 I am Brian Fitzgerald, the chair of the Horse Racing Committee. I'm going to call this meeting to order with all members present. It was Wednesday, June 3rd, 2020 at approximately 2.01 pm. I would ask, or excuse me, I'm going to read a brief statement because we are using remote collaboration technology. Given the circumstances resulting from the global pandemic, Governor Baker issued an order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law to protect the health safety of individuals interested in attending public meetings. In keeping with that order, the committee will convene this meeting using remote collaboration technology. There are a few considerations I'd like to note before we begin. First of all, all votes will have to be taken by roll call, so I will ask each member to register their vote, if any, individually. Secondly, I'll ask that everybody accept the committee members to please mute themselves to help keep background noise to a minimum. Third, just a notice to everyone that is participating on this call that this meeting is being recorded. Otherwise, the meeting will proceed in the ordinary course. And first, I'd like to call upon each of the members of the committee to introduce themselves so that those who are viewing or listening and will know who is present. And I'd start with Ms. Katonak. Hi, I'm Emily Katonak and I am from the Treasurer's Office. Okay, thank you. Hi, I'm Peter Goldberg. I represent the standard rate industry on the committee. Okay, thank you. Gail Cameron, representative of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Okay, thank you. Gail Savage, representing thoroughbred interests. Okay, thank you so much. At this time, I'd like to also acknowledge the MGC staff and attendants and on this call who help organize our committee meetings and get us ready and prepared for these meetings. I really appreciate all the hard work and effort that they put into this. Those members of the staff who I believe are on the call and Shari, you can correct me if I'm incorrect, but Shara Badar, attorney Todd Grossman, Dr. Alex Lightbound, and Tanya Perez. So thank you to all of the MGC staff. So we're going to move on with the items on our agenda. What I'd like to do first is look at the minutes for the May 14th, 2020 meeting. Those have been distributed to the committee members. And I wonder if everyone has had an opportunity to review those minutes. And if any comments or changes that need to be made, please state so. Mr. Chair, I have reviewed, did not see anything, but moved to move to approve with any technical corrections that may be needed. Okay. Is there a second? Okay. All right. Okay. So all in favor. And again, what I'm going to do is go by roll call. So for the motion to approve the May 14th, 2020 minutes with any technical corrections. So Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Ms. Katanuck. Aye. Mr. Savage. Yes. Mr. Goldberg. Aye. Gerald. Aye. So the minutes are so approved. We will move on to item three on our agenda, which is a review of a proposed amendment to 205 CMR 149.04 Racehorse Development Fund distributions, escrow accounts, the packets that you've received by email. There was a proposed amendment, which outlines, red lines and changes to 205 CMR 149.04, the Racehorse Development Fund distribution escrow accounts. If you recall at our last meeting on May 14th, we discussed moving forward with a potential proposed amendment. In addition, in your packets is also a regulation review checklist, which has been prepared and submitted, noting that this would be an emergency regulation, as well as an amended regulation. And some summary of the proposed action, which provided a proposed background past practice and present regulation, new approach and a conclusion. So I wondered if the committee members have had an opportunity to review those documents, and if they want to entertain any discussion regarding those documents, or do they need, the committee members need another brief summary of what's being proposed? Mr. Chair, I did discuss this new red line version. With Mr. Grossman. And there was a clarification that we talked about that I think would be helpful to the committee members to know what that discussion was about. So Mr. Grossman, could you talk, could you just, you know, explain some of your red lines and exactly what you're referring to? Absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner Cameron and Mr. Chairman and committee members. I'm happy to discuss any of the proposal, but the specific language that Commissioner Cameron is referring to relates to the process by which the split recommendation is reviewed and approved by the commission and put into effect. And we just wanted to make clear that the commission's role in this process, though they do have ultimate approval authority in accordance with the statute and as reflected in the draft regulation, is really just to act upon a recommendation made by this committee. In fact, section 60 paragraph B says the commission shall only change the distribution percentage upon a recommendation by the committee. So there is no suggestion in the statute or intended in any portion of the amendments to the draft reg that the commission could on its own initiative change the distribution percentages. They can do so only upon recommendation by the committee. That being said, in theory, and I don't know that this has ever happened, the commission could be dissatisfied in some way with the recommendation and in theory, send it back to the committee for further review prior to adoption and implementation. But that is that's my reading of the statute and that's the intention behind the language in the regulation. Commissioner Cameron, does that clarify that particular? That's certainly always the way we have over the years interpreted it. My first reading of this when it says approved by the commission, it just led me to think, well, we've never really interpreted that the commission could in fact change something, but they do have the authority to say send it back for some more work or clarity. So I just thought that was new language in the in a red line version. And I just to me, I just wanted to clarify that. But I do think Attorney Grossman laid out the distributions, the meat of what we're trying to do here if we're in agreement that we should operate this way. Just laying out the three categories and really this would give us the authority to go ahead and make a separate recommendation if we saw fit. So I think the language is pretty clear about those three categories. Did any of the other committee members have any other comments at this point? Attorney Grossman, I just had two points. Quite honestly, one was just referencing and just so the committee members know. So I think in terms of the red line draft, there may be a change to just clarify on the first page under section one. So Attorney Grossman, do you want me to discuss that change or would you like to talk about it? Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to have you go through it and just point out this was an astute catch on your part. I've read this 5,000 times and I never caught that. I noticed it before the meeting as I was going through all the materials today. So I just wanted to clarify to the committee members when you look at the section one, there was just in reference to the last sentence where it begins with the earned interest on this account. So again, the history of this regulation is that each of these sections were split between the two respective industries. So and what's basically being accomplished here is that that language is kind of being combined into one section. And on this last sentence, there was just for point of clarification. I just had made some recommendations to change the language that it be inclusive of both industries. And there is a line on the last sentence that's that with the advice and consent of the harness racing association. I just asked that that be changed with the advice and consent of the applicable horse racing associations. Good clarification. Okay. And then the other point then is just with respect to just in terms of the process, if we if we were to move this forward today. Attorney Grossman, could you just give a brief summary of just the process of how this would then be presented to the gaming commission? Absolutely. This is on the gaming commission's agenda for review tomorrow. We have indicated that it may be appropriate for potential emergency adoption, but that's ultimately up to the commission. It's it's not up to certainly me. And this body can make a recommendation. But at the end of the day, the gaming commission will have to be comfortable enough with the changes and the process to move anything by emergency. We don't the commission does not do that very frequently. But if we can articulate a reason for that here, and that is this committee's preferred approach, I and perhaps commissioner Cameron can certainly represent that to the other commissioners tomorrow. But to get back to your question. So once the gaming commission has a chance to review the draft and ultimately approve of it, then we and this is where Ms. Bedard comes in. She is typically the person who files all of the documents with the appropriate authorities. We move it through what we refer to as the promulgation process. And there are a number of steps involved in making a draft amendment or a draft regulation into a final version. So then we file it with the secretary of the commonwealth's office. It gets published in what's called the Massachusetts Register. We're all amendments to regulations and a variety of other legal documents get published for public notice purposes. We'd also file a notice of a public hearing, which the gaming commission would have to conduct typically within, I don't know, 45, 30 to 45 days or so, depending upon the timing of things, offering, of course, an opportunity for any members of the public to weigh in and comment before the gaming commission as to what they think about these proposed changes. At that point, the commission can either make adjustments to the regulation as it was written or make further changes, depending upon any comments that are received or any other edits that may be necessary. And then after the commission has a chance to review it for a final time, we'd again file the final version with the secretary of the commonwealth. And again, it gets published. And then it becomes finally adopted. So that is the process, the formal process for adoption of a regulation. I tell people, it typically takes between 60 and 90 days, depending upon how the calendar works. There are filing deadlines that the secretary's office has, they publish every two weeks, and things have to be filed with them two weeks in advance. So you have to kind of catch on to the rhythm of their schedule. So it's hard to project without filling out the whole chart exactly how long it's going to take, but usually take somewhere between 60 to 90 days. If it's done by emergency, it can be done obviously much quicker than the rules would go into effect either immediately or shortly thereafter when they're filed with the secretary's office. And then you go through the formal process. So if the commission were to adopt it by emergency, the rules would become effective shortly thereafter. And then we would go through that whole process I just mentioned to finalize the regulation. So that's the promulgation process. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. I believe, does any of the committee members want to comment on the promulgation process? Mr. Chair, I think knowing now that a racing will be in phase three of the governor's reopening plan, which means that kind of within the month, a month from now, it could be the beginning of racing with maybe qualifiers a little earlier than that. From what I'm hearing from knowing from experience, if we thought it was important to have this work used effectively, if we decide on the split a difference in a split and use this year, we would probably be talking about recommending an emergency promulgation as opposed to the standard. And I think our rationale really could be the fact that racing is starting and it would be important to get those individuals the appropriate amount of monies so that they can be utilized this season. So that would just be a thought that I had about emergency as opposed to the formal promulgation process. Okay. Do we know what phase the casinos are going to open in? Phase three, same as racing now. Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with Commissioner Cameron's assessment. I think we have as a committee sort of made a determination and we'd like to get our work done for the year. I think it's really important in light of the COVID crisis, the fact that there's been no income in the Resource Development Fund, essentially March, April, May, due to the closing of the casinos. It's a huge issue now for the standard but horsemen in Massachusetts with racing hopefully starting, like you said, Commissioner in the next month or so. The purse account, it's critical for the horsemen to know, for the race secretary, for everyone at Penn Gaming, for everyone, all the horsemen, horsewomen, to know what to expect and hopefully to get some funding, some money coming in from the Resource Development Fund. It's critical for that, it's critical for the breeders. The standard breed, sire steaks races, typically a race in September, October, and November. Again, without the funds having the stoppage of the funds, March, April, May has been a tremendous hardship for everyone. So I think it is in light of what's gone on. I think the Gaming Commission should understand and hopefully they will, I'm sure they will, that it is an emergency measure at this time and really necessary to do our work as we're determined to do it properly. I think Mr. Goldberg, and I don't want to mislead people in any way, don't have exact dates for reopening because obviously the numbers are so critical that the governor is looking at approximates, but certainly using the science to help with final determinations on phase two, phase three. So although that would be anticipated, if things go well, there's no assurance, Cory. Oh, I understand that 100%, Commissioner Cameron. I mean everyone I think is on board that the health, safety, and welfare of everyone, horsemen, and just the citizens of the Commonwealth is most important. And whether horse racing starts back up in July, August to September, our work needs to get done. We have tentatively scheduled a meeting for July 8th to review the split based on the new criteria, the new formula, if you will. So I think based on Attorney Grossman's discussion of the timing under a normal as opposed to emergency regulations, we be looking at September, October, November before the regs got approved, and then our work couldn't start until that point, I think under our decision to revamp our criteria and revamp our formula. So I think it's important to get, for us to be able to get started on July 8th, one way or the other. Whether racing's happening at that time or not happening, it makes I think a little difference to us. Any other committee members have any further comments, further discussion? So then are we all in consensus in terms of ready to move forward with a vote on the emergency amended regulation request that it be promulgated by the gaming commission? So is there a motion that one of the committee members wants to make to submit the proposed emergency amended regulation to request that it be promulgated by the gaming commission? Mr. Chair, I move that the amended regulation to CMR 205 149.04 resource development fund distribution escrow accounts be moved on to be presented to the gaming commission in an emergency fashion due to the urgency of all those involved clarity on the amount of money they will be receiving. And second. There's a second. Second. Okay. By Mr. Goldberg. Okay. All right. So I will call upon the members for a vote then. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Ms. Katanuck. Yes. Mr. Savage. While I applaud the objective here and really hope this passes without my vote, there's an unrelated portion of this regulation that we've testified in front of the gaming commission that we believe is unlawful and inconsistent with the statute. So I'm going to abstain, but I applaud what we're trying to do here, but I don't use it on our position on the unrelated aspect. Okay. One abstention by Mr. Savage, Mr. Goldberg. Yes. And Fitzgerald. Yes. So the motion carries. Okay. All right. Thank you. Moving on to the next item on our agenda, item number four, review of the criteria for calculating the distribution percentage split between the breeds for purposes of funding purposes, breeding programs, and health and welfare benefits. At this point, what I want to do is just remind the committee members that obviously we're not taking a vote on the actual percentage split. At this time, what we had talked about at our last meeting was to see if any of the committee members had any additional criteria that they wanted to submit in terms of making our considerations or decisions regarding any allocations. My understanding is that we had two submissions from each of the industries, and I want to thank them for their submissions that they made, you know, on their thoughts in terms of the criteria. This will help us for our discussion today. I also, and I just ask, did any of the committee members have any further criteria that they wanted to submit for review at this time or any thoughts that they have at this time? Mr. Chair, I just, obviously, this is some of these that were proposed are different than the original, they're five by statute, and then there are an additional A through O that this committee with other members, obviously, decided were important to analyze as part of the split decision. So I guess I'm assuming that although all of these are not mentioned in the two documents, right, we would be looking at all of those criteria. Is that is that your understanding? Yes, yeah, that's my understanding. And then in addition to that, I mean, what I did was I prepared my own outline, which has been submitted. And I believe Ms. Bedard could actually share that so that those on the call could, you know, see it as well. And I just wondered if there's a, if it's, if you'd like me to take an opportunity just to kind of run through what I've kind of prepared. So sure, that would be helpful. Thank you. All right. Okay, so what I did is I just kind of set forth my own notes in terms of criteria. And one of the things that I was doing was just kind of just looking at the figures. And I think when you kind of look at this fund, you know, even to the extent of last year, with the three gaming licensees funding it, there was only part of 2019 when it actually was receiving all of its funds. The fund itself hasn't been fully funded by all three of the gaming licensees. But 2019 kind of gives us a picture of what is collected from the licensees. So you'll see on page four, and I took these figures from the published figures that the gaming commission puts out and posts on its website. So I know, and as I noted on my outline, the figures are not confirmed and need to be confirmed by both the gaming commission and each of the industries. So this is just my own calculations based on what's been published. And I just kind of set forth an Excel sheet just to kind of show a breakdown of, you know, the original when it was in 2019 at the beginning, it was a 60-40 split. And then when it was changed or adjusted to 65-35 showing that amount, and then what's been collected