 We're all set and just a reminder that Governor Baker did provide at the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, we leave to public bodies like this commission from the open meeting law so that we could convene remotely and we have been exercising that rigorously since the beginning in March. So we will be convening virtually today and should anything happen with our connection please visit and Mass Gaming Commission's website at massgaming.com. Today is Thursday, July 30th. It is 10.03 a.m. and today is public meeting number 314. We'll get started with minutes please, Commissioner Stevens. Thank you Madam Chair. Good morning. My colleagues you have in your packet the meeting minutes from the June 18th, 2020 meeting. Thank you as always to Shar for her good work helping to pull those together. I would move their approval subject to any corrections for typographical errors or any other non-material errors. If I could before we do that can I just make one recommended to edit or two actually sure. This was the meeting where I needed to step off for a chunk of it. So I just think that when I left and when I came back should be reflected in the minutes. So if we can add that I left the meeting at 11.15 and returned at 12.25 that would reflect accurately when I'm not participating. I was going to make that recommended change too and for the record I want to point out that that day we also convened later at 10.45 because we did have really our sole technological challenge where we were in two universes somehow. So that started late which pushed off the planning for Commissioner O'Brien's attendance and if I recall correctly she needed to get to her fifth graders graduation. And it did throw off an important piece of the meeting. I know she had wanted to participate in that vote. So again I wanted to reflect that as well. We can make those additions and I'm not sure we'll mention the fifth grade graduation but we can put in Commissioner O'Brien's departure. It makes for a good if you don't actually a little footnote doesn't hurt. Sure. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Is there any further edits to the minutes? Yes. I have an edit and I'm chair on page 11. Okay. At 2.33 where I wrap up the discussion from Dr. Bolberg's presentation. The middle of that sentence of that paragraph states that gamblers propensity to gamble at anything versus discerning what came they're addicted to. And that's just terminology that we don't really use. It is correct that the hypothesis earlier just in the prior page that problem gambling is more closely related to some forms of gambling formats was in fact what what Dr. Bolberg found but it's just not quite well reflected in that sentence as we discussed it. Do you have recommended language commissioner would you like to just work on that? Well, just that the hypothesis earlier where it says that problem gambling is indeed appears to be more closely related to some some formats of gambling than others should be reflected in that as part of that paragraph. But the notion of addiction is not one that it's not a terminology that the people at public health seem to be using these days. Okay, we can we can edit that section and share it back with you. Excellent. Sounds good. Thank you. I need further edits or comments. It certainly was a busy meeting. Sharad, thank you for your good work. Without further edits, we'll take a roll call vote. Do we have a second madam chair and I will second that motion. Thank you. Roll call vote. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Mr. Zunica. Aye. Mr. Stevens. Aye. Thank you. Yes, five zero with those additional edits. Thank you so much. Okay, and Interim Executive Director Wells, you are here. Yes, I had thought I would be still on another board meeting, but I am here, but I am going to turn over the administrative update to first Loretta Lilios and Alex Lightbaum for the casino and racing update and then attorney Grossman for the legislative development update. So I'll start with Loretta or good morning chair and commissioners about three weeks of past since the three licensees have and there have been two weekends of operation since you were updated at the July 16 commission public meeting. As you know, gaming agent staff are continuing to monitor compliance with normal integrity of operations. They are also monitoring compliance with the reopening requirements related to COVID that the commission adopted late last month. And those general areas of monitoring are around cleanliness, the implementation of the social distancing measures, the compliance with the mask requirement and the related matter of limiting beverages to those seated while gambling. For all the reports have been very positive. There's been an all hands on deck approach for all three of the licensees with a high level of on the ground engagement from casino employees and concluding management level on the casino floor, actively engaged in reminding guests, for instance, whose masks fall below the nose to pull them up, reminding them about the beverage requirement so forth. And there's also been overall a high level of cooperation from guests as well with few problems around health and safety measures. The number of instances where any enforcement unit have had to become involved in limited can be counted on one hand and involve things like a patron causing a disturbance where the mask or some other health protocol have been part of the overall disturbance issue. Given given the numbers, it's been very limited. And speaking of the numbers, attendance at all three properties stayed well within the formula set by the commission. There are reports, is a report from the agency in the state at one of the park and the distancing and queuing areas can be improved. Like the example given to me was around elevators. That feedback was immediately shared with casino management. It was taken seriously in the process of doing more measures and we'll be paying attention to that to that this weekend. Plain Ridge has increased the number of its gaming positions from the low 700s at reopening to the 780 range. There is widespread use of the Plexiglasks barriers separating the machines across the floor. There have been no incidents of public measures requiring GEU involved. On the racing side, I will try to address some of the matters. I've been in communication with Dr. Laupont, but she is here for more detail. As you know, the final casting and live have been operational, including the spirit of Massachusetts. Trot lost Sunday, without door and indoor viewing areas. It lost Sunday's event. Advanced ticketing was utilized as a planning measure. The licensee had two plain bill police officers on site for that event with appropriate social distancing, signage, stanchions to separate entry from exit. Distancing markers were used on the floors inside. They apparently were tried in the outdoor area. They were not effective or not sticking well or tripping hazard. But the attendance level at approximately 250 did allow for distancing. In the test area at the last meeting, you heard extensively from Dr. Leibhahn around the issue of the pens and, you know, going through 100 pens a day because there are areas where our signatures still are the best procedure, but folks are much better about bringing their own. So that is going well. On the backside, there has been good compliance with having and wearing masks. Dr. Leibhahn is in ongoing discussions with Mr. Toul and with the enforcement of the coverage of the mask over the nose and the mouth. Personally, I have not seen the area for some time. I've blocked off an afternoon next week, too. There is live racing to go down and have a first-hand look. So my conversations with with Alice will be more meaningful. After that, simulcasting at Rainham and Suffolk grounds has been operational and they have been implementing the measures around the masks and distancing this signage and compliance with the food and beverage restrictions. Again, their occupancy numbers have been within the numbers in their plans. The reports are that customers are understanding and cooperative about the protocols we did here from Mr. Tuttle about one instance at Suffolk down to where a guest wanted to order a beverage from the bar instead of from the seat management intervenes. The guest was asked to leave and which which happened with no further incident at Suffolk downs. There's a plan to utilize additional space in the upstairs restaurant area, which was part of the plan submitted by them to allow more spreading out and to take advantage of the air conditioning that's available there and not available outside. The expectation is compliance with the governor's restaurant protocol calls. It's my understanding that the building code occupancy for that area is 600. It will be limited to 150 with the six foot spacing on the restaurant protocols and limiting groups to the numbers. With respect to MGM, they opened with a little over 900 gaming positions, 819 slots and 90 table games. They have increased their slots to 865. They are relying more on distancing for the slots rather than for the installation of the Plexi. Plexi on the table games is being utilized as required and the agents have been monitoring the rules of the games in the context of Plexi and that has been going well. They continue to use the Plexi dividers as a cage in the count room, utilizing every other cage position. There's solid good clients back as well. At Encore, they are maintaining their positions at 2449 with their thermal cameras being utilized. Again, why do you have the Plexi blast with the slots at Encore? There have been requests from the two licensees with the table games to add dice games, both Kraft and Roulette. We are working through those requests now. The agents