. And this meeting has a limited agenda. We have no meeting minutes to address. I just want to address what the outcome is. And then Karen and team will proceed with the substantive matter. Do not have this agenda marked up for a vote. And I want to make sure my fellow commissioners are comfortable with this. We thought that today would be an opportunity to go through the good work that the team has done under Karen's leadership with a lot of input from all of our team and a lot of crafting from Loretta. We would like to see where we have clear consensus or close consensus. And then those provisions where we might need to go back to the industry, that each of the licensees prefer the clarification, or it's really a matter of public health when we go to both the state and local public health officials for further guidance. And then when we tinker with the guidelines further and get closer to where we will probably have a consensus, we'll bring it back for a vote. Does that make sense? Any? No, I think so. OK. I mean, I agree. Yeah, I think that makes sense. OK, commissioners Zulika and Stevan. OK, good. Thanks, Bruce. You're all set. Agreed, yep. OK, excellent. So Karen, do you want to proceed? I'll just kick it off, Madam Chair, members of the commission. As you are well aware, the governor set out his guidelines for the reopening of Massachusetts and the casino opening and the racetrack opening were put in phase three. So in an effort to assist the commission with any guidelines that they may want to impose for the opening of the casinos in that initial phase when they open, staff put together memorandum and then also a chart for you to look at options of different things that are happening in different parts of the country or different things that are suggested so that we can put together any guidelines that you may want to require before the casinos open. And I'd like to specifically thank the team that put a lot of work into this. There was a lot going on across the country in different areas. And gathering that information was difficult. Bruce Bands and Bert Kaine and his team, and particularly Loretta Lilios, combining all that information into one document, was a lot of work. And they did a tremendous job here in that universe of what options there are for the commission. So I'd really like to compliment the staff on putting that together. And then I think that what would make sense, Madam Chairs, for you to sort of guide the discussion with the commissioners on going through that chart and getting some thoughts and feedback. And then also the licensees are on the call. They're available. They did all have experts within their companies that they hired in order to get some good feedback on safe procedures. So they're available with any questions or if you need any feedback on these guidelines and what makes sense for reopening Massachusetts casinos. So with that, I'll turn it over to Attorney Lilios just to give you sort of an overview of this. And then we can proceed if that makes sense, Madam Chair. That makes great sense. Okay. And I think we can see many of our colleagues from the licensees, but if there's a particular person that you want to speak with, you can ask commissioners or somebody will chime in for each licensee. Thanks. Go ahead. Sorry, Loretta. Sure. Thank you and good morning. So as Karen mentioned, the purpose of the materials that you have in front of you is to provide you with a list of potential measures for the initial stage of the phase three casino reopening for the focus in the areas of the hygiene, the sanitization, social distancing, as well as reporting measures. The chart that you have in front of you was designed as a continuum of measures in increasing aspects of comprehensiveness from column A through column C. It was not intended, though, as an exhaustive list and not intended that you would end up selecting the entirety of measures in one column versus another. It's really a tool for your discussion and consideration. Inherent in the materials before you is required compliance with all CDC guidelines, Department of Public Health guidelines, Governor's guidelines, as well as any sector-specific guidance that the Governor's office may promulgate in the days and weeks ahead. Also inherent in this as the memo mentions is the requirement that each property develop a plan in conjunction with its public health and epidemiological experts. I know that they have them working with those experts for months now and a requirement that oversight of adherence to their plan and to the required measures that you end up putting into place fall under the rubric of their compliance department and that communication and reporting of compliance be made on a routine basis to the commission. There also is a suggestion in one of the measures, the general measures of the designation of a pandemic safety officer to work in conjunction with the compliance department and to be a liaison with public health officials here in Massachusetts. So you'll see that the categories for your discussion are on pre-opening compliance with the public health measures, entry process and screening process for guests, occupancy levels, then some measures for consideration around slots and table games, cage measures and some additional general measures for the gaming area, for the game sense area and for employee related measures. So those are my general comments, but hope in conjunction with Bruce and Burke to be able to address any questions that you may have as you discuss this. And one other thing, Madam Chair and members of the commission to remember is that also the governor's advisory board may come out with some industry-specific guidelines which we would lay on top of any guidelines that we have. So we would not want to be in contrast to any guidelines by the governor. So while we are going through these, it's important to remember that that is also happening simultaneously. The governor's advisory board is looking at different industries. So we have to be aware that those guidelines may come out and inform what the commission's ultimate decisions may be. And I think we should also add the local public health. Correct. Are there councils or public health departments? The three. I think they're departments. Thank you, Lora. Lora had a contact with them. She may be able to help there. Yes, public health departments. And I have been in contact with two of the three. They may even be on this call and I'm in the process of making contact with the third. And it's my understanding that there are reporting obligations for any positive cases and that the local departments are liaisons to the state department in that aspect, especially as would relate to contact tracing responsibility. I'm glad that they've joined because I did see that that would be the immediate contact. Should there be a positive case that the state's making sure that the locals have the first point of contact which makes great sense. All righty. So Loretta, does it make sense in Karen to have Loretta walk us through? Sure. The first two look like they're the same. I think it would be really helpful for you to walk us through. And inform us of your thinking. Sure. So the first category is on the pre-opening cleaning and the measures across all three groups are the same. And that's a full deep cleaning and disinfecting of the gaming establishment, all areas that would be open in accordance with the guidelines that the CDC has put out for cleaning and disinfecting your facility. And then, as Karen mentioned, any specifics, sector guidance that the governor may put out. So what would be this measure is an expectation that each of the facilities would comply with that pre-opening process. And on that, just so that we understand the structure, those three are exactly alike when you were drafting these Loretta, you looked at practices from across the country, you were informed by the licensees, you made some judgment calls based on the expertise from our internal team. And in this case, you found that there really isn't a continuum here. This is the best practice. That is exactly right. That that would be the minimum expectation in this area for an opening measure. So what I'm gonna do is at the end of each one, unless I see somebody raising their hand, we'll continue to the next one. Enrique. Yeah, thank you. No, thank you. I think these are very intuitive and make a lot of sense. I think a lot of what the jurisdictions around the country and other industries not just gaming are doing. I just have to ask for out of curiosity, when it comes to the pre-opening cleaning, my understanding is that the risk is that the virus might linger in surfaces for at least a couple of days, but everybody seems to agree that not much longer than that. So what is besides reassuring the public, which I think is very significant, what would be the rationale behind a deep cleaning prior to opening, especially in areas that have been really vacant for a long time? Well, I do expect that in preparation for reopening that there would be staff and vendors that would have to be making preparations to get the properties ready. So, you know, as a last step before reopening, the cleaning would address any issues that might have happened during that preparation process. That's an excellent point. Thank you. Any further questions, comments from my fellow? I see no hands, no shouts. Okay, that seems to make good sense. Let's move on to your second bullet. Similarly, the second bullet is consistent in all three categories. And as we've already discussed, it's, you know, compliance with the CDC guidance and protocols with the State Department of Public Health guidance and protocols and any measures from the governor general measures or some of those sector-specific measures that we have not yet seen, but maybe forthcoming for dealing with this pandemic. Could we just include locals to their pleas, Loretta? Yes. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from my fellow commissioners on that? Anrike? Yeah, thank you. I think there's not a straight answer to this question for this moment, but I suspect it will touch on other aspects as we go forward. But I'll ask it now. I think the general thrust of having licensees have a compliance program like you articulated earlier and everybody comply with all the guidelines. This makes a lot of sense, obviously. I think the challenge might be in the fact that it eventually permeates down to the public adhering to a lot of these guidelines. And it is at least feasible that, you know, we will encounter the occasional person who is either unaware or unwilling to comply, members of the public, to comply with some of these. So as we keep going with this discussion, my overarching question is to kind of be cognizant that we will likely have, we can leverage on licensees as it is our only recourse, but we'll also are gonna have to depend on adherence from the public. Yeah, I suspect there'll be enforcement questions as we go along. Commissioners, do we agree? Yes. Yeah, I can see. With respect to that point, Enrique, on page eight, under your general measures, there is a point for each licensees plan to detail their procedures for dealing with guests who are non-compliant with the protocols. So there's an expectation that thought be given to that in advance implementation of, you know, their staff on the security side, and, you know, if necessary, a GEU staff as well. Loretta, are you absolutely right about guests having responsibilities as well? Loretta, I, whoops, I'm sorry. I would just echo Enrique's point where obviously reopening to unusual circumstances and our hope is trying to minimize any patron disruption or events on the floor. And a lot of that is gonna be around the adherence of the patrons to these guidelines as well. Yeah. Commissioner Cameron, do you wanna chime in and then we'll continue to move? I know this is going to be a concern for most of us if you wanna echo it and then we can just really be cognizant of that particular... Yeah, thank you. I don't have anything to add at this time. I'm listening to everyone and, you know, thoughtful planning that went into this. So come all set for now. Okay, great. Commissioner O'Brien? No, I don't. This is a lot of work went into this. It's very helpful. I have some questions once we hit the next category, but I'm fine to this point. Okay, great. Thank you. Alrighty, moving on then to your third area, Loretta. So the third area, there are some differences in the categories. This is around the entry and screening of guests and the first category is hand sanitizer available at every entrance and signage and greeters, whether that be separate greeters or security staff. It's encouraging guests to use the sanitizer before entering and this is in category A, sanitizer to comply with the CDC guidelines, signage, encouraging the wearing of masks, hovering the nose and mouth while in the gaming area in category A, except while eating or drinking. Plans for doing identity checks, so a safe location for guests to lower the masks briefly for identity checks when necessary and discouraging the wearing of hats because the hat and the mask can make identification, especially difficult and appropriate receptacles for disposal of PPE throughout the property. So those are the group A measures, the group B measures on the hand sanitizer is the same as a points of entry, the greeters to our guests masks if they need one, signage that would require the wearing of masks as opposed to just encouraging the wearing of masks except while drinking and in the B category, there would be no food allowed in the gaming area in terms of screening for category B, signage listing the COVID-19 symptoms as well as restricted travel areas that the CDC has designated as level three warning countries and asking guests not to enter if they have answered yes to any of the symptoms for travel, training employees to identify symptomatic individuals in developing procedures to implement further screening when guests are identified as exhibiting symptoms and prohibiting entrance or requiring guests who are symptomatic to leave. Category B requires the licensee to consider performing the temperature checks and prohibiting entry to anyone over 100.4 degrees. Again, safe locations for identity checks and discouraging the wearing of hats and staff being present at entry points to ensure compliance. Category C adds some additional measures like separating the points of entry from the points of exit to discourage two-way traffic, requiring touchless hand sanitizer dispensers at points of entry and requiring guests to use it, providing guests with masks, requiring guests to use it and not allowing any food or any drink in the gaming area. This category C also would require the non-touch temperature checks at points of entry would require an individualized questionnaire either orally or in writing rather than just the signage in category three, listing the symptoms and the travel and prohibiting entry to any affirmative answers. The identity check measures are the same as the other categories and the one additional measure in category C is aimed at facilitating contact tracing. And it was actually taken from a sector-specific measure that the governor has implemented on restaurants and asked for the retention of a telephone number for guests for possible future contact tracing. So Madam Chair and members of the commission, what I'm gonna do while you're having your discussion, I'll be somewhat of a note-taker here and markup. I have a draft here and I'll markup sort of what I see as your guidance on these. What would be helpful for me and sort of an option for you is if we can go through these at the end of their discussion and identify which things you think is a general practice, you have consensus that you really wanna mandate. You could also look at these there's the option of just encouraging the licensees to adopt these practices or you could not even mention this, something we really don't want in the guidance document itself. So one of those three categories would be an idea for how it could be helpful to navigate through this. The other option is if there are any of these where you would like to see maybe if there's any further guidance by the governor's office or public health, if you wanna put it on hold, that would be helpful. And then I can track those. So when we come back, we have sort of a compilation of what the general consensus was from the commission. Does that make sense? Or does anyone have any other suggestions on how I can track this to get it back to you later? I think that that really reflects what we started with why we're not voting today. We'll try to get a consensus on measures where, you know, on particular categories, particular provisions where we can. And I think you'll see where we're struggling, Karen. So, and then we'll take the additional input from other stakeholders. So I think that sounds good. Does that sound good with Karen outlined? All right, should we just tackle, let's tackle hand sanitizer. Actually, before, can we do that? I just have one question. Everything seems to build A and then you add, and then B adds when you get to see, except for the last bullet in A, where it says provide appropriate receptacles for disposal of PPE in A. That might have just been, and then it disappears. Is that just a typo or is there a reason for that? It actually, it appears in the additional measures at the end of the document. So it is anticipated that it be provided, that it be a bullet point in all areas. So we can strike that from A because it's basically recommended to be across the board. Okay. Exactly. Okay, should be, oh, sorry. Bruce? No, Loretta, thank you. I'm looking at column C, excuse me. I'm looking at a lot of the questions that the suggestion is maybe having the staff ask each guest upon entry. I wanna go back to the earlier conversation we had with our licensees about a robust communications plan in advance of reopening. And that might be a place for some of those questions to be listed again. And I might wanna see that as part of the reopening plan is what is your communications plan to patrons? Maybe going through some of those questions so it's not something happening on site. But it is something for the patron to be aware of before they even arrive at the property. So, my initial blush at looking at all those questions is you start running into a backup of patrons trying to access the floor when patrons themselves should be answering those questions before they even arrive. And I think, again, building in that robust communications plan, which I think a few of our licensees talked about, I think would be an important component to the reopening plan, so. That's an excellent point. And certainly, here is a unwieldy nature of aspect of requiring those questions on site at the door entry. So, that's really what this document is designed to do was to generate discussion on the topics. And that's a perfect comment. Because I'm not sure any of us could identify what the CDC level travel warning countries are right off the top of our head. So, I have from my, oh, sorry. So, for my notes, it's to require the casino communication plan with their patrons as part of their pre-opening and include questions for the, incorporate some of these questions in that communications plan. Is that what you're saying, Bruce? Yeah, it's more of a reminder of things to, one, that the patron is gonna experience when they show up. They should know they're gonna probably get a temperature check. There's some conversation about that. It's kind of helping the patron understand what to expect before they even show up. And if somebody who answers one of those questions decides maybe I shouldn't go, then it's less hassle on the property as well. I see, yep, yep. I think there may be requirements even out of the advisory board on making sure that you provide that information on your website. Licensees at Jackie, you're nodding your head. I believe that those kinds of requirements are gonna be part of the overall arching plan for industries. But I do hear- Absolutely, sorry. Go ahead, Jack. That would absolutely be part of our pre-opening plan that we'd push out to our entire database because they know what to expect once they arrive. Our concern about this too is having significant lines because it's four questions and then also language barriers. So the more information we can give to people ahead of time, the better. Okay. So Jackie, you said your database, but also I would assume, also just widely available on your website, sort of like any other facility where it's, all right, I'm thinking about places like before you go, in certain venues where it's like, you have to be this tall to be able to do it. You have these medical conditions you can't come in. So that would be also readily available on the website, not just to the database of your red card numbers. That's correct. And it also, you know, the same place where it says you have to be 21 and above, we'd have it easily accessible. All right. So, but I understand that Commissioner Stevens is saying, we would like to have an affirmation those plans will be in place and that application plans will be in place and communication plans include the signage requirements. Much of that is incorporated into the governor's advisory board's requirements. To the extent we want anything in addition, Bruce, we should take a careful look at that. Okay, make sure. Yeah. So maybe we can get some help on where for this particular, the particular entities we might want something in addition or each licensee may have something that they want to include that's in addition. Well, I think each, you know, as Jackie just kind of pointed out the thinking of a robust communications plan, every property is different. So giving directions as to how somebody enters the property at one licensee is going to be different. You know, the simple suggestions of, don't come wearing a hat, that will help ease the flow of patrons into the facility and kind of prevent any unnecessary backups. So just to keep us aligned in terms of time, because we actually do want to pass on the particular provisions, they're clustered together, but there are some differences. So to the extent we can be a little bit methodical to just confirm what we do have firm consensus on and then what merits additional discussion, you could just kind of save it to the end of the particular block and then we can weed out where we're on agreement, okay? So on hand sanitizer, I don't, there seems to be the big differences whether it's where requiring touchless or touch, is that the main thing, Loretta? That's right. I do want to bring to your attention that in terms of the availability of some of the touchless measures, it's my understanding that there is an issue of availability for the large touchless stands. So if you were inclined to like the touchless, you may consider touchless where it's able to be acquired and when it's able to be acquired. And along those lines, the way this is written, it assumes hand sanitizer is available. So I defer to the licensees if they anticipate any problems getting the hand sanitizer because it's hard to require something if they, and then they can't access it. I see Seth raising his hand. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, just as an aside, we also will always yield to what the public health department would expect. So if they all of a sudden decided you don't need hand sanitizing, that would make this move. But I, assuming right now, hand sanitizer, we put that over and over, that's an essential piece. How are you on supply, Seth? Hand sanitizers, the hand sanitizer, we're good. Wipes, not the same. So I think we're okay with hand sanitizer. A little trickier for the touch list than the manual pump. Those are harder to get, but we have some supply. One point I did want to make the distinction and we mentioned this to staff yesterday between at least A and B on hand sanitizer is the encouragement versus the requirement. And that does go any, I think there's consensus among the licensees that we would prefer encouragement than requirement because of the enforcement challenges, whether someone just sanitize their hands, whether they have an allergy to sanitizer, trying to require each person to sanitize their hands, for instance, as they walk in versus make it available and strongly encourage it. We would prefer the latter. So, and I think you'll hear that, that's our perspective on several of these items where it's a requirement versus a strong encouragement because of the enforcement challenges. Thank you. In terms of supplies you did hear Seth say that the touches might be harder. I'm not sure if public health has a particular, they're strongly tied to exactly. So let's just say, in terms of provide hand sanitizer the way it's written. Does anybody have, if we take out touch list, does anybody have a concern about that? I see no, no. We're good with hand sanitizer. Yeah. All right, good. Madam Chair, I would just remind our licensees on the governor's COVID-19 page. There's a list of suppliers in Massachusetts that offer a variety of sanitizing products as well as PPE. And a number of those companies are certified as minority women are veteran owned businesses. So 60 companies in Massachusetts supply or manufacture the wife. So I would encourage our licensees to check out that page to see if there are any contacts that they weren't aware of. No. Madam Chair, do we need to discuss encourage versus require for guests? Right, so right now it says provide and we're not, we're not mandating that we are requiring them to provide it. In the way that it was that purposeful. Well, it does say. Right, category C is require guests to use the sanitizer. Right, require, yeah. Thank you. This is B. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. B and C. Yeah, thank you. So B and C, encourage versus the must. As Seth points out, it's advantageous for the licensees to not have to worry about enforcement issues. Do we want to, it's at a point, this is only with respect to point of entry. Well, I would be inclined to be on the required part of this, only because when it comes to the point of entry, that's the most critical time after which it's easier to be less of a requirement because we've screened people before they come into the casino. So if there's an area in my view, if there's an area where we need to be perhaps more strict, and I understand that there's an enforcement cost and I understand that there's supply issues and implications and long lines, but my general preference is to give enough flexibility overall with the overall, have some discretion on as to whether, touch less versus self-dispensed or somebody having dispensing to every guest or the questions, et cetera. But to me, when it comes to the screening, that is the most critical time, rather the point of entry. After which there's a lot less concern. I guess I would be interested in those early lessons learned from other jurisdictions because I worry that if this creates a backup at the door, that's a risk too, having people backed up close together waiting to get in because the process of entering is onerous. So I would want to see what others are doing with regard to requiring or encouraging and again, being cognizant of the fact that we don't want people waiting to enter because that's a risk right there, right? I would just want to know what others are doing. Yeah, yeah, I am too, I've waited in line to get to the grocery store, and that's just fine. I imagine that could be the case here too. I am interested in that. I just think that there could be procedures, for example, and I understand the question, the notion about asking, pushing notifications and questions to databases, but they could easily implement handout fliers, let's say, with check off three or four questions, yes or no, and collect them at a time that prior to entry that forces the waiting patron to answer a set of questions. I don't think you necessarily want more touchpoints though because then you're creating another document. I know you go to a lot of stores now, coupons, everything else are digital because they don't want things like paper flying around as another touch point for transfer. So while my gut would say be great to require it, I'm not, I can't say definitively not be curious to know what if anything the governor's gonna say because knowing that not everyone can get touchless, the risk of backup and not really wanting to generate something else for a touch point, I don't know what I would do on that. So maybe Bruce and Bert, oh sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Stephens. Yeah, I would just, you know, some of the material I've read, I can't recall how other states have dealt with this, spent some time reading Pennsylvania's protocols, but, you know, I'd be interested like Commissioner Cameron seeing the best practices, but I'm just thinking of the places that we all walk into now, whether it's your local target or your local post office, everything is available to you as soon as you walk in the door, but obviously the post office isn't requiring me to hand sanitize before I approach, you know, approach a patron window, taking into consideration all the other cleaning and hygiene strategies that they're undertaking. Hi, I see, is there anyone, I want to turn to Loretta because she may have some insights on what's happening across the country, but from our licensees, is there any practice that given that you have opened properties now, that you would like to remark on this particular requirement and may help us move along? Jackie and... Sure, you know, we've obviously opened in Macau and in Las Vegas, and we provide these items, so we provide the hand sanitizer, we provide masks, we have not in those jurisdictions required people, sorry, Macau is required to wear a mask, but in Las Vegas, it's not a requirement to wear a mask. What about the hand sanitizer? We're stuck on hand sanitizer. Yeah, in terms of, you know, my concern is this, we don't want to turn into one of those people at the mall who runs around forcing people to, you know, spray perfume on them, and so, you know, our preference would be deal of the day. I see, is there a caller who's trying to chime in? Okay, I guess not. Yes, is there a caller that wants to chime in? No, because I'm getting, you're not muted, so every time there's a noise, you pop up as maybe wanting to speak that person right there. Okay, you don't want to speak. Okay. Seven, seven, five, eight. Yeah, seven, seven, five, eight, your last four digits. If you mute, that would be helpful because I'm wondering if you want to speak. So if you mute your phone, that would be really helpful because noise has come up. All right, Loretta, if you could help, you presented these as options. Obviously, number three is the most restrictive. Did you glean from your research that there's an industry standard of practice? That was pulled from one of the jurisdictions as on their list similar to the list that you're reviewing now, but not ultimately, I believe it was not ultimately voted by the board. So in other words, it's to provide, make those available. And so folks like myself, if I want to clean my hands because I can't remember where I've been, I can go in, but I'm not required. And then the third one would be required, but otherwise the proposal by the jurisdiction that you took it from, they ended up not ultimately voting. Is that right? That's my recollection, Kathy. I would, to be absolutely certain, I want to go back and just review because places are opening on a daily basis. So it looks like Burke may have an update. And just so you know, we could do this. We could yield on this one and say, should the governor's office require it to be a must because of the public health issue, we'll adopt it. And right now just make the provision of it is what I'm hearing might be the right standard. But I want to go to Burke and then I'll go to Jackie. Yes, good morning everyone. We have a group of our staff researching weekly the changes that are going on not only in the country but all over the world. We can put an emphasis on looking at the entrance ways. We are hearing that casinos that are open up, California, Connecticut, that the lines are quite a challenge. So getting everybody free, freeing, flowing rather freely into the casino is a point of concern. 