in total. And this certainly isn't a full allocation of what what has actually been fully distributed. But I just kind of used it as a basis for kind of showing as an outline, you know, where these figures are and what the amounts are. So in essence, when you look at page one, I outline the 2019 revenues and then kind of show the thoroughbred allocation and what would have been the roughly the standard allocation. And then you kind of start going into the three separate categories, starting with 8%, which is the purse account. And then kind of breaking down the two allocations between the two industries based on the purse account. And then setting forth the criteria established by section 60B. And as you go through, I've outlined all of those five criteria items. And then as well, you'll know in the applicable sections, I then incorporated those additional factors or considerations to be made from the October 24th, 2014 decision of this committee. So I kind of incorporated those in there. And also recognizing that a lot of what I've put in here essentially has already been reported to each of the industries, or by each of the industries. But some of it hasn't. And some of the comments or recommend are basically what I've put forth as considerations for criteria are certain things that may not have necessarily been addressed in each of the position papers. So when you kind of go through it, you start with the first category, which is the purse account at 80%. And you look at the average purse is awarded at the thoroughbred and standard bred racing facilities. And then these are just some of the questions, some of them have been answered already. But my main purpose in doing this was just to try and give each of the industries some indication that if they are going to be preparing executive summaries to be submitted to this committee, that they at least have some sort of outline in terms of what they can actually follow for their presentations. So in essence, the live races, how many races are supposed to be conducted by each industry in 2020. Obviously, there's a shortened season with respect to the standard breads. Based on the 2019 allocation, what was the average purse race allocation? And then whether or not there was any sort of, if there were funds that were not distributed. And then when you look at page two, there's the decision of the committee from the 2014 memo. And these things could be set forth in terms of those factors, the pool size for each industry, the field size of each industry, number of live race days, total races, the mass breads starters, mass breads starts, mass bread purses earn, and number of restricted mass bread. So these factors can be summarized to provide info in terms of information on the status of each industry. The second criteria related to the employment numbers, obviously, that's pretty straightforward in terms of the differences between the W-2 and the 1099 employee. And then that each industry may provide a summary of the types of occupational lessons for each industry. When you look at the relative needs of each horse racing industry for increased purposes, obviously, they could provide a summary of the needs for increased purse accounts. One of the proposed considerations that I had is each industry may provide a summary of their respective capital expenditures to the racing facilities and or capital improvements and or may or describe any planned proposals for building of new racetrack facilities. Because obviously, as you know, when we had our public comment at our last meeting, there were several racetrack facilities that are being proposed. It would be helpful to know the current status of those and any potential timeline for construction of any new facilities. The count of live racing handles generated by each horse racing industry. So you can provide a summary of the respective live handles. From the 2014 memo, there was an additional factor that was pulled forth, which was the gross terminal revenue on live race days versus non-live race days at the category two gaming facility. So I just inserted that. When you start to move into the second category, which is the breeding and training farms, what I did was just kind of broke down what would have been the differences or the the allocations based on what would have been allocated to each of the respective industries. And again, I do comment that, you know, both the gaming commission and the industries can can either, you know, confirm these numbers in terms of what was actually allocated to them. I had it in at somewhere around a total amount of $2,893,671.14. So the statutory criteria that's proposed or set forth is the number of breeding and training farms of each industry that are allocated within the Commonwealth. So that can be set forth. And then from the 2014 memo, each industry could further summarize the number of stallions, mayors and foils residing in the Commonwealth, number of breeders registered with relevant breed organizations, and the number of an average sale price of mass bred horses sold at public auction. My additional consideration would be as each industry could provide a summary of how the allocated RHDF funds were distributed to the breeding and training farms within the Commonwealth. As an example, were there grants that they provided to any particular farms, and then as well just to gain some information as to how they, how do they process, how each industry decides how to allocate those funds and or audit the funds in terms of how they're distributed. And then with the third category, which is the health and welfare benefits, which represents 4% of the fund, I again broke down what would have been the 2019 allocations to each of the industries, which roughly totals somewhere around $723,417.79. And just propose that each summary may allocate how the allocated RHDF funds were distributed for health and welfare benefits within the Commonwealth, and to provide descriptions of programs that are funded. Are there programs that are properly funded or are there any programs that are deficient and or are there any increased needs for health and welfare benefits for either industry. And then the statutory requirements also include in terms of what's allocated in terms of health insurance, you know, an allocation towards life insurance, and just to kind of separate and know what the figures were for each industry based on those three items between health insurance, life insurance and disability insurance, and any other benefits, which would include dental pension and retirement. So this is not fully exhausted, but I did want to be able to prepare it and kind of submit it, and at least having gone through it, allow the committee members to if they comment on it. And as you can see, I accordingly marked it as a draft. And just see, you know, what your thoughts were for kind of submitting this or having this as kind of a guide for any preparation of the executive summaries. So, Mr. Chair, is it is your intention that when we discuss the criteria that standard that the proposed and that the thoroughbreds have proposed today that they would be added in here to the extent we adopt additional criteria? Correct. Correct. Yeah. And I guess one comment. It has never been a criteria how many races are proposed to be run in the future. It's one thing this committee has always done in breaking out the per split is look back one year. So that's a new criteria there, and I would be opposed. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Cameron? Yes, I think it's a very helpful document to organize our work. So I thank you for taking the time to do it. And obviously there's a couple of things that I think in a executive summary could be flushed out, meaning your numbers on employment. Obviously, what's important there is not just the numbers, but how much of the year they work. And the second point I had was, yes, so you put that back. If you go to the, could you go back to the next page that you had up there? Yes. With this particular number, I don't know that it's as, and again, this could be flushed out in an executive summary from testimony that we've received as a committee and conversations with farm owners. I think there are multiple farms that have both thoroughbred and standard bread that they raise on the farm. So it's, first of all, it's an elusive number to we found that in the past with this committee to really find out the number of active farms. And secondly, I think that when it gets flushed out a little bit, I think that that would become clear too that some of these farms do in fact have both thoroughbred and standard breads raised on their farms. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yep. So first of all, I'd like to comment on Tony Savage's comment on the look at the future race dates. And I agree with him wholeheartedly that this is a retrospective looking statue. We're supposed to look backwards. I think also that that your criteria that looks at proposed racetracks and proposed capital expenditure is in the same vein, not applicable here. The statue is supposed to look back at the metrics from the prior year. And once again, if we're not going to look at the number of race days, we shouldn't look at a crystal ball, if you will, as to when a another racetrack or other racetracks will be open. It's I think it's almost impossible. So I think what's good for the goose sort of is good for the gander. If you're going to keep looking back, we need to look back, I think on all I think on all the criteria. And then I just want to agree 100% with Commissioner Cameron. She stole my thunder in my criteria. I think that it is very important on the employment norm is to look right. If there's occupational employees, if there's 10 trainers, but there's no race days, then with the six race days, that's a lot different than the same number of trainers racing working 100 days. I think that's an important number to look at as well. And I couldn't be more on the farms as Commissioner Cameron and I know all too well, many, many, many, many hours were spent trying to work that out back in 2013 and 14. And what we decided was and that's why in the in the extra criteria, what we decided was wait, well, it's hard to count the number of breeding farms in Massachusetts. It's very easy to count the number of foals because they have to be registered. That's a lot. So that's a big number. The number of mares and foals were registered in Massachusetts for each industry. Then I think extrapolates back to the breeding farms and the breeding, the breeding piece of this puzzle. So I couldn't agree more that that's the mares and foals is critical. And I think if we're going to, you know, yeah, combine sort of, I know all of my criteria weren't necessarily new. I was maybe a little confused, but some of them are new and some of them are tweaked a little bit, if you will. For example, occupational licenses times the number of live race days in Massachusetts. I think that's a clearer picture for this committee to determine the effect on Massachusetts of each relative industry. So that's one I object to. But I don't know how we're going to do this process wise, whether we're going to start down my list or Mr. Goldberg's list or whatever. Why don't we, in terms of then moving forward, knowing that there's been these, you know, these respective comments, then Mr. Stavage, why don't you kind of run through if you'd like some of the concerns that you had or the additional criteria that you want to discuss? Yeah, so I can comment on what Mr. Goldberg submitted with the, under the purses one, you've got the number of W2 and 1099 employees times the number of live race days. And I think that's actually would end up being affirmatively misleading because there's employees that work on days. There is no racing and there's racing on days when some employees aren't working. And so there's no way to just take A and multiply it by B and get a number that means anything. Now each of those criteria independently, like the number of employees and the live racing days, are already criteria of this committee. So we can certainly consider those as we always have in the past, but I wouldn't suggest that we multiplication because I think for the reasons I said it would be affirmatively misleading. And moving on to the breeders, again, a number of these are already and the only one that couple knew that we don't have any objection to, but the one that I just wondered if Peter could give us some background on what significance it would be and maybe it's fine, but the one is the number of unique individual horses burning purses in Massachusetts. In what way would that guide us, Peter? Yeah, so it's important again, I think a big part of what the statute is trying to do is to develop both horse racing industries and to increase them until it let them grow and prosper in Massachusetts. So what this does is it shows how many individual horses race for purses in Massachusetts. For example, on the thoroughbred side, you may have one horse race six or seven times on mass bred horse. So the number of unique individual horses is