are working on understanding the prototypes for the Plexi on the games, whether a seated option is viable and would enhance safety. They're also looking at the question of proximity issues, taking into account players and staff, whether the game can be played consistently for safety measures. Looking at other jurisdictions, how they have handled the introduction for a bunch of those games, and it's something that we expect you would evaluate effectively at a later meeting in August. So those are my prepared products. If you have questions, I know we've got Bruce and Burke here and Alex is here as well. Laura, I'm sorry, Commissioner Cameron. Yeah, no, I don't have a question, but that is really good report, really good news that people are complying and working together. Small issues are being addressed, being self-reported and then being addressed immediately. That's, I think it's just a really good report for an opening that we were all very hopeful would go smoothly. So thank you for that report and thank you to the team for working collaboratively to make sure it's been a smooth opening. Thank you, Loretta. Further particular questions for Loretta and of course, Alex is available too with respect to horse racing to add in. I know we're gonna get further additional points from Alex, I believe, or not, Alex. Yes or no? You won't be adding in today, okay? Loretta covered everything. We tried to incorporate it in what she was speaking today. So I'm here if there's any other questions. That's right. Anything further? I do wanna just acknowledge that we know that we'll be hearing about the re-licensing process for PPC and our next item, but I wanna acknowledge that we do have Jay Snowden, President, CEO and Director of Penn National with us, thank you. Jay and we have President Lance George from PPC. I'll take this time right now to just echo what Commissioner Cameron said is that we've been very appreciative of all three licenses, cooperation around the extensive work that was done toward a safe, sustainable reopening and your organization has been a great partner in that effort exhibiting the level of really collaboration, cooperation and empathy that we need at this time. So thank you. You won't get into that so much in the next piece, but Loretta's report today indicates that all those efforts are resulting in what we hope will be a continued trend. So thank you. Thanks, it's been a great partnership so far. Thank you, Jay. Commissioners, Brian, Zuniga, Stephens on Loretta's comprehensive report. All right. No, I appreciate it. I know we've been in touch as part of the working group. I'm gonna try to coordinate my visit Thursday down to PPC and racing with Loretta. So hopefully I'll be able to see some of this for myself on the ground on Thursday. And I know that we have a meeting coming up in the next day or so to sort of see if there's anything else, sort of outliers or smaller issues to deal with in terms of how we're reopening, but on the whole it's been a really good process, I think between the licensees and a good amount of compliance by the people attending, which I think is critical to this and it's good to know that it's happening. Yeah, Madam Chair, I would just echo some of Loretta's comments. I had the chance to visit both PPC and MGM last week. Very impressed at PPC with the technology they're using to assess patrons as they come in and out in terms of their temperature. I would also throw in a word of thanks to our partners, the harness horsemen. I know the leadership of the harness horsemen have been working diligently with their members in the backstretch to make sure everybody is wearing the masks and flying with the guidelines. So thank you to the harness horsemen in addition to our licensees. I can't hear you, Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you, yeah. Just to reiterate what has been said, I was also able to visit and for Boston Harbor last week and observe very much what Loretta is reporting and others impressions about compliance which is very positive and encouraging and look forward to these ongoing reports because they're very important. Thank you and we have to also extend our appreciation to the lead gaming agents. We have Lewis and Andrew and Angela have all been able to give the restart working group extensive reports. We appreciate their vigilance and we know that that team, the Bruce Van and Bertain's leadership are really helping to be an extra set of eyes on not just all matters with respect to gaming integrity but also the compliance with COVID-19. It takes a village and we appreciate that. The reports have all been extensively positive. So thank you. Okay, then I think we can move on to item B. Is that correct Loretta? That's right. We're all set in terms of your report. That's correct. I'm ready to go on the suitability piece for the... Yeah, but first we'll do on Todd's legislative update and then we'll move on to item three. Thank you so much. Well, thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. Good morning to everybody. I have an update to some legislation that was pending, that was passed and other points of interest that I thought I would run through with everyone here today. Of course, welcome any comments or questions along the way. I'll start with just a number of proposals relative to horse racing. The first is chapter 106 of the Acts of 2020, also known as House 4817, an Act extending simulcast and horse racing authorization. It was actually enacted on June 30th. As you're likely familiar, it effectively extended all of the applicable horse racing laws, including chapters 128A and 128C that were set to expire and extended them through July 31st, 2021. Notably for Rainham Park and the Wonderland entities, there's language in that extension that provides that they shall remain licensed as Greyhound racing meeting licensees through that effective date. And similarly, as for Suffolk Downs, the language says that it shall remain licensed as a running horse racing meeting licensee through the effective date. So what that means essentially is that it allows all of those entities to continue simulcasting, but it precludes them from live racing without commission approval. So that is the so-called racing extension law. There are a couple of others I thought I would just mention as well. There's House 13 and Senate 101. These are the bills that would have created a new chapter 128D and provided the commission with clear and comprehensive authority over horse racing and simulcasting. I believe there are some slight differences between the House and Senate versions, though they are largely similar. These were before the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure, but on June 7th, the committee reported that these bills ought not to pass. So they are unlikely to see any affirmative action as part of this session. There's a couple other horse racing bills that I've been asked about in the past. I thought I would just mention House 386 is a bill that would have adjusted the 9% assessment on Clanridge Park Casino's gross gaming revenue under section 55 so that instead of the whole amount going to the Racehorse Development Fund, only 4.5% would go to the Racehorse Development Fund and 4.5% would go to the Community Preservation Trust Fund. This was before the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, which actually held a hearing on the bill in October of 2019. There was a study order placed on this bill in February of this year, and that is the last activity that it has seen to date. There was also House 387, which is a bill that would have required the comptroller to transfer up to $10 million each fiscal year at the request of the Secretary for Administration and Finance from the Racehorse Development Fund to the Community Preservation Trust Fund. This was a bill that was before the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, which held a hearing in July of 2019 on this bill. And similar to the previous one, there was a study order placed on this bill in February of this year, and that is the last activity on that bill. The two bills that everyone is likely familiar with that are presently in seeing activity are House 4879 and Senate 2842. The House Bill is entitled an Act Enabling Partnerships for Growth. Essentially, it's an Economic and Capital Development Bill. Notably, of course, it includes a section that would legalize sports wagering and place its regulation under the commission. There is also language in the House Bill that would require the commission to submit a report to the legislature relative to the status of Region C. The House Bill was passed on Tuesday when it became House 4887, and it was sent over to the Senate. The bill is now before the Senate, though the Senate version of the bill is notably different in that it does not include any language relative to sports wagering. There have been a wide variety of amendments proposed to the Senate bill, and I took a quick look at them this morning, and I need to continue doing that to see whether any of the amendments pertain to sports wagering or what have you. But this is certainly needless to say a very fluid and rapidly evolving matter, so we're monitoring that situation very closely, of course. The other matter I just thought I would mention quickly is pertains to the Mashby Wampanoag tribe. The United States House of Representatives recently agreed by voice vote to an amendment proposed by Representative Kennedy to a House resolution 7608 that would prohibit funds from being used by the Department of the Interior to rescind the decision to take lands of the Mashby Wampanoag tribe into federal trust or to revoke other associated actions. The House bill 7608 essentially provides generally for fiscal year 21 appropriations to the Department