12 o'clock midnight on a Saturday is gonna be more of a challenge than 12 noon on a Tuesday of course. But we can look at the hand sanitizers and different things like that for this report. Okay, and we just go to back to Jackie. Did you want to comment? Yes, sorry, if I could, I just wanted to add that, you know, in reviewing the state's guidance for governor's guidance on lodging restaurants, retail and hair salon, the requirements for washing hands and hand sanitizer tends to apply to the employee but not the guest. So just for a point of reference. Exactly. So could we, I heard on Rike's very legitimate concern about that, well, that seems to be where you would want to be at your best, but can we have say that we've reached a consensus that at the very least we adopt the respect to provision of hand sanitizers that doesn't need to be touchless and curfew is available. And otherwise that it's not required as set forth and see. Encourage. Encourage, like encourage. Rike? Madam Chair, yeah, my point about the screen, that the screening was not limited to the hand sanitizer was about like, you know it's at the time of screening that I think is the most. So what I would like to do in order to keep this conversation moving is that if we stick to sort of the provisions because honestly we actually have to produce these particular guidelines. And so with respect to I think what you're saying the other ones, that's a little bit later in this block and we'll get to them. If we collapse them, there are so many nuanced conversations. I think it will be difficult. That's why I think Loretta did a great job separating them and the whole team. So because obviously even hand sanitizers presented quite a challenge. Does that make sense? So okay, great. Okay, I'm just getting some guidance on the logistic matter. I'll try that, Cheryl. Thank you. I did it. Great tip. Thank you so much. Eileen, smile. So are we good with the least? And then when we get something that really it's too interconnected, we can't separate it out. Then let's just say we've got to deal with more. Yeah, I'm comfortable with encouraged. Okay, good. Everybody thumbs up? The five of us? Excellent. Okay, good. Alrighty, now moving on to the very first bullet perhaps in group C. My inform the issues around what happens really are getting big. Before we get to masks. Provide separate points of entry and exit to avoid two-way flow of guest traffic. Is it fair to say that our licensees are trying to develop plans that can accommodate that as it relates to their particular facilities? In speaking for uncle, obviously, for the high traffic areas, we are going to have a create a point of entry and exit. Obviously people coming out of the elevators, that's a little bit different situation, but for the main entrance and exits, yeah. For Lane Ridge, we're doing the same thing. We'll have a separate entrance and then two exits that they can use, but they will not cross paths. Thanks, Lance. Again, for MGM, we'll be using a layout. We would use the same area, but we'd separate the flow of enter and exit, but it's one main area. Loretta, do you want to have this part of the conversation in terms of what you're thinking on the entrance? Right, so the bullet point did was contemplating those main entrance areas into the casino floor. Understanding, as Jackie mentioned, that there are points of entry from a hotel and so forth that would be more challenging to separate. So more it was contemplating the main areas of entry. And it's my understanding from some conversations, both today and previously with the licensees, that they do have plans to have separate the two-way traffic at their significant points of entry and exit. So can we address that third block, the first bullet and the third block in kind of a way that makes sense for all three licensees that we're encouraging that? I want to hear from my fellow commissioners. I definitely would want something like that. It seems you go to the grocery store, et cetera, they've been, that's a pretty big part of people being able to stay six feet away and keep in the flow, going in a controlled manner. If there are particular challenges, obviously the licensees and IB can have further detailed conversations about that, but I would want that to be part of this. Commissioner Cameron, do you have thoughts on including the Group C bullet as a requirement? I think that's fine. In fact, they all explained to us how they're working on that now. So, yeah, I mean, it's all the details, right? How you get people to move them, but yes, I think that's important to... So it isn't important. We're not okay. And Commissioner Zunica has stepped into your agreement and then we'll get to... On this one, perhaps ironically, I'm less of a concern. I think there's, if people are passing each other, the risk is very small in my view, although I understand the congregation is a concern once there's a cluster of people. So whatever they do, because it makes sense for them to manage potential crowds, that's fine. So then maybe this is a good place to then go to the next set of bullets about at points of entry, signage and greeters are either encouraged or mandated. If I'm reading this correctly, I know I'm reading it quite quickly, to wear masks. Right, so the difference is there, Madam Chair, in group A, so encouraging guests to wear masks except while eating or drinking. Category B is providing guests with masks if they need them, requiring them to wear them except while drinking. No food would be allowed in the gaming area. And then the third category is, again, providing guests with masks if needed, requiring them to wear them at all times, no food or drink allowed in the gaming area. And for all of these, there are some exceptions, exemptions, some individuals are exempt from masks, wearing masks, and of course those would be adopted as having come from the CDC and the governor as well, those exemptions. Right now, if you walk into a restaurant, you're expected to have a mask on and the only time there's an exception would be when you're sitting down to eat, is that correct? Under the governor's restaurant rules? Jackie's sitting down, that's my understanding. Okay, so let's talk about entryway. They come, we've got them in some kind of proper entry and exit flow. Do we expect them to come and stand in line while they're waiting in line to get in? Let's hope that would be a great thing. If there's a line, as long as it's a good line, would they be required to wear their mask? I believe right now under state law, they would have to. I don't know that it's a law, but it's an executive order. Under state order, I should know better, yes. Okay, so right now, I think we can address it in our own, in case that's lifted, do we expect, if it were lifted, would we want them, it's hard to imagine if they left it with me, but right now, at this very moment, would you expect to see everyone in masks? Yes, I would. I think this one may be one where we don't have to have a firm answer today because we expect further guidance. Okay. Yeah, to me, the difference, and I agree with Gail, the difference is whether we required not to have drink or food. I have a technical question on that. Is there much, besides the food trucks that I know are in the encores floor, is there any food, a lot of food that usually makes it to the floor? Okay, so we'll move over, we've shifted from entry and it's fair, food and drink is going to introduce new challenges. Right now, I'm hearing Gail say, you know what, let's not even address masks until we get further guidance. But Enrique's near question is, when does food get introduced? When do drinks get introduced? So maybe we could hear from licensees how that's working. Where are folks eating, where are folks drinking? That would then, we could give that guidance to the state and local public health commission so that they, or departments, so that they could help us determine what the risks are. Well, my concern is that, of course, it's related to the wearing of the mask. You could require to wear a mask, but there's food and drink, they have to take it off. Can the licensees could say what the expectations in terms of delivering food, jacking and drinks? Sure, and I have Brian Gail-Renz is on the call too, so he may want to have that. Yes, I saw Brian was in, sorry, yes. Thank you. Sure, so we would propose to continue serving food within the food truck area. It's a designated space on the floor. People would not be able to go up the floor in that food truck area, would be treated the same way under the guidance that pertains to other restaurants. Restaurants. With the six feet of table separation. And you can remove your face covering once you're seated at your table. Brian. If I may, in addition to that, we also have a partner. We have Dunkin Donuts off the backside of the casino. We would want to allow them in their designated seating area, just like we have with the food trucks, to allow them to consume food and beverage just while they're seated in those locations. Can I just ask the point of clarification? Those are deemed restaurants under the advisory floor. The Dunkin is that the food truck space is just kind of an odd space. So it could be sectioned at all. You're going to treat it like a restaurant, okay? Correct. It does have proper seating. So if we put aside those types of entities, will there be food and drink actually consumed on the gaming floor away from chairs and tables? Is that your point, Enrique? Yeah, well, drink clearly is, as a matter of the business, you know, but my question was presented for- We haven't necessarily said that yet. That's another question. That may be an open question, but my question was for food. So if we could address food and we might as well address drinks too, thanks. So I think the food, that would be the only places where we'd say food is permitted, but in the designated areas. Okay. Lance, good morning. Good morning. Yeah, similar to Jackie and Brian, we would propose to reopen the food court. We've got three outlets there. You've got Dunkin, Smashburger, and Pizza Establishment. We will be, or we would propose, removing tables within that food court and that would be the only designated eating area. Then you'd operate in accordance with the restaurant guidelines. That is correct. Yeah. And Seth? Similar to Penn, we would have our South End food market as the designated eating area. That would be the sole area for food consumption. So right now, no grab-and-go's where they could eat along the way? I'm seeing that. Fundamentally, those are at least the South End market. It's a food court style. It is grab-and-go by nature. It's not table service, but we propose that the eating area would be during this period in the South End market with a segregated seating. In a normal course, they can basically eat it anywhere, but... That's right. Okay. Thank you. Now drinks. Yes. How are you treating drinks? Because Commissioner Zuniga brings up a good point. I'm happy to jump in. We do propose drink service. It's, as Commissioner Zuniga mentioned, it's a key part of the gaming experience cocktail service on the floor, and it's really critical to the business. That's where really the challenge comes with the encouraged versus required because we see an enforcement challenge where if you see someone not wearing a mask, you approach them. They say, well, I'm just sipping my drink. I'll put it back on in a minute and you have all these negative and challenging interactions with patrons if there's a really strict requirement versus highly encouraged, it'll be hard, very hard to police. And if drink service is permitted, which we believe it should be, because that'll always be the excuse, which is, well, I need to remove it to drink. So we do, but we do think it's critical to be able to allow. Well, Jackie, how is Macau handling drinking with mask mandatory? Brian, do you know how they're handling that? Same in Vegas, the mask is allowed to be brought down when they consume the beverage. And I would say it's the same as the state right now with restaurants. You have to have a mask when you go in, when you're sitting down at a restaurant table or a gaming table or a slot machine, you can lower your mask, take a drink and then put it back up. I would see this similar to a restaurant. It's sitting in location, not walking around, lower drink, put it back up. Just a suggestion. Yeah, I think it gets more complicated on the floor with that though. Yeah, that's, you know, and I think that's a reasonable thing to, you know, to try to implement what Brian describes. I, you know, I do get the challenge in the enforcement that Seth makes. And that's part of my point towards, you know, maybe at the front end of, you know, the screening is where we can be, you know, a little bit on the street side, knowing that we've at least minimized some risk of people making it through with AWS signs of, you know, high temperature or what have you. Can I ask Commissioner O'Brien to elaborate your imagining? It was a little bit of a difference than what Brian indicated that it would be when they're seated playing or at the table, but when they're walking around. Well, because I think the exception when you're talking about a restaurant setting, you've got six feet mandatory between it. You've got only your parties in that space. You're sitting for a finite period of time eating, putting the mask on and leaving. You could be sitting at a gaming table or a slot machine for far longer than a meal would take. The walking that's going to go by you, the service that would go by you, who may be near you on the machine or the gaming table is a lot more diverse than simply sitting with your party at a table. And so I'm not so sure I would agree with, while I totally understand, Brian, where you're coming from in terms of execution, where the mask is mandatory, but we're allowing the drinks on the floor, I'm just not so sure in this opening phase, I'm comfortable with that. Because I don't necessarily think that the restaurant seating with your party is equivalent to eating or drinking something. Obviously eating doesn't sound like anyone's going to do. Drinking on the floor. Yeah, I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I would expect you're going to have more interactions between people required to wear a mask and not choosing to wear a mask than you would have over just situations involving reminding somebody that after they've been drinking, while their mask back up, I think if there's a requirement, everybody's going to wear them that will maybe limit the number of those interactions that Seth referred to, as opposed to choosing to wear a mask or not choosing to wear a mask, I think it's going to create potentially even more of those interactions that might get a little confrontation. Mr. Cameron? Oh, Commissioner, did you want to? I thought we just had a consensus on encouraging, not requiring, did that just occur? Not for me, no, no, no. Okay, so we're not there yet. I think there was a, we didn't even, we didn't even, we didn't really get there because we were not wearing a mask at all. I think what I heard from you, Commissioner Cameron, was with respect to entry, you think maybe we didn't wear masks to public health because it's fluid right now, it's there required. I think it's an important discussion to fabricate that from the very unique circumstances of casino industry. That's why having a discussion around drinks and food is informative to the public and to the public health folks because they may not really have even visited casino, but have established today it's an important part of the business model. Folks are given drinks sometimes while they are playing, that's not an unusual practice. They don't even have to pay for them. They may sit for as long as they want at the slot machine and they will maybe have a constant drink in front of them. Is that fair? So that means, as Brian said, they would keep it up but when they took their sip, they would take it down and theoretically put their mask up. It's not a part to imagine that the mask would stay down for a good amount of time because the drinking component is a big part of the business model. And I want to just go back to the point Dale raised. We might be getting guidance from the governor's team that it's required or not required. I was trying to make the point of, you will leave the question kind of just the question of the opportunities for these confrontations, which I think Seth pointed out, you may not want to tie up the team's time with going over and talking to one patron and another patron by alleviating that by saying the mask is required. You're sitting, you pull it down, you take a drink, you pull it back up. I understand that as a process so I certainly understand that it's part of the, the drink at a gaming table is part of the casino experience. But I didn't mean to suggest that I'm jumping right over to the mandating the mask requirement. I just think it's something for us to consider. And again, not to mention the governor's edict might have something that will make our conversations that kind of put it on this issue. To be clear though, Brian started the comparable of the restaurants. And so when you're sitting and you're eating and drinking at a restaurant, you are allowed to keep your mask down. If you'll allow me, Brian, I think you're extending this analogy to if you're sitting, having your drinks while you're playing at the sports machine, whether it's one drink or two drinks for the evening, you could take your mask down. But I believe in the restaurant scenario, you don't even have to put the mask on while you're eating and dining. But you're saying that the scenario in the cow is they keep their mask on or theoretically they put it back up in between sips. That would be hard to enforce, but it's while they're sitting. The same would apply while they're at a table game. And then again, the next scenario is, can they have a drink in their hand and walk around maybe to Commissioner O'Brien's point, or are they only allowed to have a drink while they're sitting to liken it to the restaurant experience? I don't know if that was a question for Brian, but I imagine these scenarios are becoming increasingly difficult to enforce. If I could just hear what's happening in the other openings, that would be really helpful to know, okay, they've served mask on and off. That I kind of understand what's happening once you're up and around. You don't have food in your hands. I understand that. Can you have a drink in your hand? Yeah, you can in Las Vegas right now. That's not required. It's recommended or encouraged. So there is no real comparison there. I would assume to Commissioner O'Brien's comment that people would walk around, but we would also have our staff and security staff to remind people to keep their mask up. It's going to happen. People are going to lower their mask to take a drink. Absolutely, you're correct. And then we would absolutely ask them to put it back up. And what about Macau? And if I can jump in on Macau, not that I'm an expert on Macau, but I have had some conversations about this issue in Macau. It's my understanding that culturally the service of alcohol is different in Macau than it is here. It's kind of consistent with the gaming experience here, but not consistent with the gaming experience in Macau. I do believe that drinking tea is a common there. And so I'm not sure how that's playing out, but what's been communicated to me is alcohol is not generally part of the experience there. So Seth's comment about it being a critical component of the model here doesn't transfer over to Macau. I think Brian is the last to finish you. It's Brian. Yeah. Well, they drink tea. Yeah. So with the tea, it's the same thing. The masks are acquired in Macau and they take it down to the tea. I think what is that going on? Yeah. I think, you know, if, I don't know if I lean, you're making this point, but I think prohibiting drinking from the floor out of the concern that people might not do what might be encouraged. It begs the question as to kind of like what for them? There's not going to be drinking at the casino. Well, I'm trying to remember, did Rhode Island say they were going to open without any food or drink service on the floor initially, just in the opening days to get everything worked out before they then moved on to this question? Or is everyone, I don't mean to hide it. I didn't concentrate on that piece. I don't saw, I didn't, it didn't jump out of me. Does somebody remember? I don't think I've seen any, and I try to read them all. I don't think I have seen any yet that has required openings without beverage, certainly without food in the gaming area, but I don't think I've seen without beverage. I agree with Gail. I haven't, but you could always miss something. Does anybody know of that being a requirement? Okay. I think there have been some limitations on the self-serve beverage, but that's right. That's right, for a work surface. Not on that, exactly. So Loretta and Karen, if we could have some guidance here, in terms of a consensus with respect to masks, I think we all first give the nod that we will absolutely be listening for the guidance from the state and local public health departments. There, because we understand they're the ones with expertise, it's important for them to recognize how casinos operate. We're different than a shopping mall because we don't just pass, patients don't just pass through. They're actually encouraged to linger. But as Brian pointed out, Brian Goldbrunts of Encore Boston Harbor pointed out, while seated, that the patrons begin to look like a patron at a restaurant. But at a certain point in time, our patrons will stand up, and it's my understanding that the expectation of licensees would be that they would be able to travel with a drink in hand. Would it be fair to say we don't have a consensus as to whether we would require masks or do we have a, maybe I should break down this way. I guess my point on that right now is if you're inside, you're supposed to have masks on. I mean, that is the standard as of today. So absolutely if the governor comes out and phase three is relaxing rules, but so far it would seem, that's a pretty key component. There's article about the hairstylists in Missouri, not apparently conveying anything. And one of the things they pointed on is they were diligent about mask wearing. So I would just point that out that as of today, we don't have the authority to say anything less than that. Very helpful, very helpful. So could we start with presuming that mask wearing is going to be required as it is today? Are we looking for additional guidance around public health risks with respect to lowering and raising, or do we have a consensus that we would allow lowering and raising for seated patrons at the gaming tables or slot machines as well as standing? So maybe I break it down. Are we all in agreement that we could make the presumption of required masks right now as of today? Well, I just think it really does depend on what the phase three guidance is going to be. Exactly. So we will yield to that now in terms of, and we'll figure out a way to craft that. Do we have, how many would say that they're comfortable with what Brian introduced of sitting? And if we don't want to do a hand vote, if we just want to say we don't have a consensus, that's okay, sitting at a table and lowering it, meaning you don't want to judge that because of the public health risk. If you're really comfortable, raise your hand with the idea of lowering and raising, okay? Anybody else? Yeah, Bruce? I think if- Commissioner Cameron? Yeah, I am as well, because if we're allowing beverages, then certainly- Commissioner Cameron, you just froze for a second, so could you repeat, name it? I'm saying if we're allowing beverages, you need a method to consume that beverage, so I'm in agreement that the lowering and raising is appropriate. Well, see, did that either the gaming table or at the chair? I'm a hot chair. Yes. Commissioner O'Brien, your position if you want to say? I'm not entirely there yet. I am particularly concerned about the walking around with the drink because they moved bars into phase four now. I don't know the rationale for that. So, I'd want to know a little bit more, if anything is going to come out of the governor's office guidance on that. The moving the bars to a different phase and then somehow overlaying it into the scenario would almost seem like the casinos would get an exemption out of behavior, which given the size and the flow may be appropriate, but I'm not comfortable saying that right now. And right now the bars are not going to be open, correct, licensees? The bars themselves, yeah. The bars themselves. Okay, so in terms of the seating of the, as Brian laid out, seating of slots, we're more comfortable on that. Would it be fair to say we can't come to a consensus today on walking around with drinks masked? Or, okay. Well, I think the, you know, trying to police who left the table with what amount of drink and whether they're just going to another table or another slot machine becomes very unwieldy. And I understand the concern about, you know, somebody who lowers their mask and now starts to walk around. But I think, you know, we need to be, you know, to allow some flexibility as to, you know, they communicate, there's only so much that we can enforce when the public, you know, is the one actually doing, you know, the behavior. Commissioner Stebbins, do you want to weigh in? Sorry about that. You know, I'm comfortable with allowing, you know, to the point of enforcing an individual walking across the floor who might have a drink as they move, as Commissioner Zuniga just pointed out, might be a little unwieldy. I think it's a little bit too early to get my hands around that. Okay, push your camera. Yeah, again, no, I, again, I point to not making a firm decision here and awaiting. We have a little bit of time to await further guidance. I think we've highlighted the challenge of this decision making. And I think that we can say we park this one and get more, got way for more guidance from the public health departments, particularly with respect to the unique situation that we have, ours are shut down, but we have people who can travel in hand with drinks in the normal course of our business. You don't have it in a shopping mall. You know, theaters now have it, but theaters are right now not in phase three. So there's a little bit of a challenge. And am I right to say that we wait for more guidance from on the public health, if we don't get it, that's okay too, we'll have to come back and make a decision, correct? Right. So Kathy, just for my note taking for the document, what I hear folks saying is generally right now, the understanding is that masks would be required because that seems to comport with the governor's guidance, but that we're sort of taking a look at what the governor may say about eating and drinking and removing the mask, whether it has to be mandated at all times or there's exceptions for consuming of average. Is that what I'm hearing? I'm also just curious, and they may not give us this, but the rationale for why they took bars out of three and put them into four is the behaviors that caused them to do that in any way relevant to this discussion or is it completely a different topic that doesn't bear on any risk associated with people walking around? I still feel like walking around and dropping your mask, restaurants aren't even doing that. I mean, you would be expected to put it on if you walk over to the area. And of course we have to mention socially distancing, but unlike a bar where the congregation of people probably present a risk of violating that social distancing rules, in this case, we're presuming if they're walking around with a drink, the licensees are keeping crowd control to the proper number. And I know you're gonna get into that Loretta more and more. But I think with respect to food and beverage, we've revealed it's a challenge. And we'll wait for more information on that, but I think you've outlined it right, Karen. Is everybody fine with that? So licensees, thank you for your patience. This is the job of a complex matter, so thank you. Okay, moving on to- I think the next bullet point hopefully will be a little bit more straightforward. It appears consistently on the document across all three of the groups, and it has to do with the instances where identity checks are required. So there's a discouragement from, to discourage guests from wearing hats and to provide for those instances where the identity check is required, to pay out that sort of thing, that a safe place be allowed for briefly removing the hat, briefly removing the mask to allow the ID to work. And I don't know if the licensees have any comments on actually implementing that. Sure, we've had numerous conversations with Bruce, his team, and our surveillance, make sure that we don't get that. You need to do that for first to make sure the persons of age get into the casino. But if, in case you need to identify them at a later date, you'll eventually actually have a photo of the individual that you'll be able to identify the individual at a later date. And just for the commission, we were already doing this right before we closed. There were some patrons that were not wearing masks, or allowing them to, and we were asking them to remove their mask every time the ID is done. So it is, and we've already done. Mr. Cameron, you were gonna lean in, I thought. Yeah, I just was, I wanted clarification on a safe place. Does that just mean six feet away from another patron? Is that what we're talking about there? I think from our perspective, as the security line moves, we'd keep people socially distance at the six feet. So when we say safe place, it would be you're moving it not within six feet of other people in the line. Okay, that's what I thought was the case, but I just wanted that clarification. Thank you. Mr. Asinika? Yeah, I'm good with that. Good. All right, then we'll move on. If I don't see any objection to that one, because it sounds as though the licensees are, it's part of their plan. We'll move on. Should we move on to temperature taking? Do we need to address that, Loretta? Sure. So column A does not address temperature taking. Group B does ask the licensees to consider performing the non-touch temperature checks and prohibiting entry if they do implement them to anybody over 100.4 degrees. And group C requires that as part of the screening process to perform the temperature checks on all entering guests and anybody who reaches 100.4 on two consecutive tests to be prohibited from entering. And both of those are envisioned as part, potentially part of a screening process that would include in column B the posting of the symptoms and posting of caution if anybody's coming to contact with a COVID positive person in 14 days or traveled to and would list the countries that are on the CDC list, having that posted and asking employees to sort of self-identify and column three as part of the screening, which would include the temperature check would be the actual administering of the verbal or some kind of written questionnaire to the same event. Mission Simica. Yeah, I am in favor of requiring this again. It's the theme that I've been making now a couple of times. Any one person who we might prevent from entering the casino who has a temperature, then in my view mitigates a lot of the other procedures that we effectively are gonna are considering. We're moving your mask to take a drink or not. So I am on the strict side of these ones. Loretta, did you find any other any examples of other jurisdictions that are using this? I know that most are doing mandated temperature checks on employees. I think in Nevada, they are required or that they in practice, they do maintain temperature checking for individuals who've been identified as symptomatic or who present to staff as saying they're not feeling well, but I don't believe that it's mandated now. Bruce and Berkley. I believe several are using it through the camera system to take temperatures. Is that correct, Jackie? Or are you using that at win? It's separate, it's a separate system. It's a thermal camera that are doing it, yeah. And you are conducting that now. Seth and Lance, are you at any of your properties required to take temperatures? We are not, I think to Bruce's point, some companies are doing it. I'm not familiar with the jurisdiction that's requiring it of guests and MGM resorts under our current safety plan is not planning on doing mandatory guests, temperature screening at any properties. And I don't believe we're required to do it in the jurisdiction. Lance? Yeah, I think I have the same answer as Seth. I think our practice around the country has been to, we are not required. However, we are administering it for our employees. So no on customers, yes on employees. Do you do any kind of the early questions that are presented in the third column? Bruce Stubbins quite properly said, a law has to do with the communications plan and what you get out to the patron. For instance, I'm gonna get my hair colored soon. And so I'm getting a communications plan from the salon that will tell me what they expect of me. Will you be, could you and maybe you already are saying, guess if you have a high temperature or if you have a temperature, please don't come. If you have the symptoms, are you doing that affirmatively now? Not just with respect to being symptom-free, are you actually addressing temperature? Yes, doing well. Lance? Same, I think as a practical matter, we are probably awaiting a few more details of what the guidelines and requirements are so that we can provide a more comprehensive list. Oh, and at various jurisdictions, I understand. And also your own public health people, correct? Okay, what is your expert suggesting on that? Obviously you've done the thermal. If you didn't have the thermal, do you also ask them about their... In Nevada, that's mandated for employees. I don't know of hand if it's mandated for guests, but our employees essentially log into our internal system every day and are required to answer the question. Affirmatively, they are required affirmatively to answer. Guests are now going to affirmatively be required to answer, but I just am wondering, are they informed that temperature matters? Well, from our perspective, we're telling them that your temperature's gonna be taken. You're gonna be taken, right? Yeah. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, what are you thinking? So this is one where I maybe diverge from what I think, I feel like we're coming down on opposite sides all day. Okay. Because they have these pre-positive symptomatic, asymptomatic transmissions where the people never pop a temperature, I'm not as firm on requiring it. I think it's a great idea if it's doable. I think the thermal cameras that Encore has will probably serve well in this regard. And I think the ability to test somebody, if there's some suspicion in terms of why, maybe they're presenting a certain way or they feel they may. I'm just not 100% sure that it's not a panacea because people are going to come in and be symptomatic and my fear is, do you come through at that point and feel like maybe I can take my mask down more or not sanitize as much because I just got cleared. So I'm on the fence on whether this is really, not for the employees, it's a lot easier to administer people or doing et cetera, but in terms of the guests coming in and out. Do we like the idea of consider? Yeah, I like that language. I do, I'm just not at mandate. What do you think? Just as a point of science, there is some value of related to a higher temperature. Right, I think I heard maybe 50% could run, I don't know if you've heard the same thing, if you didn't have a higher temperature, there's a 50% chance that you are infected and that's what justifies the thermal cameras that Wynn has instituted. Is that correct, Jackie? Something like 50%, do you know? I don't know that statistic, I just, I think we were, this is just another layer obviously that we can implement. Okay. Yeah, I think the fact that people are asymptomatic and can still be transmitting it does not negate the higher likelihood of being infected with, if you have higher temperature. So it's, you know, I think, I understand there's logistical challenges and nothing is absolute. In this matter, a lot of it is somewhat unknown, but if the person presents a fever, given everything going on, I think it's safe to say that it could be related. However, whether it's 50 or less or more, and that's the instance to, in my view, mitigate. I know it's not going to be the only thing and I know it's not this positive. Maybe the person is just having the flu, which is also going to be challenging for any other, for all healthcare professionals, but. Can I take a sort of a straw ball on this one? If the language in column two, if we used consider performing non-touch temperature checks and prohibiting entry versus the, it could just be required in that very short bullet or it could be, of course, even more as set forth in column C. Now, Enrique, the consider doesn't give you the level of confidence that you would want, you would want it to be performed, non-touch, for various, okay? Yes, I would. I liken it to what I believe that airlines are doing because they anticipate that there's going to be a trip, some period of time, where people are going to be close to each other, wearing masks or not to take a drink. I'm on the side of trying to execute as much as we can. By the way, let me mention this, that I think is a good distinction that I haven't spoken to. I think it's great to do that of employees, because of course, they're the common denominator on a lot of people coming in and out. So that's great. Perhaps now we're just, you know, fudging a little bit around with the next step and that's what I'm suggesting, we could go the extra step. Commissioner Stebbins, then I'll go to Commissioner Cameron after me, just Commissioner Stebbins. Yeah, at this point, I'm safe to say that we keep this to a consideration at this point. Okay, Commissioner Cameron, I think. I agree with that. Okay. So we have, I think I would say that we have a consensus on consideration. I think it's fair Karen to note that Commissioner Zuniga has made a really valid point here. He's, and I can speak, if I can speak for you briefly, Commissioner Zuniga. Anytime. Marking the point of entry as being take the conservative approach there as conservative as you can to protect patrons once they're in. So that's not lost on me. I think it should be a consensus around consideration with a slant toward, you know, if the science proves that this is really an important indicator. And if I hear that it's a 50% indicator, I'd like to confirm that. I might be, you know, more persuaded that taking the temperatures of critical point with one caveat. I wanna know how we navigate the crowd issues still. And I'm sure that Bruce and Burke, you probably are thinking the same thing. Every, everything that we do at the beginning helps protect on the public health, as I'm making point about, but it also creates some queuing issues and points of contact issues that I think are solvable. But we would wanna address that. So that gets, of course, to the very first point on column C. So I would just put an asterisk. I would just like to learn a little bit more about the science of, okay. Yeah, and then, you know, it's at least possible as well that if people know that you will be taking your temperature before you are allowed into the casino, they themselves might then, you know, think a little bit more critically about their own symptoms, their temperature before they leave the house. That could also act as, it doesn't necessarily mean, in my point, in my view that there will be unacceptable long lines. No, but knowing that you may be subjected to a temperature check may have some deterrent effect as well, even if it falls short of mandatory. Right. Is that enough guidance on this point right now, Karen? So I'm, yeah, I'm just typing up the notes. My apologies for being loud on that with the typing earlier. So I'll just have, for now, the casinos to consider performing the non-touch temperature checks, but with the caveat to monitor this, basically to monitor the science and the, how the temperature checks may inform the existence of COVID infection, something to that effect. So there would be that caveat. And there was one other thing you were just saying about, well, just in terms of queuing, if you do, yeah, okay, okay. All right, I'll type that up. Quietly. It could be, to Enrique's point though, the analogy to the airlines, I don't know, was that mandated for the airlines? Are there any other industries that are opening up where they are mandating this? You know, I'm not familiar with it, it's mandated or not? I've just seen videos and reports that. It's not mandated, no, at the airports, no. Okay. Moving on, I think I would say we have consensus over consideration at this point. Loretta, you wanna help me navigate the next bullet that we should address that's most helpful here? Sure. So I think the next one has to do with whether the guest is exhibiting symptoms, has had contact with the COVID positive person in the past 14 days, or has traveled to any of the list of warning countries. I would suggest amending column B at this time, which now would require signage with those questions and amending that to be signage and included in the communication plan and on the website of each of the licensee. So that would be column B, and column C would be administering the questionnaire on those topics. Does anybody have a trouble with that, those points? I see. Yeah, I just don't know how feasible administering to every single patron would be. I'm having a hard time getting my arms around that, being feasible and then again, not having people in the queue so long. That's a risk right there. So I think B is probably more appropriate to just push that information out through as many sources as possible. And if I could offer, this was drafted before Nevada opened and in anticipation that maybe the attendance would be at a lower rate than it has appeared to be. So I definitely hear your concerns. So I'm sorry. I would echo Commissioner Cameron, some of that stuff I think needs to get pushed out through a communications plan as opposed to tying up and creating some backup or line issues. So what we're really objecting to is that it would actually be administered as framed to currently undersea as opposed to advice through a communications plan. And we're all more comfortable with those questions. In other words, self assessment. Have you had close contact? Please don't come. That kind of thing in their communications plan. Is that what we're all comfortable with rather than actually administering those questions? I think we have an understanding. Unless otherwise directed. I mean, are you comfortable with that? No, in an ideal world, you could screen. I just don't see how you execute that in a way that doesn't create more backup and touch points for cross contamination. But so I think you make it as clear as possible that you shouldn't be there with any of those apply. Yeah, Madam Chair, this is also kind of leading me to thinking about my interest in seeing what the actual training plans are for staff as they come back. Thinking it easier as opposed to harder for the employees, I think would be, I hope would be reflected in the training that's gonna happen, but I might be curious to see what some of those training plans are. You're gonna back out timelines from when folks are gonna open, but that might be another component of the reopening plan. Right, so right above in the middle of B, we do have the training of the employees to be able to identify symptomatic individuals. There's also a large piece of work at the very end of our document on employees. So can we note that we would like to understand with clarity how the employees are gonna be trained? And of course, I think it's important that we also cross train any of the gaming commission employees who will be there as well. Bruce Banda, I assume you agree with that, right? Yes. Okay, so how are we doing in terms of training? Can we kind of take that note and incorporate that into our final discussion on employees with a note on Commissioner Stevens that we'd like to understand it better? Sure. Okay. Just from my note taking, so that bullet point on training to identify symptomatic employees, is that generally the consensus is to adopt that? I think we're asking that Commissioner Stevens is saying that he'd like to understand the training, what the training will be. Okay. I'm seeing that that bullet, I don't know if we're actually adopting that bullet per se at this point. What do we, you know, my fellow commissioners, would you like to see that as an element in their training? Yeah, I would. Okay. I think it makes sense as well. Yeah. So, and the signage, we all agree that's also required signage. For this industry, we might want to go well beyond the parameters set for everybody's advisory board on signage. Okay. The last two bullets on C, this actually pertains to, I think the contact tracing somewhat in terms of... Right, this last bullet appears in B and C and it's basically, you know, staff there at the entry points ensuring masks are available, the sanitizers available, and, you know, moving that part of the process along and make sure it's complying with the plan. And then the final bullet point in C is around the telephone number. And I do believe that the licensees have some input into the actual telephone number as opposed to other potential ways of identifying guests. Jackie, would you like to comment on that? Sure. I think from an efficiency perspective, stopping each guest as they coming into the casino and getting a telephone number creates a huge backup problem for us. To give you an idea, if the governor's advisory board, is there anything forthcoming on the contact tracing program? I do know they have a provision in the restaurant. I wish I had it in front of me, but that's, Loretta, do you, maybe you do or if you want to elaborate, but that's where this comes from. And in fact, they want, they're encouraging, they're encouraging the industries to take it away to the extent they can, who's in the property and who's leaving so that they can improve contact tracing. I think... I have that in front of me. It says that it's a recommended best practice when taking reservations and seating, walking customers restaurant should retain a phone number of someone in the party for possible contact tracing. So that's a recommended best practice. I would think for a large majority of our guests, we would probably be able to identify them through surveillance and the red card use. The red card. You know, not that that covers everyone, but it's certainly one way of enabling contact tracing. That was going to be my question in terms of your patrons card program. Does that give a lot of that data? We know that the surveillance gives a lot of data, but I just wondered that last bullet point is obviously a best practice to support a critically important public health program. So we would just maybe reframe it around that you use your patron card programs and then surveillance that will be able to support contact tracing. So is there any way to add it to the extent that there is traditional restaurant-like function happening that like other restaurants that you would at minimum do it for that and get a number for the party there? We do plan on doing that for all of our restaurants reservations. Even walk-ins will take some of these phone number as they come up. That's a more manageable process. So for the restaurants, yes. Okay, right. I think it's important for us to know we understand that this is a practice that we would like to support the statewide contact tracing program to the extent it's feasible. And there may not be a phone number, but we have other mechanisms and we should put that in. Great, thank you. Did we get through that section? I think so. Alrighty. Now another easy subject matter. All right. Great. So there was a recognition in including the next topic area on occupancy levels that reduced occupancy levels for warranted for this initial phase of reopening. And there are two different methods for going forward on that. And the first one in group A relies on the occupancy levels set by the building code plans and focuses on the occupancy level of the gaming area. And I have some numbers at the bottom of the chart in a footnote. And I do have some numbers. The footnote indicates we were waiting for numbers from MGM. We do have that number. It's 7,480, which includes their gaming floor and food market. PPC and Encore may wanna update the numbers because I think the numbers that I have are gaming area only and do not include the grab and go areas, the food truck at Encore, the grab and go areas at PPC. But in any event, the idea in group A is to base the occupancy level on some percentage of the building code occupancy levels. The 50% number was suggested in group A accompanied by a plan on how the licensee would actually count and limit guests upon entry. The other two columns disregard the building code occupancy level numbers and instead base occupancy levels on the number of gaming positions. And group B has fewer, excuse me, group C has fewer number of gaming positions than group B. Yeah. Loretta, my big question around this is looking at the occupancy and matching that up with what social distancing requirements are gonna be. And how do you kind of take that all into consideration? Right. And honestly, Bruce, I don't have the information on how to engineer that out. Okay. I didn't ask you to be an engineer. No, but we're talking about occupancy and there may be guidelines coming down about occupancy but we're also gonna be further discussing number of individuals at table games and that is dependent upon adequate social distancing. So. Yeah. And Bruce and Burke and their teams did put a lot of work into developing with the licensees the numbers for column B, columns B and C. They may wanna speak to that and the ability to monitor that as opposed in contrast to column A. Can I interject this at this point though? Because Commissioner Stevens just raised a good point. Bruce and Burke, should we go out of order and should we talk first about the social distancing and the recommendation around slot positions in order to address occupancy or is occupancy general enough that we don't have to know those details right now? I think probably talk about slot positions would be best first. Loretta is nodding too. Do you mind if we go out of order commissioners and go down? Would it be that it would be the next category? So occupancy levels, maybe we table that for a second, a second or so and go to social distancing on slots. Does that make sense given? Can I just raise something I just don't wanna forget to circle back when we go back to occupancy is whether you're calculating employees into that number or not as they are in a lot of the other retail establishments. I think if there's no specific guidance from the governor's office coming down, we wanna remember that that has to be part of it. Yeah, and for our purposes, can we all assume when we are talking about occupancy that we are speaking about inclusion of any employee in addition to patrons? So just keep that in mind that that's the number where that includes employees cause otherwise we'll constantly having to ask that question. All right, Bruce is saying yes. So then good really good point commissioner O'Brien will go now to social distancing us slots on page four. And I think that it also goes on to page five with table games going right into the next section. So we should probably address those too. I don't think we need to get into all the other categories at this point. I think these are the two major categories we should think about before we talk about occupancy. Okay, all right. So this should be easy. Okay, so column A on the distancing notes that essentially they're disabling every other slot machine. And this would go for all of the columns would result in a distance of approximately 4.5 feet between players. Column A affords flexibility to the licensee to implement any number of measures to maximize social distancing. And if less than six feet, the players would need to wear masks under column A and talks about measures such as the installation of plexiglass between operating machines, the removal of chairs from the disabled machines and gives the licensee additional flexibility to suggest other measures that would have to be individually approved by the executive director. Column B addresses disabling every other slot machine and identifies the number of slot positions that would result at each of the three properties. If that were what the commission decided to go with. And column C calls for the disabling of two machines between each operable machine and identifies the number of operating slot machines at each facility with that configuration. Loretta, can you, before we get started on the general discussion, can you comment or we'll invite the licensees to comment on what is happening across the country generally? If that's helpful, I assume. My research as places are opening is that it's primarily every other slot machine disabled, but the licensees have open properties and could address that as well. Sure, sorry about the lost Vegas. Go ahead. Let's have Bruce Bann. I only know of two locations that have opened up differently than every other slot machines. That is in Mississippi where they've opened up every fourth machine and Rhode Island. Every place else that I've seen is opened up every other slot machine. Mississippi did every four. Not every time. Yeah, maybe one open, two closed, one open, two closed. And then another just framing this really accurately. We're talking about six feet next to each other. Then we have the behind, the aisle behind. Do you want to address that, Bruce? That's about like almost five feet between the two, depending the configuration of the floor. On diagonal? Yes. So back to back, it would be, if you did every other, it'd be about a five feet between? Approximately, depending how you have your floor laid out. Some places have more space between them. It's depending on the casino. Some of them really stack each other close, but most of them here have a decent separation between the machines. And then one other comment, those are not in rows? Yeah, some of them that are like in a circular shape have more distance. The ones that are in rows, if you do every other slot machine, that's about 4.6 feet in between. If you close the, count the machine closed in between with it. Okay, great. If it would be helpful, I have a diagram of some of the different configurations. Oh, excellent. That would be, I'm not sure if I'm able to share. Even since that, she came with a presentation. Let's see if it actually works. Nope, it won't work, but I can certainly send it to you. You're having trouble with it because maybe you should be able to share it. I think it's a system control on my computer that I have to go in and change. You know what I can do? I can email it to someone. If someone else is able to share readily. Jackie, why don't you email it to me and I'll try and share. Okay. Great, thank you. That would be helpful. The visual is always helpful. Why don't we get started on questions, commissioners? I had a question. So the difference for options B and C here to put in contrast with A, would there be not the partitions between the flexible glass partitions between the machines? Based on these calculations, Enrique, this was done without plastic partitions between them. Right. So disabling one or limiting the number of machines, the assumption is no plexiglass. Yes, no plexiglass here. That's an option, but these calculations were done without the plexiglass. So the next question would be, are any, have you been required licensees in any other jurisdiction too? Some jurisdictions have done that. We spoke to Hard Rock in Sacramento and they initially opened up with just a few plexiglass dividers between the machines and they were adding a lot of plexiglass dividers, mostly because of the demand of the slots and they felt that that gave adequate separation. Seth, did you want to chime in on that? I'm sorry, I couldn't tell. Sure. Thanks. Sure, Stein might have the Pat Medamba. I'm not sure if you can hear me or not. Yeah, we can. Hi, Patrick. Yes, I can hear you now. A couple of things. In Mississippi, the requirement is six foot. If that works out to two machines being so big, but the requirement specifically is that the machines have to have a six foot spacing. And then what the regulator did in the same aisle with folks that are back to back, the measurement is not from the back of the chair to the back of the chair. It's actually from essentially the nose of the patron or the edge of the seat to the opposing edge of the seat for six foot. So you're not going back to back, but you're going nose to nose. Interesting, thank you. Thank you. In no jurisdiction have we been required to put plexiglass in the machines. New Jersey, which doesn't have an opening date yet, but we do have minimum standards that were just agreed to by the industry. We apologies. They were just agreed to by the industry last week is every other machine, but to the extent that the slot machines aren't six foot apart, a guest must mask, wear a mask. And the same is true at a table game, the guest must wear a mask though. Essentially what you're saying is that if you're gaming on the casino floor, you must wear a mask. Because that's really how it's gonna work out in practice. Because of the gaming table, you're typically not six foot away from a player. If you're every other machine, you're typically not six foot away from a player. Maryland is, when we'll be opening Maryland, sometime, well, we're allowed to open on June 19th. That was the date that was given by the governor yesterday. Again, it's a six foot requirement. Very helpful. And Kathy, I do have the, I'm gonna try to share the document that Jackie sent over. Let's see if this works. Thank you. Sure. Here we go. Can you see that? Yeah. Thank you. Very helpful, Jackie. Okay, so I mean, Jack, if you wanna comment, just tell me to scroll down if you need to. Sure. Yes, if you wouldn't mind just scrolling down a bit. So as I'm sure you're aware, we're in the process of reconfiguring a lot of our slot floor now with thanks to Bruce's team and help on that. And some of these reconfigurations will result in almost a six foot distancing or more than a six foot distancing. And for those that would not, this is where we'd suggest wearing masks. Karen, are you able to scroll down a little bit? I'm scrolling right now. Can you, is it not moving? Yeah. I don't mind. So scrolling. Oh, I'm scrolling down. Oh, that happened the other day too. See at the bottom right one, that's a 6.2 feet. Can you see that? In the two. Yeah, let me try and share again. Scott just came on Karen. I'm not sure if he's able to help us out. Scott, are you able to? Yeah, I was just gonna suggest for Karen to look and see on the sharing option to see, sometimes it gets paused. I don't know if it got paused. Well, obviously you stop sharing it so you can try to share it again. Hold on, let me pull it up again. Sure. Okay. And there's the document. Let me just get back to your screen. Oh, maybe. I'm just gonna move that, go ahead and pull it up. All right, so I'm gonna scroll down a little bit here and then share. Maybe try it that way. Is it showing it? No. No. Your screen. I'm just sharing your screen. Okay. Oh, here it is. Try this. Is that showing it? Here we are. Yeah. Oh, it's different. Yeah, we got the top of the page. All right, so I'm scrolling now. Is it moving? Yep. Yes. All right, I'll see. Good job, Karen. So did you wanna go up to the top? Jackie, starting or? Sure, so these are just some of the different configurations that we're proposing with the idea of trying to distance as much as possible between the different gaming positions. On the top one, what we'd suggest is that the middle share would be closed off. And then if you scroll down a bit, you can see the different configurations. As I said, before not all of them are, meet the six foot mark, but that's where we'd have to have a mass requirement. So you're saying for your facility, you're able to reconfigure their placement to achieve a little bit of distance with some but not all, right? Correct. To try to maximize it without necessarily turning off every other machine. So I think when we were talking about this yesterday, among the licensees, I think there's a number of ways to accomplish different things. And that's why A was a particular interest to us on this because it did provide for different options that the different licensees might look at. Okay, so let's go back to Loretta's form now. Thank you. I'll let colleagues attack. Anyone have, actually I should have said any questions for Jackie, my fellow commissioners? Okay. Everybody just moved around, interesting. And I would suggest in column A is part of the menu for licensees to implement would be another bullet point on reconfiguring, allowing reconfigurations to Jackie's point to maximize social distancing, but still wear less than six feet wearing masks to be required. Well, I would be in favor of, in this case, A, mostly with the understanding that there's at least in theory, a number of permutations and examples that are gonna be different for licensees. I can imagine, you know, the floor at MGM different from PPC and Hancor. And so, and