important to show. It's like showing foals for two and three year olds, but for aged horses, there's no way to say how many horses were born in a given year. So I don't know if that's making sense. In other words, if one horse, if you have five horses that have each race six times, you have five horses that are mass bred, thoroughbred, that are racing for purses, as opposed to whatever the number is for the standard bred. In other words, how many unique animals for each industry are racing for this purse money, for this breeder's purse money? I think that's important because the larger the number, the better for the commonwealth. Okay, so this is meant to be in reference to earning mass bred purses. Mass bred, correct. All right, that's not what that says, but I now understand what you're saying and it's fine. That's a data point that makes sense to me. I don't object to that. And then moving into health and welfare, again, I've got the same issue with the first bullet, which is multiple time two existing criteria by the other. And it's for the same reasons as above, that it generates a misleading number and it's not an overlapping number. Like there's people with occupational licenses at the moment on one of them, and there's no live racing by thoroughbred. So it's not, there's a disconnect there, so I would object to that. And then I just had questions on two others, Peter. What is the significance or how would we evaluate the new participants? In what way is that meaningful to our decision? Well, the same way every year, this committee always looks, and Commissioner Cameron is a really calls out for this every year. What was the change from 2018 to 2019? How did you do? Is your industry trending up? Is it trending down? Are you taking these funds from the RHDF and using them in the way that the legislature saw fit, the way that when they figured it would work? So I think new participants chose, are we as an industry attracting new people to get involved with the health and welfare with our retirement program? Okay, I understand that that helps. I don't have a problem with that. And then the final one, policies to attract investment within Massachusetts. What under the health and welfare bucket, what does that mean? Yeah, the retirement program is the elephant in the room, if you will. The retirement program is basically the crux of what the health and welfare, one of the biggest pieces of the health and welfare. And it's trying to encourage trainers who might be working in close by states in Maine, in New York, in Pennsylvania sometimes, but mostly Maine and around the Northeast. And we can race in mass, we can race in Maine. If they have the retirement program, if you put in your days in Massachusetts and you work there and you bring your horses and you train and you feed them and use the vets, you're going to be rewarded with some retirement savings. That's a retirement plan that I don't believe states like Maine have, and hopefully that will attract the tracking investment within Massachusetts. So that just as a general concept, like we giving life insurance or whatever might attract something to be a thoroughbred trainer in Massachusetts? Absolutely. I understand it. So those are my reactions and concerns with Mr. Goldberg's document. The ones I didn't comment on are already existing criteria or ones that we don't object to. And then Mr. Goldberg, did you then have any further comments in terms of criteria? Yeah, I don't really have an issue with the purses, breeding, use and distribution of funding, that's fine costs. Sure, that's fine handle. No, I don't have a problem with any of them. I think they're all... Yeah, I have a typo in there. If I want to flag for you, when I put use and distribution of breeders purses, I meant that more broadly. I meant use and distribution of breeders funding. So that would pick up the bonus awards and other stuff that's slightly beyond purses, but same concept. Commissioner Cameron, did you have any other further comments too? I do not. I thought I understood both submissions, although that was very good clarity for some of those issues. So I don't have anything to show. Okay, Ms. Katanuck. Nothing additional for me either, but thank you for walking me through. Okay, all right. Okay, so then just moving forward then in terms of our prior discussion from our last meeting, we had the concept of kind of moving forward to have executive summaries presented as of June 24th was a date that we selected from our last meeting and then as well as having a scheduled meeting on July 8th to review those executive summaries and decide at that point whether or not there needs to be any sort of adjustment to the allocation. And I guess I would say as part of that if the new regulation is enacted by that point in time, we obviously would be able to take that into consideration. So I'm not certain in terms of when that is going to finally take place, but obviously we'll know as of July 8th. So based on kind of what's been submitted, I just want to kind of go around to the members and see, is there enough here based on what I said before and taking out that we wouldn't be looking for anything prospectively, whether it be races in 2020 and then as well as any proposed racetrack facilities. Do we feel that we have enough here based on the submissions of each of the industries for each of the industries to kind of put forth an executive summary? I thought our process was going to be like the October of 2014 process that now we as a committee would vote on whether to adopt additional criteria. And then if we take that vote, which I would make the motion that we adopt these criteria submitted except for the final criteria under purses by Mr. Goldberg and the first criteria under health and welfare, then if assuming that motion were favorably received, then this group of criteria could be folded into your very helpful outline of presentations. So Mr. Chairman, if I might, I don't believe it's exactly the process that happened in 2014. The statute 60B allows us to, and it says consider these five criteria including but not limited to those five criteria. But we analyze those five criteria during our discussions of the initial split. And there were a lot of discussions and hours of discussions as we discussed them and sort of went through everything. We came up with a list of things that we used as well to help us determine the split. And we put them in our report to the commission after the split was determined. I don't believe, and if I'm wrong, that's fine. I don't believe we need a vote now