of State for foreign operations and related programs, but it is notable that they did include that piece related to the tribe, which is relevant based upon case law that recently came out remanding the interior decision back to the interior to take further action. So we're of course closely monitoring that piece of legislation very closely as well and any further regulatory action that's taken by the Department of the Interior. Those were the pieces of legislation that I thought would be important to update everybody on. I'm happy to take any questions if there are any. Really helpful, Todd. Do we have questions? Yes, Madam Chair. Todd, just a quick question to remind me. If a bill does not see passage during a two-year legislative session, it needs to be refiled than any new legislative session. Nothing gets carried over, I'm assuming, into a new legislative session. That's, yes, that's my understanding as to how the procedure. Thank you. I have a question, Todd. Yes, Commissioner. The back to Massachusetts on the Senate version of the bill relative to sports wagering. I believe you said the Senate did not include it, but it included a report due to the legislature relative to region C. Was that also part of the House version? Is that, what is the likelihood that that will be enacted? So the, thank you, Commissioner Zuniga. To clarify, the House version is the one that contains sports wagering and the region C report. The Senate version, and again, I need to check the amendments to see whether this was captured. But the last I checked, neither of those were included in the Senate version. So again, it's rapidly evolving. There have been amendments proposed. I just haven't had a chance to see whether they have, action has been taken on them that would include sports wagering in the Senate version, but they would obviously have to be adopted and included. But with respect to the region C study, we haven't seen that, but again, you haven't had a chance and it is very fluid. You needed to be here. So we appreciate the fact that you'll keep on monitoring that. Absolutely. Thanks. Other questions for Todd? Okay. Now Loretta, I think we can move on. Todd, thank you so much. Appreciate it and move on to item number four on the re-licens route. Thank you. As you say, I was really eager to get to this item. So thank you. My cue wasn't very helpful, Loretta, so here we are. So good morning again. And for this item, the IAB is presenting the results of the investigation into the suitability of Plain Ridge-Parkistino, the category two licensee. And we conducted this review in connection with the licensee's application to renew its license, which originally in June of 2015. And of course, the commission issued positive determination ability in connection with that phase one review back in 2013. And suitability is ongoing. We've been routinely monitoring. We've done additional background reviews and you voted on individuals in the interim as they have newly joined the company. And you did a big review of qualifiers about a year ago in connection with the GLPI real estate transfer. But we took a comprehensive look again in connection with this renewal. And I'm joined this morning by our internal team of Tuberton Roger from the state police, Monica Chang, supervisor of our financial investigations, Andrew Steffen, the senior supervising gaming agent who oversees the, and Pedro who's a financial investigator in the IAB and all are participating virtually in this meeting. And chair, I know you already acknowledged Lance George and Jay Snowden, but also on this call, I would like to acknowledge Lisa McKenney, the compliance manager from PPC and three other representatives from Penn National, Carl Sotisanti, general counsel and corporate secretary, Justin Sebastiano, senior VP of finance and treasurer and Chris Soriano, the chief executive of the department. And the three of them are in a conference room at their headquarters, but safely distance. There also is a representative from Gaming and Leisure Properties Inc on the call. As you know, that is the real estate investment trust that serves as the landlord for the real property in Plainville at the Plainville facility. And that's Melissa Ferrillo, who's the director of housing and legal affairs on the call. You have a letter in your packet summarizing the details and the results of the IAB investigation, which again was a background review for suitability purposes. And Fay is going to take responsibility for sharing her screen. I think it might be helpful at points to see the actual list of individuals and entities we're talking about. So as an initial step in our inquiry, we've worked with the division of licensing in a scoping exercise to make sure that we identified a comprehensive list of all of the individuals and entities that would be required to submit to the process. And the scoping resulted in the designation 22 individuals and seven entities as qualifiers for the renewal license. 15 of the 22 individuals are before you today for suitability determinations and they are depicted in the shaded areas of the letter. The remaining six qualifiers either or recently investigated and determined by you to be suitable or were very recently designated as qualifiers because of changes in the organization and their background reviews are still in process. Some of those before you today as previously said, were previously found suitable by you either in the context of phase one suitability or when they joined the company. And we updated their background reviews based on a protocol that the mission approved. Including some areas of inquiry we added to our Massachusetts supplement form that reflect our increased experience in our role as regulators. Three members of the Penn national team are new to Massachusetts. So we conducted a full review of them and they are Mr. Todd George, executive VP of operations who is new to Massachusetts but I understand is Lance George's brother. Mr. Chris Rogers, senior VP and chief strategy officer and Ms. Erin Chamberlain, VP of regional operations. And then five of the individuals before you today are non-executive outside directors of GLPI with GLPI itself being an entity qualifier for the licensee. As for the entities in addition to the licensee itself one of the seven entity qualifiers Penn national ultimate parent company of our licensee is before you today for suitability determination. So I did want to note that we started this process before the coronavirus pandemic but a portion of this investigation was continued and included during this challenging period. Despite the challenges we're able to complete our established protocols with the only modification being reviewed of the three new qualifiers or in a virtual environment rather than face-to-face. So I did want to recognize our team for adapting and also recognize the team at PPC through Lance and Lisa, there was never any question that this process received priority treatment from them. And the same goes for the Penn national folks at a time when they have had a lot of irons fired to save a beast. There was full cooperation and proper responses from them across of this review. So we did perform our review for suitability under the criteria listed in the gaming line regulations. We reviewed in particular for integrity on a secret character and reputation, financial stability, financial integrity and financial background, business practices and business ability to maintain a successful gaming establishment, history compliance and this and other jurisdictions, litigation history and criminal history, which there was not. For the licensee and for each qualifier we reviewed each application submission requested and reviewed supplemental information, gathered information from a variety of government and non-government sources and databases, reviewed updates on litigation matters, checked for prohibited political contributions in Massachusetts and verified the information in these submissions were part of the packet. For the qualifiers from Penn national and for Mr. Snyder who is the inside executive member of GLPI, the CFO, we also performed a review which includes a review of detailed personal financial documents and a net worth analysis and we also interviewed the three new individual qualifiers, Mr. George, Mr. Roger, Mr. Chamberlain. With respect to the five qualifiers who are outside directors of GLPI, our background review deviated from that of the inside Penn national qualifiers in the sense that we did not seek detailed personal financial records and did not perform a net worth analysis. You hit the commission had previously approved this protocol but in all other respects, the investigations aligned. Investigators also reviewed investigative information other jurisdictions where Penn national has operations minutes of Penn's clients committee and audit committee meetings were reviewed and of course we reviewed PPC's five year history of compliance in its operations in Massachusetts. Monica reviewed the PPC and its parent company for financial stability. She coordinated with the commissioner Zuniga on this aspect of the investigation. Her review included standalone results of PPC as well as consolidated operating results of Penn national and its subsidiaries with PPC being a subsidiary of Penn national. And she had multiple discussions with Justin Sebastiano, Todd George, Chris Rogers and Dana Fortney, the VP of Finance at PPC and she will summarize her findings this morning. But with respect to the individuals that we performed an updated review on, I think I should just read, even though they're named in the letter, I'll just read the names. I think it's important for the purposes of the record. That would be Jay Snowden, David Handler, James Cassetti, Ronald Naples, John