even the islands or the configuration varies tremendously. So the notion that they could incrementally put some of these guidelines, plexiglass masks, physical distance, so that, you know, together they could have the best outcome, understanding that there's probably gonna be a bit of a trial and error as they move something and then, you know, they figure out whether people, you know, react or comply or prefer certain things. I think that A is the little, I mean, by, if you read A only, you only have to do one. So you could just disable certain machines. And I don't know that I'm comfortable with, I really do like the idea that if you are less than six feet, you're required to wear the mask as opposed to, you know, just say, disable machines and we don't speak about the small, you know, the less than six feet and the mask. So. I think in section, I think in that column, am I wrong, Lorena, that it says that it does presume wearing the mask. But it says one or more of the following. And then if less than six feet, players must wear masks. Oh, oh, oh, okay. Okay, I'm sorry. Yeah, just so that was really inspiring. Yeah, yeah. So that could also, they could reposition, they could. Players are, consider. Yes, those are things you could consider, but what is a must is if you're less than six feet, you wear a mask, right? Okay, that's what I was. Right. But I think, you can't be one foot apart, one feet apart. So let's think about this. You know, the way it's right now, well, that's certainly well for every player to be presumed. I feel like I'm echoing, I'm shouting, I'm sorry. The way it's written am I wrong, that we would want to make sure that they're achieving the greatest distance possible with, I think, business considerations that these options are highlighting. So we do probably need to plow through a little bit more detail under C, under A, correct? I mean, for what it's worth, I'm not comfortable with less than six feet given what the current guidance is. I mean, right now masks are mandatory and six feet, except for those limited times and your thinking center. Given the amount of time somebody could sit at a slot machine, I'm more aligned with sticking with the Mississippi Red Island. Okay, so in Mississippi requires every four, the two, the two, if you're imagining rows. Right, I'm not opposed to reconfiguring to get as many going as possible, but I do think that the six feet's there for a reason. And particularly inside extended exposure increases the risk of transmission. So to me, that's six feet matters. So that's where I am at this point. Did Mississippi also require masks? They did not, Chair. There is no mask requirement. It's optional. And frankly, depending upon the facility, the percentage of guests that actually wear a mask is very, very different. In our facility, we had a probably 60% at Goldstrike Tunica, I don't know what it was, it was a boat boat of Beau Ravage, 16, 70%, it's very high compared to some of our compatriots around. There is no, there was no requirement to wear a mask. The way, how we landed in New Jersey, frankly, with the less than six feet was the less than six feet if you're wearing a mask. Thank you. Is there a minimum in New Jersey? Is there a minimum in New Jersey, even with the mask? The minimum is not by the number of feet. The minimum is there must be at least one slot machine disabled between a guest or a group of related guests. And then a suggestion, if I could. Yes, Chair. On the piece of, well, you couldn't have them one foot apart. If we go with, if you go with option A, you could change it to rather than promote social distancing, maximize social distancing and have the plan approved by the commission so that there wouldn't be any. So it would be closer to that, you know, five and a half foot that Jackie showed. Exactly. There would be some control over it. So we'd have Bruce there, Bruce Bannon Burke with their measuring tapes, which is, you know, that's exactly, exactly right. Thank you, Seth, for that clarification. But maximize social distancing, achieving to the best of your capacity, closest distance to six feet or over, of course, with a condition of wearing masks. That's one way I'm hearing from Commissioner O'Brien. Six feet, you know, it does appear to be a standardized public health measurement in Massachusetts. Six feet, there hasn't been a lot of deviation. With that said, there have been some choices where masks are introduced and then there's been some relief given. And the only example I have right now is the restaurants where while you're seated and you're eating, even your table needs to be at least six feet apart or there needs to be plexiglass or some kind of non-porsed material between the tables that extends to six feet high, and then you can remove your mask too for eating. So, but that six foot standard for social distance measurement purposes seems to be clear in Massachusetts at this point. So where are we? Commissioner Cameron, I'm not sure. Once you got some clarity around, because it is a little tricky to understand it, if we went with something like what Seth said, where it's to maximize that distance as close to six feet or more with some kind of oversight by the commission, and you're wearing requiring masks, where does that get you more comfortable or where would you be? Oh, you know what you're, I didn't realize, Gail, you were, I was waiting for you to get it. I just unmuted. My apologies, yeah. No, it's okay. I saw Enrique's hand signal. I'm missing out on them too. No, I am more comfortable. I would like it to be as close to six feet as possible, obviously. So I like the idea of having the commission approve the plan as well as requiring the mask and seeing the plan itself and how close you get to that guideline. So we'd have the option if it, you know, it's three feet and we're not happy. We can say no, we don't approve that. Commissioner Stephens. Yeah, I'd like the idea of encouraging the reconfiguration. I think we've just seen some options that get us more to the accepted social distancing distant, but, you know, this is gonna bring us back to the conversation around, you know, the requiring of masks or not, but I think something else we gotta consider and we're gonna probably talk about this for table games is we gotta remember it's just not the patron sitting at the gaming position, but it's their buddy, it's their wife, it's their friend, you're standing in the nearby adjacent area. I don't know if that's gonna be part of the conversation or not, but I definitely want to encourage the reconfiguration of the game layout as much as possible. Commissioner Zanicka, did you wanna, were you leaning in? Yeah, well, I'll just make the point for actually an additional point to what I made. My preference for A with the rework about maximizing comes from my notion that there's all these other requirements that we're layering on that there needs to be some flexibility as to, you know, the specifics when everything is put together, which is what Gail is also suggesting that I would suggest as well. Having a rule that it's like, you know, a hard six feet where, you know, five, 10 is unacceptable and six is acceptable. My mind is less of a concern. It's more about how it's sort of workable with all these other things, physical and behavioral that are gonna be layered. So I think that it would be fair to say that we might have a consensus of four of us are seeing that the option as revised under A and probably because B and C are just complicated for us to think about it. We're not including the elements. I think we're being practical here that the goal is to achieve that six foot standard to the extent practicable, maximize it as that's suggested, but also to implement as many other innovations that will reduce risk. Is it fair to say that we're comfortable with less than six feet because this option does require wearing masks? Without that, we would not be comfortable in that right? Yeah, I see, I think I've got, so that's a critical element. And again, I can speak for myself if it's four feet and it's not closer to six feet, the comfort level of course goes down substantially. So I like the idea of our oversight. We probably have expected that anyway, but an approval once we get Bruce and Burke and team out there with their training teams. All right, and then Duly noted that we are recognizing that six feet is the standard that we may end up having to yield to because of the public health science. And I think Commissioner O'Brien has noted that and that's why Commissioner O'Brien, that's why you're not right now willing to accept less. Correct. So we'll get, that would be one that we can mark that we won't be looking for some additional help from public health experts. Okay, is that helpful? Okay, Karen, do you have questions on how to? Yeah, so for right now for the casino's purposes and for their planning purposes, we can't confirm for them today whether or not they can do every other machine or I guess it's every third machine. We'll be looking for clarification from the governor's guidelines. Is that where we're leaving off? If they give the guidance, otherwise it will come back to us. In my understanding, just that they need to plan because there's a lot of technical work. So we'll just need to recognize the need for expediency and coming back if we can't get an answer. Right, I mean, the reality is that like every other industry in the Commonwealth, we're operating as a regulatory role and you're operating in your licensee role subject to the standards of the state and federal and local officials. So with that guidance, as Commissioner O'Brien points out, six feet is six feet is six feet. Unless we hear that under the industry standards there's some relief given, I'm presuming that they are looking at these matters really carefully. They've done so with respect to restaurants. They've done so with respect to when you're jogging down a sidewalk. If you can achieve your six feet distance, you don't have to wear your mask. When somebody's coming by you, you put up your mask to protect those around you as well as yourself. So it will be, I think what will be helpful is the extent we can pass along this challenging discussion. The experts can help us gauge the risk. But with that said, can I ask a more practical question? How much time in terms of days, weeks? That's to have a licensee suggested that they need in order to have this particular matter resolved in order to start up. Karen, are you able to help on this or should we go to each individual? Yeah, I mean, I think that that's, I mean, I think that my understanding, it's not something that, you know, they are submitting plans to us, we review the plans, there's the IT component of turning them off and they may have to reconfigure the four. So this is not a couple of days where I think it's longer than that but I'll just refer to the licensees if they have comments on what they need in order to open should the governor allow casino opening say on June 29th, what kind of lead time they need. Because I think we're in that period right now but I'll defer to their comments. Right, and lead time in terms of the configuration, regardless of what the configuration ultimately is, how much time do it take to get the slot machines and we'll get the table games next. Brian, are you weighing in? Yeah, yes, thank you. Thank you. It really would depend on the requirements as to how long it would take for the reconfiguring. We are reconfiguring some of our tables and machines right now as Jackie stated with different configurations to try to maximize the space between machines and patrons but should it go to a minimum six feet between every machine it would be much more extensive. So we would really need to understand that and we are certainly in favor of everyone wearing a mask should it not maintain capacity or if it needs to be four and a half feet, whatever you decide. But if it is a six feet minimum requirement it would be extensive work for us to do. Just let us know as quickly as possible. And as we've said before, we needed 10 to 14 days notice if at all possible for us to get everything prepared. We are now preparing for June 29th, just in case because that's three weeks after phase two and understand that that date may slip but we're headed towards that date. That's very helpful. Lance, do you wanna comment? Yeah, not much additional to add. Certainly columns A and B are fairly straightforward. Gets far more challenging for us if it is the two six feet, our number drops to about 400 games I believe. So that would require extensively changing our floor. And that takes, you know, that's weeks, if not months to really maximize the floor if we get to get to the two 60. And I just wanna be clear and then I'll go to Seth. For those who don't know the casino industry, the slot machines are not on wheels and can't just be, it's not just a matter of having the gaming floor being your limits or the capacity of the floor print. But they're not on wheels and I know that Brian's laughing but this is really helpful for people to understand as well as what's under and what's over the slot machines for why when you say extensive, if you could just elaborate a little bit without any surveillance or security. Yeah, certainly from a heart perspective, well, surveillance and security are certainly a part of that and moving cameras around the facility to ensure we've got adequate coverage. But obviously the main driver of the challenge is the wiring and we are on a raised floor and so pulling wired, if you will, is the local term. That's extensive, you break it through carpet, you break it through concrete, there's paperwork that needs to be submitted for your review and then approved and then ensuring that there is adequate camera coverage. But under no circumstances are slot machines on wheels. I will confirm that. And I appreciate the smiles. I just wanted to make sure everybody was clear that this, because when Jackie put up her plan, there could be a suggestion that they could be easily moved. It's an extensive process as well as the security cameras above and those would have to all be approved by our team to make sure that the integrity of the game can be preserved. Okay, thanks. And just to be clear, that's not my puppy right now. All right, Seth, did you wanna add? Generally the same, I think it's, we would need a minimum of two weeks for plans that require reconfiguration. We can prepare based on some of these options plans and the more restrictive the requirements are, the more we would need to reconfigure to maximize under those more restrictive requirements and that takes lead time, again, a minimum of two weeks. But option A, I think we have plans ready to go with existing configurations that would allow us to move forward for approval. Any questions for our licensees, commissioners? I bet you're wishing they were on wheels. Okay, I'm moving on, Karen, I don't see you but I'm assuming you're all set then on slots and we can move to table games. All these buttons, I keep pressing the wrong ones. Yeah, we're all set, I'm just noting calendar wise two weeks from the 29th is Monday. So just be aware. And I'm also noting our time, it is 12.30 or 12.28. This is an extensive review and I appreciate the licensees being here for us because it's been so helpful to get your immediate input. I'd like to ask if my fellow commissioners would like to continue and are available to continue or if you would like to take, oh, I'm seeing, was there this? I think that I might suggest. Now that there might need a break but also is it a break or do we need to reconvene at a future time? I know we're very compressed here in terms of our decision-making. I need some guidance from all of my fellow commissioners. I'm happy to take a quick break and then for a bite to eat and then kind of keep this going. I think this is good helpful discussion and as Karen pointed out, we've got some tight timelines ahead of us. So I'd like to get through as much as we can. Okay, Bruce, I'm fine with Bruce's suggestion. I don't know about everybody else's availability. Okay, Amrikay. Yeah, if we take a lunch break, I would say we could keep going. Okay. And Commissioner O'Brien, you've got these. Same, I've got coverage, so I'm good. If we take a break to eat, then I can come back on. Okay, so what I'm gonna suggest is it's been so helpful to have a licensees. I also know you have full lives and full jobs going on to the extent that we take a, it could be make it a short, short lunch break. It's 15 minutes work for you to get over the, no, Amrikay, what would you like for a break? The cook in my household is a little slow. And that would be me. That would be me. At least you have a cook. Oh, I was gonna say. Yeah. Coming to your house. It's not like I'm going to the Boston Cafe like I usually go. Okay, well, I'd like to make it as limited as possible because I don't want to make this an endless exercise because they may have work to get to. Can we agree on a 20 minute lunch break? Will that work? Sure, sure. 20 minutes. And to the licensees, I see Brian hanging in their tacky. Seth, I see thumbs up. Lance, so you look okay, excellent. And to all of our staff, Loretta, I appreciate you hanging in there with us. Is that okay? Yep. Okay, excellent. And the rest of the team, I can't see on your faces. I see Elaine. I'm sure Elaine would break, but you will be good. Okay, excellent. All right, then let's sit at 1231. Let's reconvene at 1250, please. And I'll admit that was Chippy saying hello, so not to be confused with Mojo. Yeah, yeah, Mojo's being incredibly quiet. So thanks, thanks everyone. We're reconvening today's meeting number. 3L-5, and I'll just do a quick roll call. Commissioner Cameron. Present. Excuse me, Commissioner O'Brien. Yep, I'm here. Commissioner Zuniga. Here. Commissioner Stevens. I'm here. Thank you. And so all five of us are here. And I think now our licensees are back as well. And we really appreciate the extended meeting in your availability. We know who you may not have planned on it. So thank you very much. Karen, are you comfortable then with our discussion on the slots and social distancing? Okay, then we'll move right into social distancing and table gaming page five. Five. I know we didn't discuss the sanitization. I think that's page six is the slots, pardon me, the table games, social distancing, see bottom of page six. Oh, it's on my bottom of page five. I'm sorry, maybe. Yeah, my page five. I've been adding notes, so it's messing up my system. Yeah, so bottom of page five is social distancing of the table games. So if we want to... There's general on five. And there is one other item under slots that's not exactly a social distancing measure, but Kathy, I know you had expressed an interest in trying to minimize cash handling with respect to guests. So there is a bullet point in columns B and C on the bottom of page four with respect to making payouts, slot payouts, slot jackpot payouts be a Tito ticket or in an enclosed envelope. And this would be, of course, after counting out under camera coverage to be able to validate the amount. But if that was something you wanted to address or to leave that to the discretion of the licensee, I think B made it at the player's request and C made it a directive. Well, I am interested in this. I'm not sure if my fellow commissioners are, but of course, one of the prevailing practices that's encouraged is to have contactless payment. Everybody's trying to use their Apple watches, et cetera. How is this being managed in other states? And is this even a reasonable feature to impose it or at least encourage? Does it help both the employees? Is it an effective measure that you're using anywhere else? Nobody wants to jump on this one. Okay, Jackie. I think we would appreciate the ability to pay using Tito tickets. In terms of the jackpot, what we discussed with Bruce is potentially being able to count it out on the chair so that you still got that surveillance aspect and then putting it into an envelope and giving it to the patron to avoid the money. We are looking at different ways. And as you know, our restrictions, regulations here are very limited in terms of the ATM machines where they can be located different, potentially different ways to, instead of getting cash, getting Tito tickets. So, we've got to check on that and see if that's possible, but we certainly are looking at different ways to achieve contactless payment. Yeah, and just to note, that is possible with the ATMs and the TRUs, but it's not permissible under the current restrictions. So, we could make Tito tickets available through the TRUs with ATMs, but ATMs and TRUs have been separated in the state of Massachusetts, so. And that would be a statutory restriction. The other reason is that the ATM machine here can't cancel out the TRU ticket, so there's no way for it to cancel out the TRU ticket. So, we have to connect the systems, that's correct. So, Loretta, what would your recommendation be? I'm not, my fellow commissioners, do we have a consensus that we'd like for the licensees to consider exploring the best exchanges with respect to money, best practices to enhance social distancing with money, contactless payments to the extent feasible, or Eileen, are you thinking? I guess my question, excuse me, and B, with the at the player's request, is there anything that stops that now? Would we need to affirmatively say that to make that an option, or can they just simply request it? I don't think there's anything that would prevent that now if the payer wanted it to be unusual, but there would be nothing that would prevent it at this point. So, the question is, do we want to encourage it, or, because otherwise it doesn't seem like, excuse me, it would need to be there? Yeah, I think it would be a patron option, maybe that would be offered by the licensee at this point. Just remind people it's an option. Yes. Were you gonna say something? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Patron option fine, I think to Bruce's point, it would be rare for a customer to ask for that. So to have it be a requirement would probably create an unusual experience that patients aren't accustomed to. Certainly there are more and more of those in the COVID environment, but option, I think would be the preference. Okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions? I'm fine with making it an option or known, that that's an option for people. Well, that's my question as far as taking the nose, right now it's option B is at the player's request, but there's, so the player would have to specifically ask for it, but we want to say option provided and at the player's request slot jackpot or payouts to be made by a TDO ticket. So there's, when someone makes, or gets the jackpot that they're told you can have it one way or the other and then they choose. Yeah, that seems to be the most effective way to do it. Okay, I'll write that down. Yeah, it needs to be understood that that's an option. And it's a safety option there. Okay, thanks for pointing that one out. Should we just, before we go on to the top of my page five on cleaning and sanitization of the slot, we'll go right to the social distancing on table games because I think we wanna circle back to the more, the other difficult subject matter on occupancy. See ya, thank you. Okay. Okay, so similarly on the table games, social distancing measures, the first column leaves considerably more flexibility with the licensee, with the directive to maintain increased social distance. And of course you could supplant maintain with maximize social distance at each table and as written now, if less than six feet requiring masks, no congregating and that's consistent throughout all of the columns. No congregating around the table and staff to monitor that. Column A is an option to install plexiglass between the dealer and the players. B and C require the installation of plexiglass between the dealer and the players. All of the columns, all of the groups, direct no poker until further notice. Groups B and C focus on table game positions and direct maximum number of players per person per game. So for instance, you're given total positions with four players per Blackjack table in column B, three players per craps, three players per roulette and so forth and then those numbers are dropped down for column C and you're given total number of player positions in B and C. There are requirements in B and C with respect to plexiglass between player positions in column B, it's to install it where feasible. So Blackjack would be treated differently than craps in B and in C, it would be no craps or roulette until further notice. Amike, do you wanna start this? You're the expert on table games. I was waving up my daughter, so I wasn't necessarily, but I'll start. I was thinking about maybe a bit of a hybrid between A and B in which there's some flexibility afforded but it's layered up on, again, maximizing the social distancing and then not taking the May but maybe installing the plexiglass when that's not possible. I guess as a question, as we get into option B, it appears that that would not have plexiglass, Loretta, because there's already some natural physical distancing. In column B, requirement to install the plexiglass between the dealer and the player and depending on the game, installing it where feasible. Yeah, it's between players. It's sort of pulled up from the bottom in that column. Yeah. I would be interested in knowing what we know about what is happening elsewhere and I suspect it's a combination of things but that would be of interest to me. What is working now? What are the requirements in other states? Bruce Bann, do you wanna try and grab that question? I think a lot of places are using the plexiglass between the players on there, especially on the blackjack style tables which are a lot of the games like three-card poker, all those, I believe a lot of them are using that. Roulette is another story, it becomes a lot more difficult. I think most places are just limiting the number of players at that. Craps are limiting three players to an end, most of them, if they're offering it at all. I think those kind of games, even, well, I don't guess Baccarat is mostly limited to a single table, like mini-Bach and stuff like that. Are you guys doing anything different in Las Vegas, Jackie? Or Brian, I should say. I can tell you, I speak to Las Vegas, a majority of our tables do not have plexi, but some do. They put it out there for the guests that prefer that so they can choose. The same thing exists down in Mohican Sun, down in Connecticut. They've had some tables with, some tables without, and I think it really depends on the operation. Some have decided to go with it, some haven't. From a games protection standpoint, the Roulette and Craps games just do not seem feasible to have plexiglass on them. If I'm down the end and I toss a chip in under a plexiglass, for example, and say $5 on the red, hey, I would imagine that could easily be misplaced and the bet might not be paid off. Plexiglass on those long games like that could probably lead to more patron complaints, misunderstandings. How about when there is no plexiglass and each patron is able to handle chips? Do you, I know that there's probably, there's not widespread sanitization because that's just not practical. Is there, if not an enforcement of use of hand sanitizer, do we see patrons using hand sanitizer regularly? I think part of the problem with that is that patrons have chips in their possession and as soon as they put them on you, you're not gonna be able to sanitize them. No, you can't sanitize. I'm talking about in between, are you seeing, we get back to hand sanitizer. If they're starting to use hand sanitizer and then there's a lot of contact on the table, but they're using hand sanitizer, I get a lot more comfortable than if they're not wearing a mask and they're not using hand sanitizer as Brian. So chair, our protocol that we've put in place is that we will have hand sanitizer at every table and when each guest sits down, we will offer them hand sanitizer with the pump straight from the dealer or the pit boss and squirt it straight into their hands so they don't have to touch anything. And that'll be for anybody that sits down and they can have it as often as they want. And is that being, is that a practice that they seem to appreciate? They're not saying, I don't want that. You know, like the masks, are they using the hand sanitizers? We were doing that before we closed and many people were taking it. Many like 20% or many like 80%. I couldn't tell you. Okay. There could be a problem when at a blackjack game, the person in seat one perhaps, isn't as cognizant of their cleanliness and their chips are gonna go right to the top of the float on a losing bet. And on the next round of play, they're gonna come right out as a payment, possibly to the center person or the third base person. And that's just an example of two rounds of play. This is gonna go on all night long. How feasible it is, is it to require the sanitizers? You wanna play? Here you go. That's what I'm saying. It sounds like you think that is somewhat feasible. I don't know. And helpful. Well, obviously it would be helpful, but I just didn't know if, you know. If somebody truly has an allergy to the alcohol and tape or something, then they would probably have documentation. I was just wondering, plus if they're contagious and then they cough or something into it after they sanitize once. Right. They have to do it again. Exactly. This step is certainly gonna be risk. In terms of the use of plexiglass, I just have that next question, one question on that. They are using it on certain games, but not universally on the same games like for Blackjack. It's not applied universally. It's sort of option of the patron. Do you know what I mean? Maybe I'm not being clear. I understand where roulette may not be, it may not be feasible to use plexiglass because of the concerns work raised with respect to the integrity of the game just because of also the length of the game board. But for Blackjack, plexiglass, as I understand, can be used. Yes. But you haven't applied that universally to all your Blackjack tables. Roulette and craps, you mostly place your own bets historically. Right. It's difficult with plexiglass to do that, but with Blackjack and anything that sits at a traditional Blackjack-shaped table, it's more conducive to using plexiglass. Right. But I think I heard Brian say that it's not universally used on all Blackjack tables, just on some people. If you were speaking specifically about our Las Vegas property, it is not. We intend to have our entire main floor with all of the Blackjack and novelty games installed with plexiglass, with the exception of, as Bruce just mentioned, roulette and craps, and then upstairs it would be 50% of those tables, the high-limit area. Some guests may wanna have their own table. In high-limit, some guests prefer to sit by themselves at their own table, where we would then just limit the number of people to be three versus the four with the dividers in between. And that's in our plan that we presented to you, I believe, a couple weeks ago as well. Right. I know this isn't, Lance, you don't have the tables issue, but Seth, and then maybe all the commissions will wanna ask more questions about your plan again. Distance issue. Sure, we would, I mean, we're comfortable with, we're still trying to figure it out, but we'll offer some table game options with plexi, some without, we believe it's more about, some players will be very uncomfortable playing in that environment, and some players will be more comfortable playing in that environment. So we prefer the flexibility of offering it as a player, kind of a player amenity in this environment. And we'll be installing it in some instances, but believe to require it as a minimum for all tables, we would have a concern with that approach. It'll be inconsistent with our approach in other jurisdictions as well. Bruce, oh, Bruce, did you wanna add in? To me? Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Commissioner Zanicka. Yeah, I'm in favor of giving the flexibility again to layer some of these options, really, you know, whether it makes sense for a particular table to have plexi, plexi, or rather, or, you know, a particular game to be limited to two or three people on one end, whatever, you know, whatever can be relative to maximizing some of these principles. I'm less in favor of coming up with hard and fast rules for each one of these that again may result in unworkable instances. Question, are we talking, are you both considering the plexiglass between the dealer and the players? You've been speaking about player to player, but what about dealer to player? The plexi does protect the dealer. There is no face-to-face contact. In addition, we are requiring all of our employees to wear masks and the customers to wear a mask. So everyone's got a mask and there's plexi and there's sanitizer as well offered. So all of your tables will have the plexi between the players and the dealer? With the exception of what Bruce spoke about and that's perhaps it's a very different game as well as roulette. And in high limit, we would just require masks. Brian, can you help me understand? I'm trying to visualize a blackjack table with a plexiglass divider between the players and the dealer. I actually think I have a photo. It's great. Of course you do. Let's see if you can share it, Jack. I don't think I can share but I can just move forward to Karen in one second to be there in a second. Because I worry about the plexiglass divider obviously and Commissioner Cameron raises a great point. We're also worried about the protection and safety and health of the employees as well. But it kind of goes to probably where Burke and Bruce are interested in the security of the game of anything that prohibits the dealer from doing their job as well as protecting and maintaining the cards, the chips, everything that's out on the table. We have checked with a few tests and we are able to see everything with the surveillance cameras through the plexiglass. It didn't inhibit that. Yeah. But I mean, just in terms of the dealer reaching out to collect cards or dealer reaching out to collect chips or... The plexiglass actually goes in front of the patrons and there's a space about that far underneath. So it doesn't really inhibit the dealer from doing their job. I'm attempting to share the photograph right now. Can everybody see that? Yeah. Unfortunately, it's difficult to see because it's clear. Karen, I'm not sure if you can zoom in. There's a little zoom tool. Oh, hold on. It's a... You might have to put one white in the deep instead of two whites. Just bring it in and I'll let them... Is that better? I'm zooming. Can you see it closer now? Yes. Okay, I get a better sense. So you can see, like with my cursor, you can see that there are different sections for different players and there are barriers between players and then barrier between the players and the dealer right there. And there's another picture. You want me to pull that one up, Jackie, now? That'd be great. Thank you. One second. Yeah, I think it's important to note that a majority of the table is only exposed to the player, or to the dealer. The player really only has a section of the rail where they can stack their chips or rest their arms. Other than that, the access of the entire table is really up to the dealer, not the player. All right, can everyone see the second picture now? The players? Yeah, it makes more sense. Thank you, appreciate that. So and if we're talking about just the plexiglass between the dealer and the players, it would just be that front portion we just saw, correct? Just wouldn't have the divider scale. Right, interesting enough to look at that divider. If the people are sitting back a little bit, there is no protection. It's really not... Most of the dividers that you get will be further out. That was just a sample that Encore had. The ones they're going to order are actually longer. So, that's good. It really ends up to the... Is Brian trying? All right, I'm going to do this in order. It really, to your point, Commissioner, it really is up to the customer. If they leaned far enough back, they could talk to their buddy next to them. But for anybody who wants that protection, there's a good, like a wing between each side. It's almost like a clear voting booth. I hate to... But it almost is like that, where it's clear, and you can lean in and have complete privacy, or you could lean back and move your chair back and actually see face-to-face your customer, your phone. It will be up to the customer to continue to be vigilant and mindful of not scooting away from the table and looking at their friend. They actually have to be up on the rail. Right. Brian, what if... People play. Follow-up question, Brian. Why not require the plexiglass in the high roller area between the dealer and the players? What we want to do is offer options to our customers, and I think Seth said it as well. Some customers may not want that, may prefer to have their own table, their own table with some friends. Yeah, but the dealer has to be there, and the dealer has to be protected. The dealer would have a mask, and the customers would require to have a mask as well. It just seems like you're making everyone else have the plexiglass to protect your dealers, but in the high limit area, you're not as interested in that protection for the dealer. Well, we have it right now, staged for 50% of those games up there. I just don't see why the player would have that option since we're talking about protecting the dealer at this point with that one piece in the front. I think if you look at other jurisdictions across the country, almost all the way across the country, many do not have plexiglass or only have it on half of their tables and do not require masks. We would like to go the other way, require masks of everyone, of the employees and the customers, well as have sanitizer, as well as have those options for those customers that want an extra layer of protection. Yeah, I wanna echo what Commissioner Cameron said though, is just when you look at it from the perspective of the employee, they don't have the option. I mean, they can't come on their shift and say, you know, I don't wanna do it unless I've got the plexiglass. Yeah, I just, I don't see that logic, I'll be honest with you. I understand you're trying to give the patron options, but I just, it would seem to me in this case, you know, health of the dealers is really important here. Well, I will also note that that caught my ear and I think that we would just wanna note that right now, the logic doesn't necessarily extend. But I have to also say, if we apply that logic, which I am concerned, the obvious is the employee, we're not requiring plexi on the extended boards, like relact, correct? But we're allowing relact to be played, correct? Well, that's still to be determined, right? That's what, right, that's right. Thank you, Commissioner Brown for clarifying, that's right. But that would be right now, the practice is no plexi for relact, perhaps. Yeah, but limit the players. Limit, limit on players, not on Blackjack, either they're not separating. You would limit it to the sections that you have. The sections you have. But there's limits on really player number for every game in some way, correct, Bruce? Essentially, yes, but the ones for roulette and craps, it limits, and actually in here, it says three players for the dice games. For the dice games, it's three players per end, and roulette is three players all together. So, Gail, you see my point, why I went- I do, I do, but I think the difference is, it's not really feasible with roulette and craps, where it absolutely is feasible with the other table games, and I just didn't see the logic in requiring it if you're with a regular patron, but giving the option just because someone happens to be a high roll. Right, oh, this is saying, I'm hoping I'm not gonna lose our meeting. It says, Scott, it says, a download. Oh, I'm getting a lot of funny things, guys, up. You're back. Now I'm back. You're back. Okay, were you getting something as well? That was, Scott, and we all sat for a continued- I hope so. I hope so. I hope so. I hope so. I hope so. I'm sure- It's an IT answer, Scott. I'm sure. Kevin and Kevin, they're actually really busy on their other projects. Looks like we're back. There is a really major storm going on outside my window, if you've seen my distraction. So I was a little bit nervous over, that we might get disconnected, but it seems okay. But I think that we've raised, oh, go ahead, Ryan, yes. Yeah, Madam Chair, I think if we look at the way the state has looked at restaurants and how restaurants are going to be allowed to have an employee that has a mask, and customers that are going to not have masks on because they have to eat, we feel that if the customer has a mask and the employee has a mask and there's a separation of space and everyone's using sanitizer, that that would be a safe environment where they're safe for environment. That's right. And if I could chime in as well, commissioners, there's two aspects to these measures that we're talking about here. I think all three licensees have utilized medical experts to look at what are the key protocols that require, that are required to keep your patients and your employees safe and healthy. And that's primarily, that's based on CDC guidance. That's primarily masks, hand washing, hand sanitization. And many of these other measures are really patron accommodations to make folks feel comfortable that they're in a place, they're comfortable coming. And I would say plexiglass falls into that. And many would argue, guest temperature screening is all, they're beneficial but not absolutely necessary. And so that's why, at least from NGM's standpoint, we are offering that on some tables, but we don't believe it's, we need to roll it out throughout our company because of the other precautions we have in place. So I think throughout this discussion, it's what is necessary and what is, based on medical advice and CDC guidance, and then what is additional measures that are helpful, but that patrons appreciate and make the space even safer, but again, not absolutely necessary. Seth. I do think there's a difference though. When you're talking about wait staff going in and being in that situation with patrons, they're not standing there in that close proximity for protracted periods of time. They're coming in and out, and they're going into other areas with different airspace, et cetera. So I do think there's a difference there when you equate to restaurants and to just echo Commissioner Cameron's comment about the comfort level of the patron, we also have to think about the comfort level of the employee and having spent years waitressing and having to go into a smoking section and knowing, well, I either take it or I don't get paid. I'd hate to see somebody in a position of saying, well, I either take the no shield table or I don't get shipped. So I don't know what the position is if someone says, I just don't feel comfortable being there without the plexiglass between myself and the players. Is it fair to consider at least offering employees the opportunity to use a shield in addition to a mask if they want to feel comfortable going into that environment? Is that something that has been used or practiced? Burke or Bruce or any of our licensees? We don't have any information. I don't think, Bruce, from our research that I noticed that the dealers are additionally wearing like the dental hygienists shields, but we could look further into that for everyone. Not that I've seen anywhere, Bruce. Yeah, yeah, it's more, again, getting back to the point being raised about making sure the employees are also coming at this from a place of safety and security. At least having that available to them is something additionally they could do to feel comfortable, whether it's dealing with that or dealing crabs or being at one of those tables where there's not a plexiglass divider provided. Can I ask a question to Loretta, Bruce or Burke or anybody? The numbers in terms of columns B and C, what does that equate to in terms of distance between people? That was more just mathematics based on total numbers. Right, I didn't know, but when you got to the table. You're not achieving the six foot. Yeah. But do you have a ballpark and what you could achieve? I mean, what's the ballpark? Do we know? No, we don't off the top of our head, no. Okay. I have a question for Brian. Was your expectation or what's happening in Vegas relative to High Limit having none of those plexiglass? Is that typically that, are those typically tables that have less patrons justified the nature of the game? Yes, typically a High Limit table that's a higher limit. A customer will want the table to themselves or want to just sit down with their friend or they want a private table. It's just not possible downstairs unless you're slow in a lower limit area, we just have more demand. So we felt like we wanted to have the plexi there so we could put more people and more patrons there in a safer environment. But it really, we want our employees to be safe too, obviously. Yeah, no, and you know, all of these is, we need to recognize that it's layered of number of things that we are putting on top of each other so that there's some minimization. I think I want us to get away a little bit from, you know, the precise of each one of these. I think that when we aggregate the dispensing of the hand sanitizer, the temperature checking, you know, the screening and communicating with all of these other measures, physical as well. And, you know, that there's at least in theory and over a total minimization aspect of things, which I think is appropriate. I don't know that we can hear you, Cathy. Can you hear me now? Yes. The silent chair is actually probably pretty effective. I think we just want to follow up on Commissioner O'Brien's question right before Commissioner Zuniga's comment. Just if we could maybe get a better sense of the actual footage between these gaming commissions, it's going to be an important piece of information for I'm sure public health experts to have as well to Commissioner Zuniga's point. I mean, I am somewhat aligned with that because I'm, you know, a realist. Xenos are opening across the country. We, you know, are committed to doing the very, very best here for employees and patrons. The idea of requiring, you know, consistent hand sanitizing and requiring masks that's already a good step ahead of other jurisdictions. What's interesting to me is that Plexiglas is seen as an option that's not necessarily from your public health specialist, but rather from something that's psychological. And I think that that's a, for me an outstanding public health question, would they require Plexi? They certainly have suggested that in the restaurant. At least the early phase two restaurant requirements, as I understand it, if you can't achieve between your tables, six feet different, so you must put up the Plexiglas. So I'm not ready to concede that it's not a public health issue yet and that it's primarily for the psychological benefit of the patron and not the physical benefit. So I think with respect to that issue, I can't say that the table games are trickier for me because they're not, it's not a universal practice across board. So I'm terribly aware of what Enrique is saying and that's why in many ways I'm wondering if a combination of enforced use of masks and sanitizer would actually meet a public health standard as well as the achieving, that's close to six feet social distancing is feasible. I actually wonder if they would prefer that over Plexiglas because of the need to keep Plexiglas clean as well, but I don't wanna really introduce that element because I'm presuming that any Plexiglas that's gonna be put up is gonna be sanitized. And I think the better analogy might be a supermarket than a restaurant where the Plexiglas, because that checkout person has to stand there with one person after another and it's a safety issue. In fact, a supermarket who wasn't employing that, they were sued and forced to do it. So the employees didn't feel safe. So I am, I still don't understand the rationale of we're gonna make, we're gonna have it at the lower levels. There's Plexiglas between the dealer and the players, but upstairs we're going to let the patron decide. And I just, I still can't follow that logic. I understand there may be fewer people, but I think from a protection standpoint for dealers, you know, I just don't understand. They say, oh, I'm upstairs tonight. I don't have it. If I were downstairs, I would. I just don't see that where you are requiring it at the lower level, I just can't follow that logic. So I appreciate Mr. Cameron's comments. And of course it's, I wanna make clear that when has indicated its level of use of Plexiglas, MGM has indicated its level, they both are different. And so we just wanna make sure that we don't assume anything about either. I think the use of Plexiglas we need to explore further and whether it's something that we mandate versus incurred, right? Sure, it's every other question. A says it's discretionary, B and C say it's mandatory. So it's really how we come down on these three categories. And I'm just saying I'm not prepared to take a stance on it because I feel like it's a matter of public health. I'd like to understand more. I don't know if others are more inclined to want to to reach a consensus if there's four or three of you who feel strongly that it should be mandated or encouraged, Gail, do you wanna? Yeah, I feel like, you know, I just, again, I do not see the distinction between I'm talking about just the Plexiglas now between the dealer and the players. I am fine with the option of certain tables between players having it and others not and that's the comfort level, but that dealer who stands there all day long or all shift long, I just think, you know, I just, I am in favor of say B where we require it between the dealer and the players. And so Gail, are you saying that you're gonna require both licensees to have your position would be on all games or just on one? We just talked about the games that were feasible. It really isn't. Right, so I just want to be clear that I'm not sure that the other licensee was planning on putting it on and maybe correct me around that there was gonna be optional, but you're saying it would be a mandate that you're not doing 100% of Blackjack. That would, this is up for staff. Right now it was not proposed to do it. We may end up with 100%. You know, I'm part of this isn't having my lawyer had on from a minimum standard standpoint, I'd rather maximum flexibility and then if our best practice we decide to go a bit above and beyond that, which is very possible. So we're still working that through. I believe we are gonna try to get every Blackjack table with Flexi, but again, with rather the flexibility from a minimum standard requirement. Okay, so that's Blackjack. And any other tables, other tables that you're putting on Flexi? We would not plan to have it on roulette or crops, all Blackjack style setups, we're likely gonna. And no poker right now. Correct. Okay, and Brian, with the exception of what you said about high rulers, we understand your position on that. Otherwise 100% on Blackjack tables or was- The games, yes, the same Blackjack style tables, that's correct. That has been your plan all along. And no poker. I think as Commissioner Stevings was suggesting, I think the face shield in addition to the mask, conceivably achieve some of the same option, some of the same protection than the Flexi glass. So I'd be interested in hearing if that's something that is being considered. I actually think that some people find a face shield to be confining and may fog up glasses. So I think the Flexi glass, which is a little farther away from a dealer, let's say, is maybe a better option. Okay, Commissioner Brian? I'm coming down on the same side of this as Commissioner Cameron. When I think about the employees, if there's a feasibility argument or some other health argument, I'm more than willing to listen to it, but simple, it doesn't seem to me to be a client choice, the safety of the employee. In terms of if it's feasible, I don't see why we wouldn't require it in the circumstance. Commissioner Stevings? Yeah, I'm almost coming down on the idea of, every Blackjack table is requiring some type of shield. But at the same time, I'd want the employees who are dealing those other games where there aren't shields to at least have access to a face shield. If by choice, they feel more comfortable wearing it, making it available to the employee. We want the employee to be safe as they're dealing as it's been pointed out. They're there for a long time, facing the same customers or a whole slew of different customers. So, at least making that type of PPE available to them if they want it, I think, would go a long way towards addressing everybody's concern. Can I ask one industry question first, Ann? Are all industries keeping crafts and let tables open? Are they keeping someone on closing them because they can't provide that protection? I think most of them have as an option, like a high roller came in and wanted to play. They would have available, not everyone's keeping crafts and let open. Just because of the sanitization problem. So that's where I'm having trouble drawing a line. And I don't want to artificially draw a line that would have a big business impact. So I need to understand not putting plexiglass on the other tables because it's not feasible to play the game. I feel like the risk to the, if it's not the equivalent of the dealers and the employees who are running the games are still high. So I just really want to understand, really the need or impact of the plexiglass. I very much appreciate enhancements like this. So I love that you're introducing it. I don't want to penalize you for introducing it. That's my main thinking. Because again, if it's really important, then we probably shouldn't have the Latin craps. But if it's with face masks and possibly, I respect Commissioner Cameron's description around the impact of a shield because I sense that's probably hard to work with. I know that hair salon stylists will be wearing shields regularly. So it's certainly they're being employed. But I guess I just want to understand the health. But I think I'm hearing three people would like to see, these shields are more plexiglass for blackjack. I'm not hearing anything with respect to craps and roulette. Then I'm hearing from Enrique that he'd like to keep, I think, calm A in flexibility. I thought we were tabling the craps and roulette discussion. We hadn't gotten into, like my comments were blackjack only because that's what we're talking about. I'm too. And so I would need to understand more sort of the protections to see if you could be on the others before we move into that conversation. Well, that, and I'm having a hard time just really on blackjack alone. If we're going to keep the Latin. So let's talk about roulette and craps. Relyne? Well, I'm not really, my first question was, what are these percentages of gaming positions translate to space wise? And we don't have an answer on that right now. So the next question really is, let's talk about the magnation of the game and cleaning and what the plans are there in terms of, is it visible? My hair is just so long. So that's some, so we're talking about distance as well as sanitization of the game. Gail, do you want to comment? Yeah, the other thing that kind of goes hand in hand is the position of the deal per se. I learned a new track. Did you know what I'm saying? No, you did. How to, how to, yes, put someone on you. So Bruce Band or Burke, tell me a little bit more about who stands, you know, the risk to a dealer in craps or roulette and players to themselves as, you know, as compared to a blackjack. I think at craps, you have a lot more, you know, people there, you have a box man, you have a stick man. Yes. You have the dealers on the other side. So you have a lot of personnel there. So not only is it, you know, a risk to them, but it's also an expensive game for the casino to run. So it has to be financially viable for them to run that many employees with it as well. So like I say, I would be surprised that you would get them running a craps game unless they had a higher roller to come in and play it. So you can tell me if I'm wrong, Brian or Seth, if you would run it for just like the average guy, I might be wrong with that. Roulette, you have one dealer dealing it and with three people right around the table, you might be in, you know, easier to do at that point. You mean in terms of distance? In terms of distance. Yes. Distance, it really depends what size roulette table you have because there are different sizes. You have a bigger roulette table. The spacing might be three and a half, four feet. In roulette, literally half the time the dealer could step back literally parallel to the wheel. It'd be more than six to eight feet apart and they do work the table. By that, I mean they walk up and down the table to assist with a bet. And of course to pay off a bet, someone on the far end they'll walk down and push those chips to them. But then they are more than welcome, I would think, to back up four, five, seven feet away from the action again. Then they have to muck the chips and everything else with that. So they're down by the roulette wheel head. So Rona, do you have anything you want to add on this? No, I think Bruce and Burke have a better understanding of those games than I do. So I don't have anything to add. And the game of craps, as Bruce was saying, the stick person is in the center of the game with his back to the main aisle of the casino and the players are traditionally right on his right and left pocket. So there would have to be some requirements of what kind of distance you would allow with the face mask. Then of course the base dealers, if you've ever seen a don't player, they usually nestle right over next to that base dealer. So, craps is a unique challenge. And I think we can provide a schematic of the distances. I think we have that of the player distances. Oh, you do have that, okay, great. I mean, I guess, Cathy, what I would have to add is that if your concern is to protect the employee and to relieve the employee of the responsibility of having to make the decision, should I ask for a shield? Shouldn't I ask for a shield? Should I take a shift at a certain table or not take a shift? Then your minimum standard should reflect that concern. And that may be to require more of the dividers. It may mean to start off at the initial reopening with maybe no craps, maybe roulette. But that's just what I'm hearing from some of the commissioners with respect to the employees. If you want to stay focused on there, minimizing the number of decisions they have to make, you can set minimum standards to do that. I just received a schematic of craps if you folks want to see that. Can you share it on paper? Sure, share it on paper. Okay, thank you, Sterl, for providing this. Is it up there? Yeah. Oh, I guess. That looks like roulette. Oh, no, that's crap. This is dice. Claps table. Here's the stick person. And down here would be the box person. Think it's the other way around. Sorry, I have it exactly opposite. Here's the box. Here's the two dealers. And here's the stick person. And these are some measurements you can look around to see what, this is on a 14 foot game. Craps is usually a 12 foot game or a 14 foot game. So the base dealers on either corner at the top, you can see if you put a patron here, that's five feet away. Okay, show me that again, Burke, please. Where the page, oh, that's where it says patron. Yeah. Yeah, so that looks like that's five feet away from our measurements. So I guess a patron right here, literally on the hook could be almost six feet from either player, either dealer, sorry, the stick. It looks like it could be feasible to have one or a party of two that know each other on either side of a craps game, it may be possible. Meaning the other one is just another question, which we can table, but whether there's gonna be guidelines on like restaurants, the maximum party, a party could come in and wanna take a table over maybe in high limits or something like this, is there gonna be a max? We do have that now, the restaurant limits are at six. I didn't know if that's necessarily gonna correlate or whether. Right, right, for restaurants we have it, but waiting for, see if we have that, yeah. Right. I'll make a point, just an offshoot of a point that Bruce Band made earlier, that as he was applying the feasibility to any one particular game, I'll make it about the overall operation. And I don't know that we're there yet, but I would be interested in as we layer each one of these requirements, if you will, or guidelines, there's at least in theory a tipping point out there, at which point there's unprofitable or unwieldy or too unwieldy or too much to do and to operate. And so again, I don't know that we're there yet, but that's something that's been in my mind as we discuss each one of them necessarily by themselves, there's an aggregate effect here that I think at some point we need to consider. I think that's fair. I think that's what I'm struggling with, Henrike, to make sure that what the right balance is. And of course, I just wish I had a little bit more information in terms of the science on the risk. In terms of whether we have a consensus on if we're going to require Plexiglas for all Blackjack without waiting for any further guidance, then we would want to probably give that because I'm hearing from Seth that that hasn't been in the cards right now. So that would be a plan that you would need extra time for. And if it's gonna fly through the high end rollers, which I know, Brian, you did, I want to be fair to both the licensees. Brian did indicate that their goal was to provide on all the tables, but then did note the exception, which of course we did note that it doesn't, regardless of who the patient is, we're concerned about the employee. But to be fair, I didn't want to note that when was going to extend it widely, the Plexiglas across Blackjack. So you might even be further ahead already on that Plexiglas. I don't know if Seth, if you actually need more lead time on getting that in place, Berk, you would want to say something. I have someone forward me a picture of a craft's table with Plexiglas. If anybody might want to see that. Sure. All right, here we go. It's not pretty. Yeah. Whoops. Did I just lose it? Yes, there it is. There it is. Can we just