to, we can't change the statute. The statute allows me to come in before a vote and argue any criteria truly, right? Because it says including but not limited to. So I think Joe, and the same with you Joe, if July 8th comes and we're doing a, we're having a discussion on a new split, I don't think we can stop you. I'm saying, Hey, wait a minute, there's a new issue we should talk about, and it's XYZ. Because the statute allows that. I think as a committee, I think it's fine when we make our decision, if we make any decision on July 8th to send the report to the mass gaming commission as we did in October of 2014 saying we discussed all the five criteria as well as these that were determined in 2014 to be appropriate. And we also added these seven criteria into our discussions as well. I think that's the way we did in 2014. I think that's the way the statute requires us to do it now. So if I understand that correctly, your position that anything is a criteria and that all this work that was done in 2014 and the work of the statute is just a starting point and that we don't have to as a group have a consensus about what the criteria ought to be. No, I think we do. And I think the statute requires us to look at those five criteria. And it says including but not limited to these five. So I think we need, I think the legislature in their wisdom came up with the five that are important. And you know, the statute wasn't drafted in a 10 minute session. It was drafted years and years of reviewing many other state statutes that came before Massachusetts. So if you look at Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, a lot of these statutes are very similar to Massachusetts. So I think, Joe, you've brought this up yourself in the past. You said we're not limited to. I mean, that was your words. You're right. I think we have, you have the ability and I have the ability to raise any issue. But whether as a committee, we want to put weight to one or weight to the other is a committee decision. I think after discussion. Well, since, right, since October of 2014, the submissions you've put in and I've put in have, have tracked the criteria. I mean, the expert report and through all the criteria, we did a good job in 2014. They're good criteria. Yeah, they're, they're, they're, they're, of course, wholly insufficient in 2020, but that's great. You couldn't see everything. And so it seems to me that our submissions, executive summaries, whatever we're calling them ought to do what we've traditionally done, which is address criteria. And that's why I think we ought to add to the criteria today and that July 8th, or in the written submission the week before, address these preexisting criteria as well as the ones we agree on today. And, you know, I don't have no problem with that. Just perfect. I don't think it's necessary. I think you could still argue your extra criteria on July 8th and put them in the summary, but however this committee wants to do it, it's fine. I think. So I think what I'm hearing and I want to make sure that I'm hearing it properly is certainly we're using the original 2014 document as we used every year. Mr. Fitzgerald used it to put his outline together. And then in addition to that, you've each laid out some issues a little differently, which you'd like us to consider as well. And other than those two issues that Mr. Savage brought up, you know, there's, there's agreement there. I'm certainly in agreement that these are all these are things that we could consider. But agree if you're writing this executive summary and one more thing pops up that you hadn't done with that. And then it's a question of, you know, do we consider it or not when we have our next meeting? Okay. I hear what you're saying. I mean, I have no problem taking a vote and incorporating these two. Chairman Fitzgerald, as you started to say with my objection and Tony Savage's objection, we can combine the two. That's fine. So just so we're clear, we'd kind of incorporate the three documents that are before you, we would delete or I would delete the references to anything being conducted in 2020 because we're going to look retrospectively. And then also with respect to the racetrack facilities, we would delete that portion of it and then incorporate the additional criteria or these criteria factors that were submitted by both the standard breads and the thoroughbreds with the exception of, and Mr. Savage, correct me if I'm wrong, the occupational licenses times the number of live days in Massachusetts and the live race days and total races in Massachusetts under breeders. We're finding live race days and total race days in Massachusetts. That's the 2014 criteria. But yes, that first proposal under health and welfare and then the last proposal under purses. There's one of those multiplications. Okay. So that's, Mr. Chairman, that's fine. You can take out the multiplication sign in my criteria. That's fine and make them two separate criteria, which they are. And I can, I can argue as I have in the past going forward that you need to multiply them. So that's fine. I have no you could never use the word multiplication again, Peter. Okay. All right. So, and then all right. So, so then we're talking about incorporating these, these three with those noted exceptions for each of the industries to look at and address through the submission of an executive summary. Yes. Okay. Are there any further comments on that or clarifications that need to be made? So do we feel that we need to address this and move forward with a vote of the That seems like the right thing. So I would move that the committee adopt the additional criteria proposed by the thoroughbreds, the standard breads and the chairman with the exceptions that you just noted relating to capital expenditure, forward-looking racing days and multiplying either W2s, 1099s, or occupational licenses by live racing days. And is there a second? You know, I will second. I didn't know if we were all in agreement on those. Mr. Goldberger, you're fine with that. There's no further discussion to be had around that. I'm fine. So long as, right, we've taken out the forward-looking race track, potential race track building, race days for 2020, they'll take out the future component and take out the multiplication sign. I might, yes, I'm okay with that. Okay. So my second stands. Okay. So then we're going to call a roll call vote on the motion that's been presented. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Ms. Katana. Mr. Savage. Yes. Mr. Goldberg. Yes. Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. Okay. All right. Seeing that all the motion carries forward. Those criterias to be submitted for the executive summaries. Our next item on the agenda is just the discussion of the next steps, which I believe we've pretty much addressed at this point in time. Since we now have the criteria for each of the executive summaries to be submitted, we do have the date that we initially proposed of June 24th. And I just want to ask the committee members are, is that date still acceptable to both of you, Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Savage? Yeah. Mr. Savage, I have one quick question. No. I apologize. Going back to the motion. As far as on your summary, do we agree to take out the number of farms and replace it with the mayor's falls? Commissioner Cameron commented on that the number of farms was impossible. We had tried to determine that and there were multiple use farms. So was that going to come out of your summary? Yes. It's going to come out because I crossed it out and yes. I just want to be on the record that this is the case. Thank you. My only question is the problem with that, Peter, is that it's a statutory criteria for the number of breeding and training farms that are located in the Commonwealth. You can't take it out. Well, we can take it out of Mr. Chairman Fitzgerald's worksheet. Well, yeah. It's a mandatory requirement. It's there. I keep, you know, with respect to the multiple farms, you know, and I know that, you know, the information, you know, to the extent that it can be provided with, with clarification, you know, you know, that, that, that information would be helpful. Okay. My only other, my only inquiry is, is to attorney Grossman, just so we don't all do work and then have it delayed. What is the timing of the potential acceptance of the regulations by the commission? In other words, will we have time after that to prepare our executive summary? Yeah, I, absolutely. I mean, I think the commission will be looking at it tomorrow. The notion of it being adopted by emergency, I think will be discussed. It will have to see what everyone's comfort level is with that, depending upon how the complexity is viewed. It's so it's possible that that will happen tomorrow. It may not. It may, it could get put off for another two weeks to give everyone a little more time to, to review it. But I don't think there's anything standing in the way of the committee members from preparing for the upcoming committee meeting in which you will apply the criteria in determining the splits. I mean, you're going to have to do that anyway. So I don't think you need to necessarily wait for the commission to act on the regulations. That would, that would just be my recommendation. Mr. Grossman, you froze up on my screen for a minute here. Oh, sorry. I think I missed a little portion of your response, but it is on our agenda for a vote. But your point is, I believe that if someone is not clear or doesn't have enough information from the commission, that there's a possibility we wouldn't vote. Is that, did you, is that the point you made? Well, either wouldn't vote or wouldn't vote to do it by emergency. So there's a number of options. And as I mentioned in the opening, the commission does not frequently adopt regulations by emergency. So it'll depend upon everyone's comfort level in this case and the criteria as we've discussed and what have you. So it's hard to say, but I guess my, hopefully I didn't freeze up on this point, but I don't think there's anything standing in the way of the committee members beginning to prepare for the upcoming committee meeting and getting the summaries and applying the criteria in preparation for discussing what the split should be. So with attorney Grossman, if you will. So is it your understanding then, if the commission does not adopt the regulation by emergency measures, that we can still go forward on July 8th and address a split, a proposed new split with the new criteria? Well, we would have to think about that. It's hard to say. It depends upon how the discussion goes tomorrow. Yeah. I mean, I do think we need to be respectful of the existing regulation period. And I guess I would play it by ear and take it step by step at this point. But I think in any event, you could at least on your own be preparing for that, you know, in preparing the criteria. Right. No, thank you. I appreciate that. I think that was my point that the commission has to feel comfortable about it. If it's not done by emergency, we probably can't have that meeting on July 8th. Sounds like it anyway. Well, let's take it one day at a time. And I and we will be in touch with the committee as to potential next steps if we need to make any adjustments or propose any adjustments to the schedule. Thank you very much. So then with that then would we be in agreement with still moving forward with kind of the schedule that we initially had proposed with submissions by June 24th and still scheduling the meeting for July 8th to review those submissions and then have a further discussion at that point in time as to whether or not there needs to be any adjustment to the allocation. I'm in agreement. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. All right. Okay. So we'll move forward with that. And then just for my own clarification, so I'm going to make some edits to this outline and then should we would, I guess I'll defer to Mr. to Attorney Grossman, could we incorporate or could I add these items from each of the industries and then incorporate them into this one outline so that that can be distributed to the industry so they could follow that? Yes, you can do that. And you can actually or we could circulate that that would not be an expression of your opinion. That would just be an expression of the vote of the committee. So there's nothing wrong with circulating that document. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Okay. We'll plan on that moving forward then within the next couple of days then. And then are there any other items to be addressed by any of the committee members? Okay. Seeing none. Is there a motion then to adjourn? Motion to adjourn, Mr. Chairman. Second. Second. Okay. All right. I'm going to run through the list then. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Mr. Katanuck. Mr. Savage. Yes. Mr. Goldberg. Aye. And Fitzgerald. Aye. So thank you all. Thank you all for all of your your time and efforts in doing this. So thank you very much. Okay. Thank you everybody. Thanks a lot, Todd, especially. Thank you. Take care. Thank you.