Jackamann, Barbara Shaddick-Cone, Stephen Snyder, Saul Reeve-Steen, E-Squad Hurting, Joseph Marshall, Earl Shane, James Perry and Carol Linton, no derogatory issues surfaced whatsoever, no criminal matters, no automatic disqualifiers, no civil litigation that negatively impacts suitability, no derogatory media, no issues with licensure and other jurisdictions. One note regarding Mr. Snyder, the CFO at GLPI, he is stepping down from his role at GLPI after a long career at Penn and then serving as interim CFO at GLPI and then the permanent, he's stepping down at the end of August. I do ask that you vote on his suitability today because he does have some significant responsibilities over the course of the day. Turning to the three executives that we did a full review on because they are new to us in Massachusetts, my thought was that it would be worthwhile for you to hear a summary, a summary of their background and experience from Trooper Roger who conducted that review and had a chance to meet and communicate with them virtually over the past month. So, if it's okay with you, I'd like to turn it over to John at this point. Good morning, Trooper. Good morning, Chair, good morning, Commissioners. Good morning, it's nice to see you. Nice to see you as well. So just to start here, I was tasked with the investigation for the Plainville Gaming and Redevelopment LLC category to license. Three individuals required a full background investigation. As Lorena mentioned, they were Todd George, Aaron Chamberlain and Christopher Rogers. With that full background investigation, a criminal record check, gaming license verification, education verification, political contribution check, litigation review, and a check of open source and law enforcement databases with the forum. So just starting with the first here, Todd George, I'll just give a brief background on him. But Mr. George began his career with Penn National Gaming in 2012 as General Manager of the Hollywood Casino in Indiana before transferring to Hollywood Casino in Missouri. Mr. George was soon promoted thereafter as Senior Vice President of Regional Operations for Penn National at the corporate level. Today, Mr. George currently shares as Executive Vice President of Operations for Penn National Gaming. Now, prior to his time with Penn, Mr. George worked for Pinnacle Entertainment at various casino properties and with the United Tribal Nation, both on the regulatory and casino side. Mr. George works at a Penn National's corporate office in Wild Missing, Pennsylvania. And his responsibilities include overseeing corporate marketing, information technology, food and beverage, and all gaming related activities at all of Penn's properties. Mr. George's gaming elections are in good standing in the jurisdictions where Penn conducts business. Also as part of the background investigation, interview was held with Mr. George where he detailed his work history and experiences. Mr. George was very candid and forthcoming with all information. Second, we have Aaron Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain began her career with Penn National Gaming in September 2019 and currently serves as Senior Vice President of Regional Operations. Prior to her time with Penn, Ms. Chamberlain spent the majority of her career with Seizes Entertainment as General Manager at various casino properties, including Horseshoe Casino in Indiana, Horseshoe Casino in Maryland, Seize's Atlantic City, and plan in Hollywood in Las Vegas. Ms. Chamberlain works at a Penn National's Corporate Office in Wild Missing, Pennsylvania, and her responsibilities to act as a liaison between Penn Corporate Office and Penn's Northeast Casino properties. Ms. Chamberlain's gaming licenses were also checked in the various jurisdictions where Penn conducts business and they were all in good standing. It's part of the background investigation again and interview was held with Ms. Chamberlain where she was responsive, open, and honest. Finally, we have Christopher Rogers. Mr. Rogers began his career with Penn National Gaming in 2013 as Vice President and Deputy Corporate Counsel. After several years, Mr. Rogers was promoted as Senior Vice President of Corporate Development. Today, Mr. Rogers currently serves as Senior Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer at Penn National Gaming. Now, prior to his time with Penn, Mr. Rogers served in various legal counsel positions at Vincent and Elkins in Robson Gray. Mr. Rogers works at a Penn National Corporate Office in Wild Missing, Pennsylvania, and his responsibilities include identifying, murder, and acquisition opportunities, monitoring lease agreements, overseeing property development, and identifying new strategic business partners. Mr. Rogers' gaming licenses are in good standing and all the jurisdictions with Penn conducts business. It's part of the background investigation and interview was held with Mr. Rogers where we discussed his personal history. Again, he was open and honest. All in all, with the full review of these three qualifiers, they were all very cooperative and forthcoming. He enabled the licensing manager for Penn National Gaming and Melissa Ferrello, the director in licensing and legal affairs for gaming and leisure properties were accommodating and very helpful by providing information quickly upon request. So at this time, if any of the commissioners have any questions, I'll be happy to take them now. Mr. Mishers, Mr. Cameron. No, very clean report. Reviewing them as I did, there are no issues. So I appreciate the investigative team and the cooperation of those being licensed to make this process simple and just thanks to everybody. Are there other questions, Pratt? No, not a question. So much is just, I think a point that should be clear on the record, which is that in addition to the people that have been discussed, there is another qualifier, David Williams, who's the CFO at Penn National and that that qualifying report, that suitability reports still pending in the normal course. There's nothing abnormal about it, but I do think that it just bears putting on the record today that in addition to the people we're discussing, we'll be back in short order, probably on Mr. Williams. Unless I'm incorrect. No, Commissioner O'Brien, there's also Mr. Soriano as well, who he was designated recently and his is in progress. He's on the call today. So those two are underway now and we'll be hearing all down. Commissioner Zunagata, Commissioner Stebbins. No questions from you, Madam Chair. Good report. Commissioner Zunagata. Yeah, same here. Thank you to the team. Always very comprehensive and thoughtful and thank you for everybody at Penn for all their work. Yeah, I would just add the comment that first off Loretta, thank you for the thorough memo that is included in the packet. It really highlights the extensive nature of our qualification process and the importance of it as we work to make sure that the integrity of the gaming is always a priority and the cooperation and the candidness of the qualifiers is very much core to the preservation of casino industry business that Massachusetts expects here. So we know it's extensive. We also know it mirrors what happens across the country. We also know you folks are really used to it. What I also appreciate is that the work that went into really thinking about the relicensing process is actually showing to have been very helpful because we were able to take measures and steps to reduce the workload for not only our internal team but for the qualifiers by being practical and recognizing the work that has been done relatively recently. So it's showed that it was a good thoughtful process. Loretta? Speaking of extensive, I do have some additional comments as does Monica and Andrew. So I wanted to make sure you know we have more to say. Oh, yes, I know that. That was just for the suitability size. I know that there's much more to come. But I'm just saying in terms of suitability, the process of the unit suitability of these individuals, it's very much core to the preservation of the integrity of this business. And we just want to acknowledge that right now. Right, so all about the people for sure. Exactly. Thank you, Loretta. And Karen, I'm sure you're agreeing with that as we acknowledge the numbers of folks who are being examined as part of this relicenser process. Absolutely, Madam Chair. Okay, now we wouldn't, one, I'm very interested in hearing from Monica, but two, it's also just very much nice to see her in person today. Is she next? She is. I did want to mention before we go into her review, the letter in your packet does reflect background of the licensee itself and Penn National Apart from the financial review was conducted. You know, those general integrity pieces, the document and the review of a license standing and other jurisdictions, and no systemic issues with operations were identified at any of the Penn operated facilities. So with that background, I think it's perfect timing if Monica could jump in and summarize her findings on the financial aspect. Thank you, Monica. Hi, thanks, Loretta, and good morning, everyone. So the financial review of our casino licensee and its ultimate parent company was split into two main parts. First, the review of PPC and Penn National Financial Results in the last five years from 15 to 2019. And then second, the review of the negative impact that the COVID-19 pandemic have on the consolidated group and the mitigating measures that were put in place by Penn. The financial operating results of PPC and Penn National in the last five years were largely positive. PPC produced positive growth income in all five years, increasing revenues each year until 2019, which is the same year that on four Boston Harbor opened. Net losses weren't heard for two of those