expand it? I'm trying to see what I can do with that. Thank you. Maybe the zoom. There you go. There you go. There. It looks like the dealer right here. Is that a dealer? Yeah. No, that's a patient. Here's a biter. Looks like there's a patient over here with their base and a divider. And it looks like they have room underneath the reach down, you know. It looks cumbersome, obviously. And the box person is sitting over here in between two shields for their base dealers also. So it extends out over the table, correct? Yeah, it looks like it's over the table. Now, Krabs is a game where there's a lot of talking going on and bets are verbalized and bets sometimes are not verbalized as clearly as they should be, which could lead to confusion, pro and con to the casino. So this could be... Past posting. Yeah, this could be a little tough at times for the casino to understand what bets are being tossed in when dice are in the air, chips are always flowing. Yeah. Commissioner Zunigan knows all about that. Can we know where this is? Yeah, Mohegan. This is Mohegan. It says at the top, Foxwoods and Mohegan's son on day one. Oh, yeah, I think that's a little... I couldn't see it. So I would be interested in hearing... I would be interested in hearing A, if they mandate it in Connecticut, and B, if we could talk to somebody, maybe one of the gaming agents there to find out if, in fact, there are issues as you're thinking, Burke, there may be. In terms of... Right, yes. Games protection, I think that would be a point of emphasis to find out information on that. I think there'd be problems... Connecticut's tribal, though, right? Yeah, we've been talking to Mohegan's son and Foxwoods, we'll give them another call. Yeah, we have a pretty good connection at one of the casinos. Yeah, I would be interested, before we make a decision on this, if, in fact, they mandate it, and how well it's working out there. I don't think they can mandate it, though. I'd say one of the fields... The tribe may mandate it. Being the tribe mandating it, okay. Okay, hold on everyone, because we are talking. We've got Brian, we'll put you on hold for a second, because I'm gonna go to my three commissioners, first, Bruce Stevens. Yeah, I just look at that setup, and some of those plexiglass pieces extending out over the table. Yeah, have somebody bouncing their dice off the plexiglass screen, and I'd be curious to see if it's mandated or not. And then, Commissioner O'Brien? No, that was my question, is when you were asking for the mandate, I'm thinking, well, they can really decide whatever they wanna do. So, I'd be curious to know the decision. What was the analysis that prompted them to think this was the way to go? That would be helpful. And then, whether it's mandated or not, just how they got there. And then, I'm not sure if another, Commissioner Cameron, did you have another comment? No, I expressed an interest to finding out. I wanna go to Brian, who had his hand up. Okay, Brian. Yeah, I'm just gonna say that picture is actually from Fox Woods. They decided to go that route. Mohegan did not. I've been to Mohegan since they've opened, and a majority of their tables do not have plexi, and none of their craft's tables have plexi that I saw. So, the two sovereign nations decided to do completely different things, and they're five minutes apart. Right. Interesting. It would be interesting to hear how their patron experience is, and how they're finding any challenges in terms of enforcement, of the gaming integrity. So. It was interesting. When we went to Mohegan, the customers had the choice to sit down at plexi tables or non-plexi tables, and it was about evenly split, actually, and they had the choice to sit wherever they wanted. So, I think some people are more risk-averse than others. Yeah, I guess I keep getting back to the employees, though. I mean, right. Despite having plexiglass, Brian, are they still limited to the number of positions per table? They did limit the number of patrons at dice. It was three per end, similar to what Bruce had mentioned. What about Blackjack? Is that three, regardless of whether you have dividers or not? I didn't see, but I want to say it was three for the ones that didn't have plexi, because they had taken the chairs away. That's what they indicated to Burke and I that they were going to do. Okay. Thank you. This is tough. Tough stuff. And I know you're all living it every second, and we've been chewing on it, but not with the ability to share among ourselves. So, we appreciate everyone's patience. It's the part of us being able to talk together. I think, Karen, I think I'm going to suggest and have my commissioners chime in that we note, I think some similarities that there's an expression about concern for the safety of the employees. Okay. And, but also looking at the practicalities of the use of plexiglass for at least two games, perhaps in the lab. And I guess I'd add that just understanding the health benefits of plexiglass. It all makes sense to me that more you shield the better. Though, but because of the expense associated with it and because of the patron experience, I think I just would like to understand, just it seems so obvious. I just want to understand that if there's any input on that we can get from our public health experts and from the licensees experts. It's interesting to me that, there was a line drawn at some point by the licensees. And then commissioners is, of course, weighing the cost, doing the cost benefit analysis, and want to be careful. In terms of going through each provision, it seems to us on Rike that each jurisdiction has had to go through that's in terms of their guidelines. They're quite detailed, giving prescribing on those, on exactly what we're going through. So. So I can just ask a question just for clarifications of what, make sure I'm hearing things correctly. Is that there are some angst about what to do with the table games, but it sounds as if there is at least the commissioners seem to be open to allowing less than six feet for the table games. It's just a matter of individuals playing on table games because of where the dealers position is and where the players are playing. It's just a matter of whether we're requiring plexiglass in or another barrier on top of masks. Am I hearing that correctly? Well, you know, you can call me six feet today, I guess. I'm not there yet. I'm not saying no. I'm just, I'm not saying that I embrace that. Okay, and I'm the same way. I'm not, you know, I'm really wondering if, if we really are concerned about people playing around games and some games don't have plexiglass and we're only comfortable if there's plexiglass and should we not, should we ban those games from the time being? So I just don't, I don't have enough information on, Blackjack seems to be, there seems to be, as Loretta says, some kind of a minimum that perhaps we can all get comfortable with even though the licensees may not love us for it. If we all have plexiglass around the dealer, all dealers, we might be comfortable with that. That's what I feel like that's a potential consensus. Enrique, what do you think? I think that's a fair characterization. I mean, it's not, you know, it's not unanimous but it doesn't have to be. I think, you know, again, I begin to worry about the workability overall. If we're really concerned about any one instance about transmission, let's face it, we should consider whether they should reopen at all. And so what instead, what we are trying to do, I would suggest as you did earlier, is to layer as many protections as are feasible to minimize the overall, you know, the overall risk. But as somebody who's done and thought about a lot of risk management in the past, we're not gonna bring down the risk to zero. Let's just face it. And that's true for every other industry. It's true for every, for the state, what the governor is going down, you know, must be evaluating. And so, you know, what we're left with is the workability of each one of these. And I'm not suggesting that we're made with the reach to a point in which any one of these is unworkable. I think it's all a matter of, you know, ultimately the cost-benefit analysis. But I guess that's my point. If I could ask the licensees a question, Seth and Brian, what it would be the lead time to order, you know, if you had to order more plexiglass, what kind of lead time are we talking about there? Well, it's in very high demand right now, as you know. It would be, we would need lead time. I don't know exactly how much. I mean, we're having some installed now. The reality would be that we probably would have to open with less than we'd like to. And as we're able to roll out additional plexi, be able to open those additional games. Because I, but I can't pinpoint it exactly time, Karen. And I did want to make one other point, you know, what I'm hearing a lot of, and it's very fair concern, we have it as well, is to focus on the health and safety of our employees. I know we as MGM, and I'm sure Penn and Winner similarly situated that protecting our employees and their health and welfare is a top priority. So, you know, we perhaps in the meantime, after this discussion, we can provide additional information about the measures that we do take with respect to employees. An example, in Tunica when it reopened, there was no requirement of plexiglass or face shields. We offered face shields and made them available to all of our dealers in case they'd feel more comfortable with them. Very few, if any of them decided to use those, but we had them available. And it goes back to my theme of minimum guidelines and best practices and flexibility to, I think, Commissioner Zuniga's point, a later approach. So we, I'll find out and get to the commission to staff any such measures with respect to employee, you know, options for employees and what our policies are around their comfort level because it's something we deal with every day and we're very committed to. I'd like to clarify too, the states that mandate plexiglass for even the blackjack, I just would like to understand that. And I think it's important to realize that we are one of the highest states when it comes to our numbers and the cities in particular. So something required at another location may not be exactly the model we want to look at. We need to look at this particular state and region and take as many precautions as possible. And again, it may well be that this will be resolved by the state. Again, not unlike our last discussion, it's the lead time that's, I know, difficult. I think the lead time is probably more of an issue if I'm guessing right, MGM right now than when. So if you didn't, if there was a supply issue, it would probably mean that you just wouldn't have as many open tables at the beginning if that was an exception. So good. Okay. So what I do also, what a comment on the, you know, I'm hesitant to rely solely on, we offered a protective piece of equipment and it wasn't widely asked for because there is sometimes a stigma to asking for it when it's not mandated. Maybe you don't want to be the person with the face shield when everybody else doesn't have it. So while I can understand that may be the experience, I also think we do need to think about sometimes minimum uniformity just eliminates any risk that someone isn't going to ask for something they need or feel comfortable with them wanting. So for efficiency purposes and moving this discussion along, it sounds like for both table games and for slot machines, we are looking to go back to the governor's advisory board and or any other health officials to get that answer. Is six feet, six feet or can it be less than six feet if there are other protective measures in place? That's really the threshold question I'm hearing from you as commissioners, am I? And then the next one would be if it's less than six feet and because it's unlike slots where you're looking at a machine rather than interacting more closely with a dealer and other patrons, is a mask sufficient to protect or should plexiglass be used or not neither is sufficient? Or does time also weigh into that? I mean, it may be they say plexiglass of masks, you can go 10 minutes and not worry about a thing. You get past a certain point and now you have a problem. Okay. Yeah, and that's, and at these table games, you're gonna be there as you pointed out or commissioner Cameron, commissioner very well. Okay, because it seems as if with the social distancing, we need, you're looking for that further clarity from on that group of questions before you can really move forward. Our licensees won't be able, if it's six feet, if it is six feet with masks and it must maintain six feet, it does not sound like it will be feasible to really run any table games. Am I right? I'm seeing on the heads of me. So. I would probably say so, but, you know. And I'm seeing the same thing I'm making. It just wouldn't be feasible. There's no way to get six feet with table games. Well, then what about Rhode Island and Mississippi that have the six feet rule for the slot machines? Bruce and Burke, do you know what they're doing with table games? Not totally, but they do have table games, want to understand. Are you sure that Rhode Island has table games, Bruce? No, not a hundred percent, but I'm pretty sure. I'm really meant to check that last night and I have to say it, I just didn't. Is Patrick still on the call? Rhode Island, Rhode Island has table games, yes. Open now. Oh, open now, okay. I know they have them, but I can't remember if they decided to keep them shut down. Does anybody have that? My notes say Mississippi has a three chair max on the blackjack style tables with the corners and middle seats remaining at the table and other seats from the other seats removed. Okay. And Rhode Island? Westie just texted me that Rhode Island does not have their tables open. Yeah, that's right. Okay. So, you know, there we have another comparison. So, there must be some information out there to help us understand this better. All right, Loretta, I'm gonna have you help me in terms of social distancing on table games. Do we have any outlier position? Well, it looks like we covered all of that. Should we go back to them to our overall occupancy issue? I think so. I think we've worked our way through slots and table games and then back to page three on the occupancy. Page three. Yeah. Alrighty, because I think Mr. Stevens, you had raised the valid point that when we're talking about occupancy, now that we've gone through the exercise we have, we do know that there are going to be less players just by virtue of, even if we make some fair assumptions, we know there's gonna be reduced players. And if we make the assumption of, let's just say for the sake of today's discussion that it is every other slot machine. So let's say it's a 50% reduction in slots. We can have some kind of a reasonable discourse. In terms of table games, I don't know how you figure that out. No, a third or something. But I think we can turn to our licensees to help us because you've been thinking about this long and hard. So in terms of occupancy, Loretta, why don't you just go through it again at a sort of high level and then we'll start our discussion. Sure, so at a high level, the A column relied on building code occupancy levels and calls on you to set a percentage of the building code occupancy level for the gaming floor. We've got some of those numbers in the footnotes. MGM's number is 7,480. PPC and Encore may want to update their numbers. I'm not sure if you have updated numbers. You saw this chart the other day and if you do wanna update your numbers, I suggest doing that poorly now. So Loretta, sorry to interrupt you. If we could get back to you on that tomorrow, we're just having an architect look at it and make sure that it incorporates the traversing areas as well. Okay, same with you Lance, you wanna get back on that number? Same for us, yes, please. Okay, so the numbers that we were working with are reflected in the footnote. The percentage level offered in column A is 50%, but obviously you could use a different percentage we'd have to consider if you use this formula, the employee levels as well, which then the licensee could extrapolate when it's counting guest entries and their plans are required to address that, you know how they would do the accurate count on the guest entries and how they would manage the queuing for entry and what they would do if they reach occupancy level and potentially need to turn people away. The B and C levels rely on a percentage of the number of gaming positions which takes into consideration both slots and table games depending on what formula you use from columns B and C earlier, you know, plus an additional percentage of what was offered here was the 25 and the 10% in columns B and C respectively. Column B talks about an optional reservation system with the idea that that would help for planning purposes. Column C calls for a requirement of a timed reservation system. And I know the licensees do have some thoughts about the requirement of the reservation system. Which we addressed in connection with the earlier discussion on time contact tracing. So commissioners who, if you have a position or do you wanna hear from the licensees first on this? It looks like Gail's suggesting a ladder, like the ladder here from the licensees. Okay, I'm trying to unmute myself. Yes, I would like to hear from the licensees. That would be helpful. Licensees, can I impose on you? Lance, now that we've gotten to that table game discussion, can we start with you? Sure, yeah, I don't know that we have a strong preference, I'm sure, between the difference between the two calculations, you can still arrive at the same number just because you're doing the ending positions times X or if you're doing simply a percentage of capacity. I will tell you that as I understand it, I believe certainly the majority, if not all, jurisdictions, as I understand it, though I certainly may be wrong, are deferring to capacity and taking the eight percentage of building capacity. That said, don't necessarily have a strong preference, I think you can get to the same place using either calculation. I'm sorry, the only answer, I couldn't quite hear your final statement. So they are not doing the occupancy based on the building code, but rather the gaming positions. No, they are, they are deferring to building code and building capacity, yes, yep. And that is our understanding as well that most of the jurisdictions have gone with the building code occupancy. Our concern about making it, tying it to the gaming positions is if you include employees in that right now, we might be over at the 25% even. Because so many employees are gonna be on the floor, we're gonna have security, increased security. We obviously have, our games are spread out, I think more than some other jurisdictions. So we've got a lot of free space for people to circulate within that. In terms of the reservation system, we've got- Can I just, before we do that, could I go to Seth on just the GM's position, thank you. We much prefer the, based on building code, it's more consistent with what we're seeing in other jurisdictions. It provides enough cushion to accommodate household guests, which we see a lot of, say couples who come and one person's playing and the others is there. We wanna be able to accommodate that, which, so if you're looking at 25% on top of available positions, if you look at guests kind of on and off the floor, plus employees, it's much, much tighter. We'll probably come under on almost a daily basis. I presume every day come under 50% of our building code with our limited operations. But again, it gives us that flexibility to adjust. It would be much, much more challenging because we're gonna have to control by the way. And I could be more of an issue with MGM than the other properties, but I think it's similar. To control the floor capacity, we're really gonna have to control access to the facility because we have a carpet tile once you're in your in. And so it's really gonna amount to how many people come in the door. That's how you're gonna control how many people are on the floor. We have no other real way of doing it. So it's important to have that, the cushion of the building code capacity numbers. Or else we think we would probably need a higher percentage on top of the gaming positions. Questions, commissioners? I had a question about the number. I know, so MGM's number came in as, is that the entire gaming facility capacity? No, that's just the gaming floor in the southern market. And so the other two numbers, Loretta, what are the ones that we're looking at for PPC in Hongkong right now? The numbers for PPC that came in and Joe Delaney helped with the plans and I think in discussions with the licensees as well, or without any of the food stations. So PPC was just gaming area at 5783. And Encore at the almost 17,000. So those came in from the plans, from the architectural plans. Okay, and then in terms of what's being carved out to add, that's just the seating areas that would be open or any restaurant seating area. My understanding is that the open seating areas, not the restaurants. Okay, so I just wanted to clarify that. This is not theoretical restaurant space capacity. This is actual space that would be open. That's my understanding. Okay, okay. Questions, do we have any disagreement with the proposal from the licensees to rely on the building code occupancy rate? I'm just not sure. I mean, if you don't, if you have less, it depends on whether table games are open or not. I don't know. To me, yes, you can have other people, but if you have less gaming positions, and part of that space based on that, I'm not so sure that 50% makes sense to have that many people milling around, if there's no food being served. I don't know. I'm not so sure I'm there and 50%. So can we do this? What if we said it's the percentage is still up for discussion, depending on the other? Or is that too vague? It will be based on occupancy rate. I'm hearing what you're saying, 50%. Yeah, that assumes everything's. Yeah, I guess the question would be, is there any realistic possibility you're going to get any new information that would change your mind in the next X number of days, or is this basically it? And do you have anything you're going to have? I mean, the point is that if table games are not part of the overall, if they're not running, then you would have more people who are just milling around as guests or patrons who aren't even gambling. And of course, that's a concern because if they can have a drink and then they start to gather. The only thing I would add, if I could, is one of the ways we will control social distancing and the six foot rule is through access and building capacity. And so just because 50% of, in our case, 7,400 doesn't mean on a weekday, on a Tuesday, we would have, we would let 3,700 people in the building that would be very crowded and we wouldn't be doing social distancing. So we're committed to controlling our capacity to allow for social distancing based on what we have going on. I think at some point we just have to have an upper limit that we're often going to come in much lower than that is reasonable and allows us to have guests, employees during the busiest times where we would still be doing social distancing. Eileen, would it work? Oh, go ahead, Jacqui. Sorry, I agree with Seth. I think it's incumbent on us to monitor the social distancing once people are in the building. But what we're trying to also provide for is if someone, for instance, wants to eat at one of our restaurants and traverses the Casino floor to get there, that once they're in the restaurant, they wouldn't count for that, but all that access into the Casino floor would count towards that. We're looking at implementing a system throughout surveillance to count people. So we anticipate that the accuracy should be quite high. Is there a simple math calculation when you look at 50% and then you look at the square footers of the gaming area, how many feet between everybody there would be? I mean, can we just do a simple math that confirms 50% would give you plenty of space? Actually, we have a meeting for them to do that tomorrow. Okay. Yep. I understand some people would be in a group, so some would be clustered safely together. Right. But it sounds like Eileen, just to see if there's a simpler way, it sounds like if that is in fact the case and there's enough room with 50%, you'd be okay with that, with the caveat that if there are no table games that we would put in there that expectation would be that percentage would be reduced. That how you're feeling? Well, it's mixing the two though, right? Because the, and I welcome anybody else's thoughts, but part of it is assuming, if not full capacity, close to, I mean, no one has poker, but for the most part, everyone's trying to get at least some or most of their table games going. Yep. My concern is the milling about factor if you don't have that, whether that would adjust that percentage down for anybody, even though I know that reference point is coming into the other two categories as a calculator that's not relevant to building code occupancy. I mean, I think that's something that could be monitored. My guess is that they could, and I don't know what the science, the one thing I've observed in grocery stores is that, you know, they reach some point, I don't know whether they have a... It's 25%. Whether they... I think it's 25%. Whatever it is, and then they manage the crowd, of course, one comes out, one goes in. But at any given point, you may be at different contacts, you know, once you're in. And I think that should be part of what's given to licensees here. You know, the notion that, depending on what ends up happening with the games and how many people end up either going to a game or going to a restaurant because there's no availability or there is, or whatever the case may be, that if they see a lot of congregation in the corridors, let's say, because there's not enough gaming positions available, that, you know, that in order not to get to that point, they start limiting access, which keeping to the point of a particular overall cap, I don't know, it makes me wonder what might be the science behind that. But I look forward to the information that they're meeting tomorrow on this. Yes, and I think we can qualify it enough to say 50% or whatever number is achievable where the social distancing can be maintained. You know, some kind of a condition. In other words, 50% of the occupancy level sounds just fine to us right now, but as Enrique points out, how the patrons convene and what it looks like, if that number is too high to maintain social distancing, you're gonna have to make adjustments. So it should be, there should be a kind of a condition. It's a conditional provision. I know the restaurants have to keep tables, you know, six feet away, et cetera. Do they have overarching capacity percentage too or is it just purely based on like spacing? Brian's shaking his head. No, Brian, do you know the answer to that or? Yeah, it's six feet. There isn't an occupancy. Jackie, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's just six feet. Or if you can't maintain six feet between tables, you must have a six foot high plexiglass, right? Okay. Retail has a limit. That's retail is at 40%. 