years, driven largely by the impairment costs and the income tax expenses. For Penn National, the group produced net income each year and after the 2.9 billion pinnacle acquisition in 2018, with it incorporation of 14 additional gaming properties, total revenue increased by more than 45%. Penn's new debt requirements were met in 2019 and the group was in compliance with each covenant as per the credit agreement. It was something with the plumbing. One minute, please. I think that there's a phone number five that ends with 7758, we can hear your conversation. So you may want to thank you. Go ahead, Monica. So soon after the close of the 2019 calendar year, the gaming industry was negatively impacted by the spread of the coronavirus, which ultimately led to casino closures across the globe. Penn National was no exception. All 41 of its properties were shuttered soon after March 18, 2020. At that point, maintaining adequate liquidity was a core focus for Penn National. Various mitigating and cost-cutting measures were then put in place. One such measure was realized on April 16 when Penn and its principal landlord, GLPI, completed its agreement for the sale of the real estate assets of Tropicana, Las Vegas. In turn, GLPI granted 337.5 million in rent credits and also allow Penn to the exclusive rate to acquire operation of one of GLPI's properties. Then to increase its liquidity position, Penn secured additional sources of funds through the equity capital market. On May 14, it completed its previously announced public offering of its common stock and convertible senior notes. In aggregate, this added approximately 675 million to the group's liquidity balance. Overall, the IB's review of PPC and Penn National's operating financial operating results from 2015 to 19 did not uncover any derogatory information. Since the start of the pandemic, Penn National has put in place multiple operations to reduce cost, maintain lease and debt requirements, preserve and even increase its liquidity levels. As such, there's no indication that the consolidated group is unable to meet its obligations. As of the date of this report, of my report, multiple Penn National properties have reopened which translates to inflow of cash and earnings after months of closures. So that concludes my summary. I can pause now for any questions the commissioners have. Commissioner Zuniga, I'll turn to you first. Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you, Monica. I'll just make a quick comment and then maybe ask the question of Mr. Snowden. I was, I had an opportunity to join Monica in some of these discussions, the ones that she's summarizing now. And relative to, of course, the most serious risk in this process has been the COVID-19 circumstances, but in the mitigating measures that have been, in my view, very successful by Penn and GLPI in terms of addressing those challenges. So which I think is as good as anybody and will continue to be a cause of something that we need to monitor. So I'd ask Jay, if you can just comment to the extent you can as how you see the next few months in terms of Penn, continue to weather what are challenging times with the COVID-19 situation. Chair, good morning, Commissioner Zuniga, and a great question. Look, I guess the way I would characterize and begin my response is to say, we were not prepared for this. I don't know that anyone was, even in our scenario, planning around really stress testing the balance sheet and the company's response to maybe a 2008, 2009 like recession, we had never anticipated being forced to close down all 41 of our properties and for a period of months where we would be generating zero revenue. And I'm really proud of how our company from top to bottom has responded, no complaints. It's been, what can we do as a team to get through this? And I think it was just, I think, recapped well by Monica a number of measures that we've taken working with our landlord, working with our bank lending group, and then tapping the capital markets as well to fortify the balance sheet during very challenging times. And looking out has been difficult. Typically I can answer that question comfortably and talking about the future today is difficult, it's challenging. I'll tell you, based on how we're feeling today, we now have reopened all but three of our 41 properties. And some of them we reopened as long ago as May. So we've had properties in Louisiana and Mississippi that have now been open for two and a half months. And I would characterize the reopenings as having gone much like Loretta mentioned here in Massachusetts, they've gone well. We've been very focused working with regulators in all the states we operate, health officials, our team members from a training standpoint and preparation. And we haven't seen visitation fully recover yet as expected, but we've been very pleased with the solicited and unsolicited response and remarks that we've gotten from our customers and our team members in terms of safety measures and how seriously we have taken this. So that's been our number one focus. Of course, having the properties reopened and generating revenue again was very important for the company, but we also understand and take very seriously that if we don't really adhere to the requirements state by state and it's safe and comfortable environment for our team members and our guests, then we could find ourselves where we were a few months ago and no one wants that. So that's really been our focus. Every operational update call that I have with the team, it always starts and ends with how's it going from a safety standpoint. And let's continue to step up our efforts and make sure that we are leaders in this area and all of our properties across the nation. So I'm cautiously optimistic, I guess, is the way that I would characterize how I feel today. It's hard to be any more confident than that because we just don't, none of us sitting here today know exactly what the future has for us. And we're just staying very close to all of you in Massachusetts because we're going through this for the first time. I'm pleased with the level of partnership that Madam Chair mentioned this morning during the opening remarks. And we're feeling that on our end, I hope you're feeling that on your end as we continue to navigate together. But we'll continue to stay very close with you and happy to update you on what we're seeing and hearing and experiencing across our portfolio of properties in the 19 states where we operate. Today, I'm feeling about as good as I think I can. It's difficult to feel great even though you've reopened the properties because we have had, you know, during the peak over 95% of the company's team members were furloughed and that's not a great feeling. So we've been obviously bringing back our workforce but we haven't and likely aren't going to get back to where we were because times have changed and we're evolving and we're at limited capacity in our properties and the amenity offering is different today and we're not sure yet when that's going to be appropriately relaxed. And so that part's very challenging. We talk about that every day and we've continued to keep our furlough team members. We cover their medical benefits. We just announced earlier this week that we're extending that now through the end of August. We had initially announced end of June and then we extended that through July and then again earlier this week through the end of August and, you know, making those phone calls to bring team members back is, it's great. And we hope to continue to make more of those calls as time goes across the country at all of our properties. Well, thank you. Thank you for that, Jay. I remember when we did the initial analysis and ultimately the award of the license to you guys five years ago from a financial standpoint, your geographic diversification and your expertise in dealing with multiple regulations, regulators and states was clearly an asset. And I agree that nobody could have predicted this pandemic. It is proving that that was indeed an asset and you're managing as best as anybody can. So thank you for that. Thank you, Commissioner. Other questions for Monica and our comments? I would just add that Monica's report does highlight how nimble the entity was as you met that crisis and worked hard to ensure the stability of the company. And again, this review about it commented is on Monica focused on the entity. Again, an important part of our review as we look at relationship. Madam Chair, I would have just another question of the team. Again, this was part of clearly what Monica looked at along with Loretta, but anything you can talk about, Jay or Lance about how PPC fits and stands within your own company and anything else that you could add at the appropriate level that you might want to mention as we go forward. Sure, and I have some prepared remarks so I apologize if this will be a little bit redundant, but we as a company, Commissioner, have really focused on in two areas because our goal as a company is to be the omnichannel leader of gaming and sports offerings across the country. And of course, our footprint across the country is really, really important as Paspa was overturned in May of 2018 and sports betting became a state's right issue. And now we've seen over 20 states already legalized sports betting. And so we've been very focused on continuing to grow our brick and mortar properties businesses, our database, of course, that each one of these markets is really, really important for us. And though sports betting has not yet been legalized in Massachusetts, it was mentioned by Todd that it's being considered. And so we're very focused both on the sports betting opportunities as well as the gaming opportunities. And Plain Ridge is a really important property for us. It's our only property in the state of Massachusetts. It has a great database of customers in the Boston MSA, Providence, Rhode Island. And there's only three licenses in the state of Massachusetts, obviously as all of you know. And so it's a coveted license for us. And it's a big part of our overall strategy as we continue to build our database. We now have over 5 million active database users and many of them are from the Plain Ridge Park property. Really important for us as we think about the hub and spoke, we have a couple of properties in Las Vegas. And so for us to be able to offer our customers in Massachusetts visits to Las Vegas and within our loyalty program is very powerful. And that's something that you look across the country and we're in so many key MSAs in the Midwest, the Northeast, down South and out West. And Boston is a really critical market for us. And horse racing of course is something that we're the largest paramutual operator in the country. And we've been very proud of what we've been able to do in just growing the business. It was a struggling standard bread property for a long time. And now you look at the results and we're seeing growth in purses of over 100%. It's been a great story, really remarkable. And it's been a great partnership working with all of you on the regulatory side as well as the horsemen. And it's a very important property in our overall portfolio. Additional questions for you. I do want to allow PPC and Penn National to make whatever presentations they have planned and I know already you'll introduce them but any further questions would restrict to Monica's report and Jay's comments. All really helpful. Monica, thank you so much, Loretta. Sure, so the next piece is the compliance piece for our licensee for PPC. And really Andrew Steffen is in the best position with the boots on the ground to describe that not only operationally but also with the birds eye view on the relationships with the licensed directors, supervisors and casino staff. From my role as Chief Enforcement Counsel, I did want to mention a couple of things that issued from the Chief Enforcement Counsel which were two civil administrative penalties over the course of the five year term of the license. It was one in 2016 for $10,000 for non-compliance with beverage storage and distribution requirements in one in 2017 for $65,000 for non-compliance with minimum staffing in the security department. Those fondly remitted in both instances, Andrew can detail the types of responses with training and I see submissions that were implemented on the licensee's part. Or also in my role, a number of notices of non-compliance that issued in the course of the five year term in the areas again of minimum staffing and security which is the issuance of the notices a prerequisite for the fine. So it should be no surprise that you would have seen that twice. Now entry by underage, the beverage storage again, no surprise, you'd see that twice. And there were two slot payout matters, a man trap notice, self exclusion notice of non-compliance, a game setting notice. And as part of those notices that were requirements implemented that the licensee take material steps to correct, Andrew again will address those issues. So I think if I can ask Andrew to jump in, that would be perfect. Good morning, Andrew. Just to get our commissioners. Thank you, Loretta. Again, I just want to thank you, Andrew, before you get started with all the work that you did to support the safe reopening. I know that you've done it with your team, but I want to just give full credit to you for your leadership in that partnership at PPC. Thank you. It was an entire team effort too. We have a great team down here. I have a few prepared comments briefly touching on PPC's compliance history, after which I'll do my best to answer any questions you may have. So to begin, since opening the property in 2015, the idea that onsite at PPC 24-7 overseeing several aspects of the property, including, but not limited to certifying revenue, auditing slot machines, observer security staffing, reviewing alcohol service and storage and monitoring the premises for underage individuals. All of our observations, whether compliant or non-compliant, are then reported in our iTrack document system. All non-compliant incidents are vetted and reviewed by me as the senior supervisor of the property. Minor instances of non-compliance are brought to the attention of the appropriate department head, whether it be security, surveillance slots, et cetera. While the more serious issues are discussed directly with PPC's compliance manager, Lisa McKenney, these discussions take place through scheduled bi-weekly compliance meetings or sometimes just through regular catch-ups. The more serious offenses may also warrant a non-compliance form that Loretta mentioned or an NCF. These NCFs, which the IEB began issuing at the start of 2018, are a way of officially and formally documenting our non-compliant observations with the licensee. At PPC, these NCFs are sent directly to Lisa McKenney for review with the request of a signature acknowledging the non-compliant issues. Through our discussions, PPC has responded professionally, promptly, and appropriately through internal control submission updates, increased staff training, as well as progressive discipline measures with their employees as needed. Through their immediate response, all issues are rectified in a timely and efficient manner. Additionally, serious and or repeated items of non-compliance may be elevated and sent to IEB assistant director for span for further review with Loretta Williams. Again, as Loretta mentioned in the summary suitability, the section on compliance history briefly describes the two civil administrative penalties as a result of these repeated infractions. With regards to alcohol service, the IEB observed zero compliance issues with alcohol service since the actions taken by PPC in 2016. Likewise, with regards to security, since 2017, PPC has remained in compliance with no major security issues. Their current security director, Greg DiMarco, has kept compliance with all aspects of security staffing and overall compliance with the security plan. Also on your letter is the reference to individuals that had been identified as underage on PPC's gaming floor. In the five years of operation, there had been a total of 43 instances where an underage has gained access to the gaming floor. From that, however, only nine cases was an underage observed gaming at a slot machine, which if you break it down, comes out to about one or two underage gaming per year. Each separate underage incident is then discussed with compliance and security together. PPC has done a formidable job of sharing compliance with underages on the property. They have also placed additional signage throughout the premises to deter underage individuals from entering the gaming floor. Furthermore, with regards to slot machines and the slot department, one item I'll speak on briefly is the jackpot switches, which the IEB observed early last year, 2019. A jackpot switch, as you may remember, transpires when a patron who activated his slot jackpot win would literally hand it off to a nearby patron or friend to claim the jackpot. This could occur for several reasons, such as a patron attempting to avoid taxes or if they might be excluded from the property. After discussions with compliance, surveillance, and the slot department, it was agreed that PPC would review all taxable jackpots to ensure the correct patron was paid. After the IEB presentation to the commission late last year, and as a result of this new policy, zero jackpot switches have been confirmed at PPC. Lastly, the IEB have observed no major issues of compliance with regards to PPC's floor plan, their surveillance department, or credit issuance and suspension procedures. And quickly, just to close here, PPC being the first casino to open in the state of Massachusetts, there may have been some regulatory bumps in the road. However, over the last 18 to 24 months, it has been nothing short of a smooth process with limited non-compliant incidents. We as the IEB have a very strong and professional working relationship with PPC and their entire team as a whole. That concludes my prepared comments. I'd be happy to answer any questions from the commissioners or we can hand it over to Loretta. Questions. If I may, Madam Chair. Again, not really a question, but I just think this compliance record is exemplary. And I think Penn National, as we live through, you know, there was some skepticism about gaming coming to Massachusetts. And I think this, from the beginning, Penn National took this responsibility seriously being the first casino and the compliance record in particular with underage. That was a particular concern to residents here. I'm always impressed every time we have a quarterly report that Penn National does such a good job at keeping those individuals off the gaming floor and whether it be underage drinking or gambling, those numbers are really, really strong. So I just, again, commend both teams, our team for being diligent in their responsibilities, but working collaboratively to really make this an effort to really make sure that compliance is done in a way that is fair and everyone knows what the ground rules are. And it's so clear to me that Penn National takes their responsibility here very seriously. So I just, you know, when I look at those numbers every quarterly report, I'm always impressed. So thank you. And thanks to our team as well. Madam Chair, just to jump in and talk about Andrew's comments about switching, which is we, the commission had a meeting on that not too long ago, but just to express my thanks to not only Andrew and his team, but the folks at PPC. This is