40, okay. So that's why they're actually monitoring the number of guests. So perhaps, Loretta, we can do something that gets with the language that gets to the concern, which is that the 50% of the occupancy level work provided that the licensees maintain, you know, and work to enforce the six feet distancing. Cause it's kind of, it's just very hard to, it's hard to imagine how having the flow of the patrons is going to work. It's going to be a challenge for the licensees. You know, if they have the six people clusters who came in together, that's one thing. But if the three of the clusters start to convene, you're going to have a challenge and it's going to be up to each licensee to work to separate them. And I guess not unlike when they first opened, they made a lot of adjustments to the gaming floor, the mix of tables and games and spots. My guess, I can only guess that there's going to have, there will have to be some period of time to adjust people coming at the times and the games that they're preferring. Karen, do you have enough on this one? I think we have kind of a consensus on this point. Yeah, okay. Again, we're not voting today. Where we have many issues. Planning sanitization, Seth, I've been practicing that word. So have I. Yeah, I stumbled over every time and it was so privately pleased when I heard you too. So on swaths and then you have it also with respect to table games and we'll just assume that plexiglass will be used when we're thinking about, in some context, let's assume plexiglass is part of the overall plan when we think about sanitization. So Loretta, do you want to walk us through this? Slaughts and table games? Sure. So column A differs from B and C and column A talks about sanitization being required at a minimum level frequently and at regular intervals. Column B expressly is of every four hour requirement and column C is expressly every one hour requirement or when the chair turns over to a new player. And I believe the other items in column A, the other three bullet points carry through to B and C and there's a difference in C on signage reminding players. So making wipes available to players and C add signage inviting players, reminding players that they can clean the chairs and area themselves as well. We did already have highlighted a potential supply issue with the wipes and I think we talked about today the question on the requirement of a log that a detailed log of every machine would be not a good use of resources but a requirement that generally cleaning shifts and zones cleaned could be logged but on a per machine basis was probably not an efficient way to go about it. So just as a premise, a reminder that we've been told that interestingly enough sanitizer for your hands it seems to be more readily available with also reminder that we do have Massachusetts companies that are kind of pivoted in their businesses that are making these supplies. So we want to honor that as Commissioner Stevens pointed out but you are short on wipes. If I were to go into the casino and I hadn't seen when it was last wiped down and there's no wipes available, could I ask to have it wiped down? Yes. I know it's good. No, you're not. Yeah, I think you could and there's additional, I mean, EBS is they're cleaning regularly. There's obviously disinfecting solution that EBS is using and so the short answer is yes. You'd have to find a person and they'd have to make the request but yeah, we wouldn't accommodate a customer request to wipe down a machine. And likewise, well, you know, unfortunately, we've been in a position where we've been able to source wipes so we will make wipes available. But of course, any of our customers could ask for assistance in wiping down a machine at any time. We're also gonna have a system set up where it alerts our PAD, which I think is the EBS to come and make sure that they rotate frequently through and the time is there to wipe down machine. I'm more concerned with the turnover than necessarily an hourly clock just because if it's slow and nothing's going on, I don't see the point and make people wipe things down when nothing's happened. It seems to be the contact that's the issue. So, you know, a combination of regular intervals and at no event later, you know, and when a player turns over a machine turns over seems to be a more effective guideline. And Commissioner O'Brien, I think that's something that we've learned from Las Vegas and our experience there is setting an hourly time limit. In some cases, it's too much and in other cases, it's frequent enough. Right. That's why I asked my question because I figured if I sat down and thought, I don't know, but if it's every four hours, am I in an hour, two and a half? You know, I'm sure many people will try to bring in their own wipes just like we do on airplanes now. But I just wondered if somebody was particularly concerned could they have, you know, some people are gonna feel comfortable just using their own hand sanitizer. You know, that's enough for them. But the accommodation could be made because otherwise the hourly thing sounds a little bit arbitrary to me. I would agree. I would think just, you know, for the patrons use, if they wanna wipe down the machine themselves before they use it or use a hand sanitizer is fine. And I guess I'm expecting our licensees will have enough folks on the floor to keep an eye on when a machine is being vacated or a patrons leaving machine that they can give it a quick wipe down before somebody else uses it. I also think the log is a little too burdensome and I'm not quite sure what information it would get. I think it only makes sense when you have a timed protocol. I think if you're not gonna do that it doesn't really seem in the log sense. I guess the only thing a log does though is a person knows they have to verify that they did it. So they do in fact conduct that cleaning. So even if the log is every four hours and I really, you know, I know Seth you said there may be an issue with enough wipes but I think the way it's worded here is sanitizing wipes to be readily available for guests wishing to wipe down. I mean, it would seem to me you'll just make your best effort to get those wipes out there and people will see them and use them as they see fit right in between. So I'm comfortable with here. I'd love to hear more about the log though because I do know log helps. Log helps do help people. If you know you have to sign for it you're going to do it kind of a thing. What were the thoughts on that? I understand an hour is very burdensome. How would a log every four hours be? So I think the issue with a log was just ensuring what you were looking for, clarifying what you were looking for. So for instance, we do think it would be overly burdensome to have a log that's attached to each machine and have some kind of. Oh yeah, no, correct. What we could do is provide, you know here's the cleaning schedule, here's the rotation, here's the zone and I think that can be, we can achieve that. Yeah, that's right. Right, so that person who conducted the cleaning say a few times on the one shift would have to then kind of certify that they did in fact do that cleaning. That's fine, yep. Yeah. So are we leaning towards something like a column A but say at regular intervals but no less than? When a player leaves a machine or a gaming position? Well then that, so that's a different, that would be different, so either. Yeah, I'm kind of almost going to extremes, I'm almost merging A and one little bit of C in that. I'm sorry? I'm almost merging the regular intervals in A with the reference to or upon a player leaving. Yeah, so that the interval is measured when the player leaves as opposed to it. Is that how, Gail, you just- Hard to keep track of though. I mean you have a cleaning person trying to observe a whole batch of slot machines and somebody, you know, you have people who like to move frequently, they feel like the other machine's gonna be, you know. But I just thought they said they had a- I thought they said they had a, I mean that it triggers when the slot turned over. If someone gets our- No? Ryan, do you want to explain the way the system works? Yeah, it's basically a timer for each zone. So when, if you were on a regular interval every hour it would alert you that zone A at 10 after needs to be done, zone B needs to be done at 20 after and it just continually pings your unit that's attached to your wrist and allows you to remind you to go clean this area at this time, at this time, and it keeps you on schedule. It does not- Oh, it's not device-specific. Yeah, it does not have the ability to tell you when somebody gets up. Right, that's what I thought. So that would be very difficult. Yeah, which is why having the wipes there for the individual user is a lot of sense. Yeah. Well, what we're hearing is that there might be a wipe shortage. Let's assume if there's a wipe, there's not, if they have wipes available they put wipes out. If they don't have wipes available they would at least, if somebody wanted it to be wiped down, a request could be made. They're not going to say no to that. But what about turnover? How often do we want to know that the home machines were sanitized even if there were 15 players or two players? Is it based on an hourly rate or is it based on usage? It sounds like usage with a very hard monitor. Yeah, I can imagine scenarios in which usage is very hard. I mean, I can also imagine on a slow time that it would be feasible. But I think it's unwieldy to try to require every turnover. I kind of like this. It's even going to change per section. So some sections are very busy and some sections are not busy at all. So it would be very difficult to manage. Yeah, I kind of interested in Brian's notion of the timed cleaning of each section. And, you know, invite staff that if they see a patron get up and leave, that they go over and clean that machine. Your commissioner Cameron's point of giving them the responsibility to have to track every player. But if they visibly see somebody get up and leave, go get a quick wipe down if you see the patron depart. So to the licensees, would your plan that you're submitting to the Gaming Commission as part of this sort of indicate your cleaning plan to that level of detail? Because if that's the case, maybe for this process, the protocols, it would be enough to put the requirement under column A frequently and at regular intervals, but you're still approving the plan. So you could still look at the plan and make sure the plan makes sense for the property. Would that help doing it that way? Anyone? That sounds fine to me. And I just, again, I just would love some clarity on, I don't know that we heard from Lance about availability of wipes. So we're good with wipes. But what we're struggling a little bit is the touchless hand sanitizer. And so file it all on the PPE accessibility. But unlike MGM, we have been able to procure wipes. I guess also unlike MGM, we've been unsuccessful in procuring touchless hand sanitizer. That's interesting. Yeah, so it sounds like, and Seth, you tell me, if you can get the wipes, then you're going to make them available, right? Yeah, absolutely. Or are those who choose to use them? Absolutely. And we have some wipes, but we're using them first. We're not confident that we have enough to make them readily available to all patrons at this stage. We have a limited supply and we continue to try to procure more. If we can get them, we'll make them available. Let's also point out that that doesn't mean that just because they're available, the machines are going to get wiped out. Patrons will choose to do it or not. So I guess really the underlying issue, we have to help the licensees with because we care about some level of knowing that they'll be sanitized as somewhat of an arbitrary decision around intervals, unless we do something very concrete, which is every time somebody vacates, you have to wipe it down, versus something based on no less than a certain number out. And... Oh, could you do some combination of no, in any event, no greater than X as sort of a generous gap, and or individually wiping down any use seats in terms of you have some, and maybe this is not workable for you guys, but there's a gaming table where two seats were used. That was it. There's no point in wiping everything down other than what was used or is that too cumbersome. I think on tables, that might be a different analysis than slots, because that might be that they, when they turn on her. So should we just stick with slots right now? Or is that what you were thinking? Because I feel, is it the same plan no matter what I've reported? Well, you have the benefit of having a dealer at each table and a pit boss at each table, so more eyes on the table than... They might like down more, right? That's my understanding. So if we could just stick with slots for a second. It sounds as though the group cleaning makes good sense. What are other jurisdictions doing? Is it basically every four hours? Or is it basically every hour? It varies, and I think it varies between the different licensees in the jurisdictions. So, I think as we're learning more, we've learned that one hour may be too frequent, and there was a lot of wipe down of unused machines. But I think it's some combination of training our employees. If you see someone get up, please go and wipe down that machine. Otherwise, do a regular rotation. Right, I've seen that as well. I think Indiana has... They have something interesting of no fewer than a ratio of one dedicated cleaner for every 50 positions and every effort to disinfect machine as soon as patron ceases to play. So that's a different model. Most of the jurisdictions have requirements to increase frequency of cleaning, more specific things on table games as for the reasons we talked about. And also in there requiring the submission of plans for more for fuller details of the cleaning protocols. Indiana has taken a little bit of approach. Now they only have, I think, three casinos in the States, not one. Or is that Michigan? Indiana has 13. Indiana has 13, right? So Indiana has taken a little bit more of a approach that addresses your concerns, Commissioner O'Brien. I like how Jacky presented the training that to encourage interval cleaning around use, but then have some but no less than a cleaning every certain amount of time. And it's a full cleaning. And also with the right cleaning agent. Commissioner O'Brien, was that a hand motion or no? No. The only thing I would note for just while we close out this topic is whether, particularly given that it, do we want signage to let people know that they can ask for the wipes or not? It's just something we haven't talked about. I thought the wipes were gonna be a bit there if they have them, if there's a supply chain for them, will they be? Category C. Just category C has a bullet, mandating signage, letting customers know that they have the right to ask for the wipes or air cleaning agent. So do we want signage or just general information to the patients coming in? Could it be signage or readily available? So they're either there or if you can't get them, you can have a sign that says you can request them. If it's there, you don't really need to have the actual signage. Right. But if MGM is in the position of not being able to put them out, then would you have the sign that says you can ask? Yeah, but a cleaning agent, I mean we could have a cleaning agent that's supply chain issues specific to the wipes themselves, but I think it's less than an issue committing to upon, if someone requests to have a cleaning agent available, we can manage that even without wipes. Right, because it says signage remind players to sanitize machines before use or asking a slot attendant to do so, but if it's, that's not a wipe necessarily, it's just a sanitizing agent. But otherwise we don't, the other two don't remind them to use it, it's just available. So the question is, is the patient expected to do the wiping? That's kind of the implication. Yeah. Yep, that was my thought on making them readily available. Sure, I mean the signage was just over and above that and the option or reminding them they can ask for staff to do that for them. Right. Okay, we need to know who's most comfortable with what? Gail, what are you most comfortable with? You know, I think we've given them the licensees quite a bit of direction here. I mean, I'm comfortable with, I like the idea of, okay, say it's every four hours, but encourage your staff to, if they see someone, I mean, that's a training issue, please just go wipe that machine if you can leave. Also having wipes available as much as possible. And, you know, however we let people know that they'll see them there and they'll use them as, you know, everybody's gotten accustomed to doing for the most part. So, yeah, I don't, uncomfortable with, it's not exactly A, B or C is that it's, but I do actually like, you know, even if it's a log that's easy to manage, just so the staff knows, I have to sign off that I did this. I do like that too, and maybe that's just a four hour thing, you know, just so you know it gets done at least that amount of time. And then people are going to be vigilant about looking for people leaving. And secondly, the individual patron has the availability to clean the machine as well. Sure, isn't it good? I'm leaning, just so you know, I'm leaning toward giving them the opportunity to say, you know, if you see there's been some turnover and there's an opportunity clean, now I know that probably not the cleaning that might require an additional set of hands, but to the extent it could be used, I think it's always great to do the turnover, but otherwise no less, no less frequent than, you know, I just don't know if it's two hour or four hour. I guess four hour makes sense. It's in column B and it was proposed. So that's where I would go with the idea that there's also going to have wipes to the extent they're available in hand sanitizer. Mission is in the go. Yeah, I agree with what you just said. I think that's a workable. Personally, I think, you know, I'm a lot less concerned about transmission through objects, but I know there's a lot of undefined science here. I think the overall riskier part is when you're in close proximity to somebody who's sick, but I think particularly to this cleaning and sanitation, I think it's perfectly fine the way you chose to do it. Yeah. Isha Stevens? Yeah, I'm more in favor again of, you know, making wipes available for the convenience of the patron and if there are supply issues, then at least making staff available or staff can be called over to clean down a machine, training the staff to see a position getting vacated and trying to give it a quick clean. You know, the kind of block of time, two hours or four hours, I think is helpful, but you know, four hours on a Monday morning is going to be different than four hours on a Friday night. So, you know, it's more just kind of keeping up with it. And you know, saying we clean things every two hours or every four hours, that's more, I think to just offer some comfort to the patron that we're staying on top of keeping the facility clean more than it is, trying to limit contact. I'm sure I am. Yeah, I think it's fine. I mean, if you say something like cleaning at regular intervals in any event, no less frequently than if you wanted to put, you know, four hours in and train employees to, you know, try to go wipe down at turnover, have the sanitizing wipes available and signage, if not available, that they have the right to ask someone to wipe it down. I think that kind of covers everybody's ideas. Karen, you've got enough on that one. Are you good, Karen? I apologize, I didn't realize I was muted. Yeah, so I have, just for the summary, is casino staff to sanitize, offering slot machines and chairs quickly at regular intervals, a minimum of every four hours. Sanitizing wipes if available, licensees to effectuate best efforts to be readily available for guests wishing to wipe down slot machines and chairs before using or signage to tell patrons they can ask. And then the sanitizing solutions complying with the CDC guidelines, and then along to be maintained to track slot cleaning using a zone and schedule, not per individual machine. That's my summary. Is that important with your understanding? Thanks, Sam. Thank you. Sounds good. Even better, yes. Great, thank you. And then let's go right to our cleansing of the table games, because it's just a little bit of a different analysis. That's on page now set five. Yes, so the first bullet point in that section on page six talks about the guest use of hand sanitizer and column A is guests sits down and is encouraged to use the hand sanitizer and B and C is the guest is required. Sort of as Brian indicated, okay, you're here. Here's the hand sanitizer. You need to use it. There are measures for cards and chips. And column A gives most flexibility to the licensee and ask them to use alternative, identify and use alternative procedures to minimize touching. Whereas B and C says must limit, must implement limits on touching of cards and chips to the extent possible. There are chips sanitization measures on each of the columns. A and B is on a daily basis. C is every two hours. When we really talk that through with the licensees because of the ways the chips are utilized and they can speak and Bruce and Bert can speak in more detail of it. You know, it may be that daily sanitization of every chip that reaches the cage is a more feasible way, but we can invite their comments more on that. With card replacement or sanitization, column A asked the licensee to deal with that based on the volume and frequency of their play and their plans would address that with, and I guess, so that's A and B as well. And then C is replacing the cards with every new dealer. The next two bullet points in column A carry through across A, B, and C. And then the last one is the sanitizing the dice after each. Yes, yes, after each shooter for B and C. Can you, can everybody remind me on one point, Jackie was going to address that earlier on the occupancy level where we have that extra provision around counting guests. Can we just make a note that we need to go back to that? I don't want to forget. I had circled it. So how do we want to get started on this one? I think, Commissioner O'Brien, you were addressing the idea of sanitizing the rails and the chairs, which are different than the slots. There is a provision that in this case, it could be a requirement of sanitizing chair and table rails when player leaves the game. And I guess a new player approaches the game. So that was a requirement of sanitization as opposed to, it's not the first two that wouldn't be expected that the dealer would be wiping things down. Seems to me that, what are you doing now, Brian or Seth, in terms of the table games for cleaning out and other jurisdictions? I'm just doing it more frequently than we did previously. So on a regular basis, similar to the slot approach. Yeah, but not necessarily every time a chair is vacated. No, and certainly to the previous comment, if someone requested it, like MGM, Seth, we would do the same, it would be easily to get somebody to go over and do that for someone. Yeah, that's the same, increased frequency. And then we'll start then with the encouraging of this hand sanitizer we touched on this earlier. Do you encourage, do you require? It's a real, if you have a cutting surface, I know that Commissioner Zinnigas mentioned that there's some evidence that requires doesn't transfers easily through surfaces. But of course, these are issues that the industry is addressing. So is there any reason other than a medical reason why we should not require people to use hand sanitizer? If they have a medical condition, we wouldn't impose that. But it's encouragement enough. Can I see, do you think encouragement is enough or should we recall it or not address that? I think encouragement is enough. If you put somebody, if you offer somebody, you know, a squirt of a bottle, you know, it will be the occasional person that says, you know, thank you, I just did it or whatever. But most people will take it. Others, thoughts? Is anyone else requiring it? Or I think that it's a one, is it going around and just squirting if you want it? As opposed to we don't leave the hand sanitizers at the table. So it's only the dealer that has it, right? Is that right? Brian's saying yes. I actually think at MGM, our approach would be to have the bottles on the table available and not have the dealer squirt into the hand. Well, it would be sitting on the table. Yeah. And then Brian, the dealer. Does they wipe the table down? And then they wipe the bottle down? Yeah. Brian is otherwise saying, if you ask for it, like if I put my hand out, the dealer would say here. And then... Yeah, the whole idea is that you don't touch the bottle. So if someone else squirted it there, it would be touchless. If you touched in the bottle, you'd have a problem. Right. I'm more comfortable with that idea of one person dispensing as opposed to, and it's just an extra touch point. Yeah. If you touch the bottle and then you sanitize your hands, it should be okay. I take the sanitizer that I sanitize the bottle and... Yeah. Wipe it on the plexiglass. It goes on the plexiglass. Yeah. I mean, it's hard, but it is so serious too when we think about the numbers. You can't let this discussion, because it seems almost surreal that we're talking about it in any way reduce our vigilance when you think about what is happening and the potential going forward. So, it's okay. This is where these decisions... Loretta, you didn't create this out of the blue. Other jurisdictions have been struggling with these types of provisions. So here we are. So, I think we'll at least know that hand sanitizer needs to be available at table games and available upon request. Mandated would be hard to enforce is what I'm assuming that you would all say. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Next one on the alternative procedures to minimize touching. I think you've really focused a little bit on that when you spoke about the provisions for plexiglass with respect to Blackjack and then the challenges on the other games. So, I think we could... A number on A and B on that. Loretta points out that B and C make it A requirement. But it says to the extent possible. Okay. So, I'm gonna say, I know it's really getting late, everyone, hang in there. On number one, we're all right. We've gone through that. Karen, you're good on the first bullet. Yes, with respect to the second bullet. Are we comfortable with what is put forth in B and C because it does say to the extent possible or do we want to just use the softest approach in A? May use. If I say, I'm gonna say, how about B and C? No or yes? Okay. Eileen says yes. I'm comfortable with B, where it says to limit to the extent possible. There's in fact already a lot of games that limit the handling of cards, for example. But the reality is that some chips is currency. And that's, you know. But frankly, don't see much difference between A and B and C. B and C are the same, they're the same. That's why I just said, B and C is the same. Yeah. I think the language to the extent possible is a little stronger than May, so I would be more comfortable with that language. Okay, so we got Gail, Eileen and me, B and C being fine. It's just on that provision. We're not adopting above. Bruce, do you feel the same way? Are you seeing it says limit the touching of cards and chips by players to the extent possible versus May use alternative procedures to minimize touching? One is stronger because you're instructing it's a limit. Yeah, I'm comfortable with the extent, to the extent possible. Yeah, it's that language on the end. All right, above in C, it says sanitize the chair and table rails when player leaves game. That is not addressed in A or B about the sanitizing. Am I wrong? No, no, it's not. It really was captured routine cleaning, regular cleaning, increased cleaning in the general measures at the end of the document. Do we feel strongly about when the tables turn over that there should be a wipe down or if they have wipes available that people could wipe their own chairs? I think it would be the same. Go ahead. I'm more concerned about the table rail than the chair. I feel like that's like a more of a touch point than the chair itself. So you could draw on the slot procedure that there was a consensus around of increasing the cleaning, making wipes available for the player to do himself or upon request a staff member could do it. I'm very comfortable with that. Are there comfortable with that approach? Yes. Yeah, I am too. And I agree with Eileen about, that it's a touch point part, the rail that if anything is the concern. Like there's a lot of machines, they're being touched constantly. So, otherwise I think it's diminishing returns. What are the licensees doing? Is everything okay? All right, thank you. Now going to... Trip sanitization, if you want. Trip sanitization, that's a difficult process I understand. And I think it might be helpful if you heard about the process from the licensees or from Bruce. Does somebody want to, this is a, I'll start. We have, we've gone through a lot of different, we've looked at a lot of different techniques in order to implement this. And so we went from literally sanitizing them on the table, which isn't as effective or efficient to new machinery that we're looking at purchasing, putting it in the cage and sanitizing them as they come through the cage. And so that would be when they go to the cage, it's after, it's not necessary while they're being played. Right. It's an interval cleansing. Right, so the idea would be, you've got your chips, you play with your chips. We understand that it could be obviously mixed up during that process as you went and lose. But when you take your chips and you take them to the cage to turn in, those chips would then be sanitized. So you'd be putting essentially clean chips out constantly. Very similar approach from MGM. Yeah, the idea is that we just continuously clean chips coming through the cage. But we could not accomplish cleaning all chips every two hours. It is. I don't know that way. I understand it actually, it was a matter of the integrity of the chip almost got affected by trying to clean them at the table or something. Is that right? Discolored them or something? We didn't have, yes, there's a lot of different issues. The chips have RFID inserts, so we have to be really careful in terms of the materials that are available to clean the chips. And then we found this new machinery which we think is gonna be more effective. We also think that cleaning the chips in the cage will be safer in terms of integrity of it. Yeah, I'm okay with that. I think there's a lot of chips at any given time in a table that never get touched during the whole day, just depending on the game. And that the ones that come in and out of the cage are the higher of the ones that did the most. So getting them there and putting out, every time there's chips that go back to tables, those are newly cleaned. I think it's a good process. Anybody except have any kind of additional input on that? Okay, I think we have a consensus there, Karen, on sanitization of the chips. Now moving on to... Sorry, then there were a couple of general measures that carry across increased frequency of cleaning, focus on high touch areas. They carry across all three columns, make hand sanitizer and wipes with signage available and the pits carries across. And then you have the issue of the dice in columns B and C with the measure of sanitizing after each shooter. And I have seen that that is being required in a number of jurisdictions. And that's no problem for us. Yeah, no problem. Our approach would just be to give new dice to each shooter rather than sanitize them. So we have that's easy and otherwise no objections to the other ones. Licensees, no objections. Okay. Good. Well, so then do you have to deal with the sanitizer at place cards? Yes, we did not go through that. Oh wait, I'm sorry, did we miss that? Oh, we had minimizing touching of cards, you know, limiting the touching of cards to the extent possible and right developing protocols for A and B developing protocols to replace or sanitize cards based on the volume or frequency of their play and then column C, thank you Eileen was placing them with each new dealer. So what are you guys doing now? I think most of them are just going to replace them at the end of each shift, is that what you're planning to go with? Yeah, that's it. Yes. I'm just saying shift of the dealer, I take it, you mean? Yes, yeah, it wouldn't be after each dealer because they rotate through, you know, move down the pit that way. But with players touching them and everything else, it makes no sense actually to do it after each dealer. Got it. So the description in the A, B of develop and prioritize based on volume and frequency makes no sense? Yeah, you know, as soon as you get the cards on the table and the player touching them, they're contaminating at that point. Commissioner O'Brien to Bruce's point after they're used at that point after the shift, we just destroyed the cards. Right, that's mandate. Don't we require you guys to do that or something? Yeah. Correct. For the questions on the, I'm sorry that we skipped over the cards. Any further? Some players handheld games, the cards are exchanged and replaced more frequently. They're not 12 hours. It could be four or eight hours. So some of the handheld games have different time requirements anyway, which would be good. Do you expect on that point, do you expect Brian or Seth that there will be many handheld card games? No, there's no poker and we're gonna minimize any touching and in Bakarov, we destroy the cards every single play. Okay, that makes sense to me. Okay, so then, Brian, any further discussion? I think we've gotten through sanitization. Just so I can confirm, so you're comfortable with the protocol to replace their sanitized cards based on volume and frequency of play? A and B. I think it's the C one, isn't it, I mean? No, it was, the description they gave was that the A and B description is more applicable than the C. Okay. This is for the cards. I just wanna make sure. Just for the cards. That their protocol to, so that A and B is, I would highlight that, that's what we would go with. Develop protocol to replace their sanitized cards based on volume and frequency of play? Okay, got it. But actually they won't sanitize, they'll be replacing, correct? Oh, okay. Hard to sanitize. Got it. Oh, that's a thing, yeah. But I think that there might be a way when I read that. Thanks for everything. Alrighty, let's go to the cage then. Okay, so the column A in the cage, again, gives most flexibility, would require the licensee to do one or more of installing the protective barrier between guests and cage employees in combination with possibly installing the partitions between cage windows and or closing alternative cage windows to allow for the increased distancing or other methods as approved by the executive director. And on those measures, columns B and C both would require the partitions between the guests and the cage employees would require either closing, alternating cage windows or installing the plexiglass between windows for distancing. And B and C also include that the cash would be provided in enclosed envelopes upon request, or I'm sorry, B is upon request, C is enclosed envelopes. Then there are measures on disinfecting the counters and touch screens. A is frequently and B and C are hourly. All three columns require hand sanitizer being available near the cage area for patrons. All three columns require protocols to maintain the six foot distancing for queuing and interactions in the cage area with signage available. So Loretta on the cash is the only difference between B and C that B says it's an enclosed envelope upon request. Yes, C, it would just be done as a matter of course. Yes. Okay, other than that, B and C are the same, right? That is right. Okay. And Loretta, you took this from different jurisdictions that are doing it one or the other way. That's right. Everything here appears in some plan of a jurisdiction. Nothing was just created by us without having seen it somewhere. So they all exist someplace with again, allowing the flexibility in the first one to come up with the combination. And I did see this combination of requirements in multiple jurisdictions. It's kind of self-explanatory, the plexiglass, removing windows or adding plexiglass if you're not going to remove the windows. Okay. Maybe it'd be helpful to just hear from our licensees what they're doing now elsewhere. Sure, so we do intend to add plexiglass for your recommendation. Can I just ask about the social distancing? Is there, are you able to maintain six feet at all times under scenarios or are we dealing with the social distancing issue as well? Are you talking within the cage or with respect to patrons waiting outside the cage? I guess probably, I don't know. We haven't talked about employees yet, but I'm really thinking at least on the outside. On the outside, we will have markers for social distancing requiring people to stand six feet apart will have sanctions set up for that purpose. And laterally, so that's in the queue, there'll be six feet apart, but next to each other, how? Is there, there's a possibility of another patron at the cage at the same time, correct? That is where the closing of the door opens. Oh, everybody's speaking. I'm sorry, that's where the plexiglass would be put up to protect them. Between the, so it would be six feet in a row or some extension out, correct? Is that needed for MGM and, Yeah, we don't have a large enough cage to do every other window. So we plan to use plexiglass external of the cage, laterally between and between the guests and the cage employee. And then at PCP? Yeah, we do have the luxury of likely going with every other cage window open and we have already installed the plexiglass between customer and employee. Okay, very helpful. Thank you. So in terms of the differences, the cash, how it's provided, I feel, I feel as though we are looking now to be in C because the plexiglass is being put forth by all of you anyway in some fashion. So if we look at B and C, the differences would be how cash is presented. I'm not sure what the general practices I, you know, I just know money is generally dirty in terms of germs. But it's gonna be, it's a cash-based business. So money is gonna be counted and exchanged and touched all the time, correct? And so then they get paid off, paid out their amount of winnings. And the idea is it can be put in a envelope in order to protect them from what's likely to be quote unquote, maybe germy money and then they can bring it home in an envelope and it can sit for a while. Is that the idea of why it goes into an envelope? I just want to understand the thinking. Brian, are you investing in some of those money disinfecting? We have two units that we're supposed to arrive today, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to be able to disinfect all of the cash. What we intend to do is count out the cash in front of the customer which is required and then offer them an envelope. I think some people will wind up taking it out of the envelope and just, we're gonna have a big, huge pile of envelopes to be frank. However, I think they should be available for customers that want it and it's very thoughtful and it's protective. So I think it's... So the idea is so that they just aren't touching money that could contain germs until perhaps a later time when the germ supposed to use. That's correct. I just wanted to make sure I understood that they wash their hands. Or they can wash their hands. Or they can wash their hands. I understand, got it. Okay, so that's a... So really it's a question of if you do be upon request or do you mandate it with everyone? It sounds like Brian's saying we might have some other issues with people touching an envelope and then tossing it. Yeah, I like the idea by request. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, good. Consensus on that. Got it. I got it. And then it's really frequency of disinfecting, right? Yeah, disinfect counters and shut screens frequently or hourly. Hourly. You would like hourly, I mean? Is that what you're saying? No, I mean, I think I'd ask you guys, it would seem to be a more frequent use area than maybe some of the, you know, mandating every area or machine beat down in a frequent way or at least two frequently or whether that's fine with you guys. Doesn't seem onerous, but you can tell me if you think it's too much. I guess we'll talk at once. We're fine. Hourly works. Yeah. So hourly is fine. More often. Okay. So say it in, you know, frequently and no greater than hourly or no less frequently than hourly? No greater than hourly. No greater than, no less frequently. No less than, you know. It's time for me to stop. I know, I appreciate everyone hanging in there so close. You know, it's so close. But again, I'm just a reminder, none of this is, it's too little. You know, none of these are too little. So everyone, thank you so much. So I think what we just said, hourly and no less frequently than hourly, okay? And you know what? If something becomes impractical, some, you know, we all, we know how to get in touch with people, so. Make hand sanitizer, I think, again, there might be a supply issue, but this seems to be something that's recommended across the board, Loretta, correct? The hand sanitizer seems reasonable. And then the, I think I already had, asked the question around the queuing. It was actually, I was actually thinking, my concern was next to each other, but the queuing, you'll do what everybody's doing, keep the crowd with markers on the floor. Do we have any other questions on the case? There really were very few differences, correct Loretta? That's right. Okay, good. Just to be clear on the cage, we're giving you the option of the Plexiglas dividers or closing off a window if you have that flexibility or that capacity. As long as I think the six feet is maintained, that was, I think, maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that if there can't be six feet between them, they would use Plexiglas and where you actually can achieve that, right? Lance, because you have more space, yeah. Okay, thank you. I think all three of them said they intended to have the Plexiglas, right? Thomas, I think you're gonna use Plexiglas in front. In front. Lance, but not necessarily on the side. That is correct. We've got enough space in that cage to do every other window, which will provide more than six feet. Right. Thank you. So to the side, don't Plexiglas in front, Plexiglas. And then for the others, you're gonna have to have it on the side as well. Correct? We're gonna do both front-end sides. Excellent, thank you. All right, these are general measures could have probably been put into optional forms too, except I think that already you made a judgment call that these are a relatively standard across jurisdictions. And so we should just go through them. And if something sparks another thought, because of course the problem in doing this at such a late hour, the problem is the omission. But I know that the red and the whole teams process was so thorough, there's probably very little that could be omitted. But the other thing is, is that there's something that the licensee sees that just isn't workable, then we should just hear it. But these, you wanna walk us through them? I'm looking now at page eight. Sure, and many of these on the sanitization, you've been signage, you've seen throughout the prior pages, so we can go quickly. There are a few elements that you haven't seen in the other pages. So I do think it makes sense to go bullet point by bullet point so we don't miss anything, but I will try to draw your attention as well as you'll know the things we haven't discussed already today. So on additional measures for the gaming area, sanitization and disinfecting products, as well as hand sanitizer, touchless where possible to be made available at each point of entry and exit and throughout the gaming area for usage by guests out there, discretion. And I'll just move on unless anybody stalks me. That's a big, I'm going to keep my eyes on the paper, so you have to do a verbal projection. Next is enhanced cleaning and sanitization throughout the gaming area with staff deployed regularly to clean and disinfect restrooms and high touch point locations. The next is signage at each point of entry and at prominent locations throughout the gaming area to remind guests of safe practices, including frequent hand washing, use of hand sanitizer, proper wearing of masks and to stay home if sick. On that one, Loretta, does it make sense to tell somebody to stay home if they're sick, if they're already on site? Go home if sick. I think there's- Although we may have covered that in our initial screening and entry. Right. Yeah. Actually, the state has developed standardized signage for that. Okay. Moving on in areas where lines normally form or are expected to form inside or outside, signage combined with other methods, including an appropriate level of staffing to remind guests to remain six feet apart. I have a, that all makes sense. I have a general concern obviously about each property and how they're going to handle queuing up of guests that arrive when they've reached capacity and how each licensee plans to deal with that. They don't need to share those plans with us, but that'll be part of what I'm looking for. Moving on. Casino staff to implement and monitor procedures for elevators, escalators and stairs to ensure social distancing. Loretta, just on that one, and it's just a technical thing, it might not be casino staff, but it'll be- Yes. That's actually, and it's really to Commissioner Stebbin's point too, and I know Commissioner Cameron's raised it in earlier meetings, the challenge of the enforcement. And we started off, I think Commissioner Zuniga started the meeting today with enforcement measures. So I think the, when you say clean up the casino staff- Oh, I guess it might be hotel staff. Hotel, security, we don't, yes. So that's important to know because of course, we also have- Just staff. Since we want to make sure that there's a clear understanding of how these measures will be enforced. So I think Commissioner Stebbins, you were just suggesting you might want to see that planned fleshed out a little bit. Yeah, that was really about queuing up in the inside. I mean, we've been privy to some guidelines that'll be instituted for our own building of, you know, no more than four people in an elevator and we all have to turn it face the wall. So I worry a little bit to your point, Madam Chair, about the enforcement piece of some of those areas of the property. And that would be a, I think if I'm guessing correctly, that those restrictions are applying to you in the hotel through the governor's advice now. So you're already addressing it. So it will just be also who encounters it and if it escalates, what's the plan? And that's all part of our training procedure that we're gonna implement before we open. So it will be detailed in a plan and we can provide that to you. Right, and then Commissioner Cameron, we'd want to, and Commissioner Bryan, we'd want to understand, make sure that our GEU understands that plan and their role, so if any, right. Okay. Great. Okay. Okay, we are in the middle of the page at provide appropriate receptacles for disposal of PPE. Yep. Next is no promotions or activities that challenge the ability to maintain the six foot social distancing. That one we're having, that one's got a big asterisk because we need to understand that because already we, there's a possibility that we've discussed activities that challenge six feet social distancing if activities includes playing a smart machine. Right, I think what I envisioned were promotions, giveaways, that sort of thing outside of the normal operations that we've already gone through. Great, thank you. I guess we could even have those kinds of activities at this time, yes. Could be giveaways. I think there's ways to do it safely but more in terms of giveaways, less in terms of big events. Okay, great. Ballet service. No ballet service until further notice. Although we did have discussion yesterday that there may be access, disability access issues. So I'd suggest that that would be updated to unless to address a disability access issue. And the guidance actually, so it's in the operators of lodging safety standards. And it says that ballet can be provided to accommodate physical or geographic constraints in order to accommodate individual guests with disabling conditions. Great, thank you. Good, thank you. Next is, I'm sorry? No, I'm just gonna start the next one. Each licensee is planned. Shall detail procedures for dealing with guests who are non-compliant with the required COVID-19 related health and safety protocols. Again, this is on the enforcement piece, so. On the, yeah. Okay. Next is each licensee's plan to outline measures to ensure air quality, including possible filtration upgrade to increase fresh air and ongoing inspections and maintenance of HVAC systems. We got great reports on that at our last meeting when they went through their plans. Okay. Next is each licensee's plan to identify anticipated supplies needed to stop furthering the spread of COVID-19 in measures to ensure the availability of supplies. And that should, that's really missing a bullet point. So that's the end of that bullet point. Okay. Loretta? Yeah. If you could, could we, could we back up just a minute to the non-compliant guests and we've talked about it, you know, the enforcement piece. But I think we'll have plans, but I think I just want to make sure we're on the same page that, you know, at least them Jim's plans, and I presume it'll be similar to the other two would be that if, if someone's not compliant, we'll tell them they're not compliant. They're going to need to leave. If they refuse to leave, we trespass them. They still refuse to go, GU needs to come and arrest them for failure to abide by a valid trespass order. That's really the process that's going to be employed in any situation where there's failure to follow the rules. That's one of the reasons I mentioned earlier, the requirement versus encouragement is a unique issue for our property, given the nature of casinos and that we have law enforcement on site and how we deal with those. I do think there will be an increased demand on GU interaction, hopefully not substantial, but, you know, witnessing just anecdotally, you know, going to supermarkets and other places, I see every day that goes by fewer and fewer people using masks and people getting closer together. And so I think it's a real issue that we will need to work closely with GU and be prepared for that, depending on how strict we're enforcing all of these. Yeah, and I think there may be, in the same way at the supermarket who may have never, you know, hired a security guard before, but had to hire security to make sure, you know, that the measures of, you know, wearing the masks and any altercations around that were under control, since some of this can be anticipated, having you pay attention to your security staffing levels, because I think it is contemplated, as you said in the first instance, casino security being, you know, to deal in the first instance with this, but certainly law enforcement is on site and would be prepared to step in, but again, you know, asking you to anticipate any upticking of your security needs and staffing accordingly. Yeah, and as to, you know, the GU stands ready and able to assist as needed for public safety, but I think there is an expectation that we want to diffuse situations, not escalate situations. So coordinating with the licensees and their security departments to try and manage these situations without having to bring in law enforcement would probably be better across the board as much as possible, just to prevent escalation and prevent contact as much as possible. We'll just, we'll have to see how it goes, but a continual feedback between the departments I think would be helpful in seeing what works, but to Loretta's point, making sure there is sufficient security there to make sure that they can effectively diffuse situations and move people along as much as possible. So moving on in the bottom quarter of the page, each licensees plan to detail procedures for managing guests with fevers and or who exhibit other symptoms of COVID-19, including maintaining a supply of the non-touch thermometers for this purpose. Next is each licensee to designate and identify for the commission a key level employee to act as liaison to federal, state, and local public health agencies. This liaison, the public, the pandemic safety officer shall be responsible for notifying the local board of health as well as the commission if the licensees alerted to COVID positive case on the premises, to assist with data sharing and identification of individuals for contact tracing. Since the 24-7 business, the individual may designate others on staff to ensure responsiveness on a 24-7 basis and the person shall work in conjunction with the compliance department to maintain a record of all material communications with public health authorities related to COVID-19 at the gaming establishment. And I have a question on that. I just wanna make sure that I understand it's a 24-7 business, but I wanna make sure that it doesn't get so designated that the chief pandemic safety officer is not always apprised of an incident. In other words, I really want the accountability to be with a single individual. So while that individual may not be on the premises and somebody else may find out the news of a diagnosis, that the responsibility of it getting processed all the way through stays with the initial designated pandemic safety officer. Does that make sense? It does. We've actually already designated our pandemic safety officer. He's very pleased with his new title and he's very senior in the organization and he will take care of making, we'll make sure that it gets to him rapidly. Right, because of course, if it's a 1AM diagnosis, how to get to the local public health department, it's not gonna happen at 1AM anyway, but it just needs to happen in timely fashion. And so that responsibility should lie with one individual and they can manage their responsibility appropriately. Excellent, thanks. Who is the senior level person designated, Jackie? Brian looks awful happy there, so. Not Brian. You know, it's Eric Krauss, who's now senior vice president. And I work very closely with him as does Brian. And so we will connect to the compliance department and we thought that he's the one who's been in touch with the public health department and the Everett Department of Health. So it's appropriate for him to handle. Yeah, thank you. We know Eric. And a couple more in this category, each licensee to obtain and follow legal advice to ensure appropriate safeguards in the event of any HIPAA protected material. And each licensee's plan to include protocols to be implemented if the licensee is alerted to a COVID-19 case on the premises, including a deep cleaning of affected areas. There were some additional measures moving on to protect the game sense area, requiring the licensee to install protective plexiglass barriers on the counters with an opening to allow the items to be split underneath, to place markings and curing devices at appropriate locations, to assist with the distancing around the game sense areas, and to make sure that those areas and informed staff and security that those areas are reserved for game sense related activity except in an emergency. We did include on this document some employee related measures. Yes. But the game sense areas will be cleaned at the same rate as the rest of the game. That's, yes, that would be part of the, that was part of my understanding as well as. Yeah. Moving on. Okay. With general employee related measures. And I know that licensees have already submitted. They have already submitted. Plan draft plans. And are expected to submit a more detailed plan, but. So they are expected as businesses and employers in the Commonwealth to follow all the guidelines by the CDC, Department of Public Health, governor's office, we can put the local boards of health as well. And the guidelines set by the. The first thing we need to do is to make sure that all employees must provide employees with training, COVID-19 specific training, which provides an overview of the mitigation protocols, including disposal of PPE and recognition of COVID symptoms. Again, identifying the pandemic safety officer this time and identifying the person to all employees. And encouraging any employee who has a COVID-19 related concerns in the process to be implemented by the licensee. At each employee entrance, requiring employees to undergo a temperature check. Also at each employee entrance, placing markings or queuing devices and or queuing devices to maintain social distancing of employees reporting to work. Hosting signs, setting forth the checklist of the symptoms, instructing employees to remain at home if they experience any symptoms. So those would be reminder, reminder signage. Establish protocols to maintain social distancing in the dining areas. Uniform areas. Shared office spaces and other high density employee areas. Co-ordinated employees to follow CDC DPH. And again, we can put local board of health guidelines for hand washing, using sanitizers, wearing masks and staying home. So those would be reminder, reminder signage. And again, we can put local board of health guidelines. Posting rolling periodic announcements in the back of the house to remind employees of all of these COVID protocols. Requiring employees to wear masks while. Performing their duties and providing. Yes. Go ahead. Also providing masks for employees. Okay. Loretta, is there any need to focus on the employees who may or may not have to wear gloves? We could put that in. It's, um, you know, my understanding is that, you know, gloves are required and provided for all employees whose jobs require them to wear gloves anyway. We could certainly add that. So, um, any of the new requirements would require additional wearing of gloves by employees, but it sounds like it's pretty understood at this point. When we've gone through that, it, um, I, I'm on of the understanding, but correct me if I'm wrong to the licensees that anybody who would be required to wear gloves under a COVID protocol was already required to wear gloves under their normal walk protocol. Correct. Um, I'm just going back to, I'm not sure if it's under number. The light, the, there's no number. The, um, uh, bullet, the second bullet on page 10, the licensee shall also. Establish protocols to maintain social distancing for high density areas. Yeah. I know they asked this question the last time that. Uh, are close to the same question. The last time we met around the round table discussion. In the back of the house area with the use of the computerized bars. Are those going to be. What are used to, for the drinks now of the computerized bars in the back. So Lee, are you concerned about the servers. We'll be making their drinks then correct. Or will there be a separate bartender? No. The service, the service, each have their own units that they'll go up to. They'll punch in their number and put in the drink code and it'll, you know, deliver the drink and then they will be the ones who take the drink. Uh, back to the guest. So they bring the drinks and. They radically because they're holding it down low that it's all safe. Correct. And they're usually required to wear a mask, obviously. But they're not mixing. Then. Okay. So there's none of that. Those concerns about touch points, but then there's a queuing. Do you worry that you might have your employees getting kind of stacked. Cause. In the back of how. Well, cause it's, if I understand correctly, you don't have what three of those bars. And so. We have. Sorry. Brian. Sorry. We have seven of those bars that have been converted into machines and all of those drink dispensers is for per station. So as Jackie was saying, they shouldn't have to wait as they used to wait in a long line for one bartender. Now we have machines in every bar. And now I remember that they actually get their own. They're actually spaced apart quite significantly. So there's, you know, I'm just thinking back to, I haven't measured them, but it's clearly they'll have. They'll have to wait. They'll have to wait. They'll have to wait. They'll have to wait. At an ample distance between the machine. Before that night or during your ship, they will have their own area. That's my understanding. Yes. Right. Can you. So they not cross contaminating machine. They will. Most likely. When it's busy. They may have to share with one other person. So if we have eight servers. That means two people would be sharing. We would have the ability for them to have wipes there. So they could wipe it off if they wished. And then they will all be washing their hands, all have sanitizer and all have masks on. There's a hand, there's sync associated with that for hand washing. Every bar there is. Right. Okay. So it would, at the worst, it would be only two individuals lined up. And I knew you had answered that, but I just couldn't remember because I was wrong on the number. So thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay. I think that after you on the next one, break schedules and shift times. Yep. They shall be staggered to the extent possible to avoid congregating and back of the house. Employee meetings shall be conducted in a manner to promote social distancing. Employees shall be encouraged to wash and or sanitize hands before they leave the house. So. All back at the house areas shall be cleaned frequently, including, but not limited to employee entrances, locker rooms, dining areas, security and surveillance areas, count rooms, cages and ruse of travel between those areas with specific attention given to high touch areas. So that's what we're doing right now. I think that's a good point. Any questions on, on the employees section? I just have one question just to be clarified on the employee entrance regarding temperature checks. Would that also include our own MGC employees or state police? I'm not sure what they're doing right now. I think at, at, at on core, they are testing our folks as they come in just. That's correct. That's correct. And I think it's irrespective of where they come in, even if they come in through the guest entrance, they would still be tested. We are encouraging everyone to come through employee entrance, but obviously because of the guest testing, everyone would be captured. Okay. Let's get to my point I made earlier that we really want to make sure that there's cross training and. Cross understanding because we do have the GEU folks, the gaming agents, and then of course game sense advisors. So we want to make sure they're complying with what we're expecting of the, um, the licensees here. Correct. Everyone's in agreement with that. All right. Yes. We're doing is we're developing, um, sort of a procedure for our vendors that, you know, we've also got, uh, within the premises. So we can certainly share all of that as well. And then if there's any concern that's raised by either, uh, MGC, or the gambling council for their, on behalf of their employees, you know, we, we need to, we need to have conversations. We want to make sure there's no, no concerns. And I think, um, Dino and our team has already spoken with Bruce and Angela around IB and, and they're. So the IB and GU have full access to. Entrance and exits with our employees. We control it by limiting their access to certain entrances. I believe, um, Bruce and Angela, I've indicated that IB is perfectly happy complying with that. We haven't. I don't know that we've yet had the conversations with GU, but that would require. Their, you know, active cooperation in, in only entering and exiting through those, those points so that we can have a protected envelope of the back house. Employees. And. IB GU. We haven't. Yeah. That's all. I'm all set. That's helpful. Thank you. This was an exhaustive process, but a really important one. Thank. Karen Loretta Bruce. And everybody who I'm not acknowledging, but I know contributed to this effort. So thank you. Um, but most of all, thank you too for the licensees. Your input was really valuable. My fellow commissioners, do you have any questions for anyone here before we, we close this discussion? In terms of next steps, I think there'll be a revision. So the document is no longer mostly three options. So in that draft can perhaps be circulated appropriately in accordance with open meeting law rules. Karen. And then we can share with, with the proper state stakeholders after, you know, once we get comfortable with the revisions. And if need be. We can convene. We have a couple of meetings coming up as you will know. And we can address. Any outstanding issues. Okay. And then we'll wait to hear. I think we do need to see what the governor's office does and, and stay very, you know, aware of what's happening in the, um, the federal government and the local governments. And then of course, if we learn something from jurisdictions that are, are underway, we have the ability to, to, to correct or add or edit. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I'm raking. Would you like to make a motion? Well, yes. And before I do that, I just add the same thing. Thank you to everybody. It's clear. It's clear that everybody has worked so much on this. There's been a lot of thought and research. Everybody's doing so collectively, both licensees and staff. Thank you very much. Um, with that, I'll move to adjourn. I'll second. Any further edits, discussion. Comments. No, just thanks everybody for their good work. That's, that's universal. I think. Just to thank you. Nothing. I'm sure you feel the same way. Thank you. And I did. I thank you to everyone, particularly the licensees. I know this was a long day for everybody, but I think very necessary. Thank you everyone. And again, to the license, we stay safe before we say goodbye, stay safe to all the team members. Many of our team has stayed on. And. Whether they were working on all the way. We just appreciate the attendance. So. Be safe, everyone. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. I'm sure. Brian. Aye. Mr. Zunica. Aye. Thank you again. And commissioner Stevens. All right. Thanks everybody. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Zunica. I thank you again. And Patricia Stevens. Thanks everybody. Yes. Thank you everyone.