somewhat of a switch in terms of responsibility and it involves PPC surveillance department and other resources at PPC to make sure that people aren't switching. As Andrew pointed out, we don't want a VSC in the building who really shouldn't be there for their own good. We certainly don't want anybody who's trying to get around any other obligations that they might have to the commonwealth to avoid that. So I appreciate Andrew's team working on this and I know we're focusing on it at the other properties, but also to thank PPC and their security and surveillance staff for taking those extra steps to make sure that switching is being avoided or at least being caught when a slot machine pays to stop. And the comments or questions to? I just want to reiterate what Commissioner Cameron said about particularly the compliance with miners on the floor and the drinking on the floor. It's a number I've repeated the S licensees about and as she said, it's impressive what the low numbers are. I'm curious, Andrew, in the red, I don't want to put you on the spot if you don't have an answer, but when you're saying underage drinking or underage on the floor, I'm assuming it could mean less than 18 or is it exclusively 18 to 21? And if there is a difference there, do you know what the breakdown is in terms of how many of those, you know, 40-something episodes where somebody under the age of 18, if any? So the 43 instances include all individuals under the age of 21. So that might include toddlers on the floor as well. They're brought on by a parent. I don't have a breakdown of the 18 to 21, but we can get that up to you. Do you have a sense of it's mostly 18 to 21 as opposed to under 18? I'm not entirely sure. Again, I can look at those numbers. Okay. And I suspect it's Commissioner O'Brien's point is that it's more between 18 and 21. It's because perhaps folks weren't. I need somehow because they look older, but if we have folks who are much more youthful, that would be a bigger concern. Well, on the proximity to Rhode Island, we're at 18. So I'm just trying to see, you know, the number may be even more impressive than just 43 out of the last so many years. Right. And if I can check in my recollection, although I don't have the data in front of me, but when we issued the notice, my recollection was when we went through, you know, incident by incident, it was that right under 21, the 18 to 21 range. That's what I think too, yeah. We can follow up with that, Commissioner O'Brien. That's an excellent point. And I think that what folks have heard today is that minors on the gaming floor is something that we very carefully monitor. All three licenses are very aware of that and are committed to ensuring that that doesn't happen and give very precise records on a quarterly basis. So we thank you for the compliance on that front. And as a Commissioner Cameron overall, it's just a very, very positive report. And what you've also heard is that we do monitor the compliance very closely. So the fact that it is exemplary, it's really a feather in your cap because we are watching, we are monitoring, we do it fairly, we have a great team that does it fairly and we have the full cooperation of all of PPC. So thank you. Commissioner Zunica, we haven't heard from you. Are you all set? Yes, thank you all set. Just to reiterate the points made first by Commissioner Cameron, I think their compliance record is exemplary. It's important to put into context the low numbers with the thousands and thousands of people that go through the casino on a daily basis. And I think you know, it's centered around the cooperation of both the team and the property, the IEB as well as the people at Penn. So thank you. Excellent, Loretta. So Madam Chair and commissioners, our statute and regulations do call for the IEB to make a recommendation on suitability. So I'm prepared to do that. I do also want to acknowledge that Mr. Snowden and Lance George have some comments that they would like to address the commission about. I can make the recommendation before or after. I'm sure that some of the comments from Mr. Snowden and Mr. George will be reflective on the past five years but also forward-looking. I do want to remind that the meeting today, the vote today, the notice today is a suitability determination. I'm sure that there will be more formal presentations as part of the overall renewal to look at some of the future planning pieces. But Madam Chair, I'd ask you now, would you like to hear the IEB's recommendation now or move forward with the comments from Ken and PPC? I think we should do the business and then allow for some forward-thinking from Mr. Snowden. So do we have, I know that you're making a recommendation and then we'll have a motion made, I think on each individual. Great, thank you. So taking into consideration the entirety of the investigation and PPC's compliance history over the initial five-year term of the category two license, the IEB recommends that the commission issue positive determinations of suitability to PPC and the qualifiers that comprise this application and find PPC suitable under the criteria listed in the Gaming Law and Regulations. Do I have a motion that would reflect that recommendation? Madam Chair, I move that the commission issue a positive determination of suitability to the category two licensee, Plainville Gaming and Redevelopment LLC doing business as Plain Ridge Park Casino, aka PPC, as well as the following qualifiers, Jay Snowden, Chief Executive Officer and Director, David Handler, Chairman of the Board, Todd George, Executive VP of Operations, Chris Rogers, Senior VP and Chief Strategy Officer, Aaron Chamberlain, VP of Regional Operations, James Skiccetti, Director, Ron Naples, Director, John Jackleman, Director, Barbara Shattuck, Cohn, Director, even Snyder, Senior VP, Chief Financial Officer for GLPI, Sol Reibstein, Director GLPI, E. Scott Erdang, Outside Director of GLPI, Joseph Marshall III, Outside Director of GLPI, Earl Shanks, Outside Director of GLPI, James Perry, Outside Director of GLPI, and Carol Linton, Outside Director of GLPI, as well as the entity qualifier for category two licensee and National Gaming Inc, aka PNGI. Second. I want to make sure that all of you with the out-hearing from Mr. Snowden and Mr. George at this time, because of it in any way would help you on this vote, you certainly can have them interject now. We're all good. Thank you. We'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. Mr. Stevens. Aye. I vote yes, five, zero. Thank you. Loretta. So at this time, I understand that Mr. Snowden would like to continue to make some remarks, so I would turn it over to Mr. Snowden, President, CEO, and Director of Pan-National Gaming Inc. Thank you. Loretta, good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. It's a real honor to be with you today. It's historic. It's the first five-year license renewal hearing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And it really is, it's hard to believe, I remember cutting the ribbon with many of you like it was yesterday. And given we're all going through this year in some ways that feels like a lifetime ago, all in one. So, but it's great to be here with you. You know, we've been working together with you and the staff in Massachusetts for the better part of seven years because of the license bidding process that was so thorough in Massachusetts. And I feel like we really have been able to get to know you well and you've gotten the chance to get to know us really well. And we're very proud to have been the first casino to open its doors in Massachusetts. And we recognize that that came with a lot of responsibility to establish a solid footing for the gaming industry in the Commonwealth. We pledged at the time to many of you who were there that we would endeavor to make you proud of us. I remember personally having this conversation with Commissioner Cameron, Commissioner Stebbins, Commissioner Zuniga and others in the commission and staff at that time. And that we wanted to make you proud from a reputational and an operational standpoint. And there's been growing pains. I think many of those were covered. There's no five-year track record that's perfect. And it will never be, but we endeavor to work with you very closely. And I really hope that you agree that we've lived up to our commitment to helping to ensure the integrity of the gaming and racing industries in Massachusetts. And from our perspective, the first five years at Plain Ridge Park have been an unqualified success for our company, for the town of Plainville and the surrounding communities. There were many concerns you'll recall and many great concerns and of course, well-founded. But I feel like we've really proven to those surrounding communities that had the concerns as well as the Commonwealth as a whole that we would be a great operator and that gaming would be a great industry for the state of Massachusetts. Since our opening, we've contributed over 13 and a half million dollars in host community and impact fee payments and nearly 372 million in gaming taxes to the Commonwealth and fees to the horse members. As the nation's largest paramutual racing operator, as I mentioned earlier, we have a deep history in horse racing and we're honored to be able to operate Massachusetts only live horse racing venue. And when we first met with the commission to explain why Penn National Gaming was the best possible partner for the Commonwealth, we talked quite a bit about our plans to help preserve standard bread racing here and the family farms, the industry supports. Today, racing at Plain Ridge Park is thriving, as I mentioned earlier. The horse breeding program in Massachusetts is up 110%. An average daily purse, as I mentioned earlier, have increased almost 100%, 96 to be exact. And Lance tells me in conversation that this past Sunday was not only a track record set at Plain Ridge Park, but a world record for Trotters was established in the spirit of Mass Trot, which is great. We look forward to continuing to build upon the track success, of course, in the years ahead. While the last several months have presented unprecedented challenges, we talked about earlier for our company in dealing with the ongoing pandemic and the subsequent closures of our entire portfolio of properties. Today, I'm extremely proud as I sit here of the way that our corporate and our property teams have come together, along with our valued team members and have really risen to the occasion, working tirelessly every day, especially over, you know, since mid-March when all of this really began. And working alongside all of you on the regulatory side and our state health officials, we've managed to reopen all but three of our casino properties, as I mentioned earlier. And we can't thank you enough for all of your efforts to help us resume operations at Plain Ridge in a way that puts the health and safety of our team members and guests first. The comprehensive health and sanitation protocols that we've implemented have been holding up well so far. And we're continuing to strictly adhere, and we'll continue to strictly adhere to our testing and contact tracing procedures in partnership with you. On the financial front, we've managed as a company to significantly improve our financial position as a result of our continued COVID mitigation efforts, as well as our successful capital raise that was covered earlier of $675 million in early May, and the strong results so far at our reopened properties. All of this has rendered us a strong balance sheet, and we're well positioned for continued growth through our unique omni-channel strategy, which I started to mention earlier, which is powered also because of the sports betting opportunity. We plan to launch our sports betting app, which we're very excited about sometime later in the third quarter. We're looking at an early September launch in the state of Pennsylvania. And then subsequent to that launch, we will be making that product available in a number of other states, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, Colorado, and others. And of course, we look forward to being able to do that in Massachusetts, hopefully soon. We'll see how the legislative process plays out in the coming weeks and months. So we're really excited about that. Plain Ridge Park is a really important part of that strategy, as I mentioned earlier, because we need to continue to grow our database, and this is a key growth market for us, because it's still so relatively new. Some of our markets we've been operating in now for decades, and the opportunity to grow the database is more challenging because most people have visited a casino, and it's still so new in Massachusetts. Five years is not a long time, and we've seen tremendous data growth throughout those five years, and we think there's still a tremendous amount of potential to continue to grow our database, particularly as new products like sports betting become legalized, which hopefully happens relatively soon. We've always said, and I know you know us well, we've always said that our team members are the lifeblood of our company. While some of our team members have remained furloughed given the ongoing occupancy restrictions and limited amenity offerings at the properties currently, and I mentioned this earlier, I'm just pleased that we were able to extend our medical and pharmacy benefits to all of our impacted team members through the end of August. In addition, our COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund, which we established back in March, we were able to raise $1.7 million within the company, and we've already provided much needed financial assistance to approximately 1,000 of our team members across the country, and there's dollars there that are available to help those in need, and there's many of those. You can imagine the heart-wrenching stories that we review, and wish that we could, we wish that amount of money was limitless, but we're continuing to spread that around, and we're willing to help over 1,000 people. It feels good. But with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Lance George, who you all know very well. He's been talking in more detail about our successful track record over the last five years, as well as our ongoing COVID-19 mitigation efforts, specifically at Plain Ridge Park Casino, and then, of course, we'll open it up to questions. Happy to answer any questions anyone may have after Lance. So Lance, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Jed. Good morning, everyone. Certainly been my pleasure to work with members of the Gaming Commission for over the last six years, I guess, representing both Plain Ridge. It's safe to say, as Jay mentioned, that we are proud of these last five years, and certainly very much looking forward to the next five. To that end, and the current plan, I believe, and as you are aware in September, Plain Ridge will provide a more detailed presentation reflecting on some of the operational highlights during our first five-year term, and we'll offer a few thoughts on the next five years. Jay touched on a couple of those topics already. The continuation of racing, the potential for sports betting, as well as operating in a COVID environment, and hopefully a post-COVID environment. And so as we wrap our comments, and as Loretta pointed out earlier, we do have several folks from Penn National on the call today. We are certainly more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. And so with that, I believe I'll turn it back over to you, Madam Chair, and invite any questions any of the commissioners have for us. Thank you, Jay and Lance. Commissioner Zuniga, are you leaning in? Oh, you're muted. There you go. I was not leaning in. Just to thank everybody for your presentations and look forward to the September presentation. I'm sorry, it was just that your tile was lit up. So there you go, Commissioner, thank you. Other questions or comments for Jay or Lance? Madam Chair, I'd just like to offer a comment. And first of all, to thank Mr. Snowden, Mr. George for their thoughts and their comments. Just to think back a few years ago, we probably put you guys in the toughest position because we located you as close to the competition in neighboring states as we possibly could have in realizing that because of the gaming bill, you didn't have necessarily all the tools and amenities that the competition had. But today, I would say the results are really impressive. Thank you for your commitment to Massachusetts. It's certainly your commitment to the town of Plainville. And we look forward to talking again with you at the public hearing when it's scheduled. Other questions or comments? I echo that I am looking forward to the full report as we go forward in this process and your continued contributions. I think it should be noted that's not lost on anyone, how you have impacted Plain Ridge. Just a visit to their public safety building indicates what a great neighbor you have been and how much benefit the impact of your enterprise has been for that community and surrounding communities. And of course, the hundreds of millions of dollars that you have provided to the Commonwealth is noted here and continues to be noted. But you've also done it. And as we've heard so far today, the cooperation in compliance with the expectations of this regulatory body. So we thank you and look forward to the continuing process. I think I'm not sure today if we'll hear, I think we're gonna come in the next few commission meetings a little bit of a timeline with respect to the next steps on the relicensing process, so stay tuned. And until then, I know, President Snowden, you are on vacation. So we appreciate the fact that you got very early today to time from your family to make this meeting, particularly meaningful. So thank you very much. And Lance, I don't think you are on vacation. But we appreciate your, of course, in the entire... Every day in the office is vacation. That's right. And duly noted, and also the several members of PPC and the Penn National team that visited us with us today and been part of this meeting. So we thank you and thank you for the continued cooperation. And best wishes to you and to all of your team at PPC that they remain safe and sound. We appreciate their work and their contribution. Thanks for the kind words, Madam Chair. And I did just wanna publicly say that, it's been terrific working with all of you. We'll continue to be terrific working with all of you. Not every state's the same from a regulatory relationship standpoint for a variety of reasons. Across 19 states, different approaches, different tenure. It's great working with all of you has been. And we're here if you have ideas or feedback on how we could do a better job from a compliance standpoint, how we can further the relationship and continue to make you proud for having awarded us a license five years ago and allowed us to open and operate the property. And my hats off, of course, to Lance who's been there since day one. And it wasn't perfect. Early on we were trying to figure out where these revenue levels were gonna sustain and volumes. And so there's so many things you work through and Lance has just been such a steady force there for his team, our team at Plain Ridge. And I think has done a great job building a tremendous reputation relationship with all of you. And he's one of our best. So really appreciate Lance and the role he's played. And he won't be there forever because we have plans for Lance that are gonna require him to take on additional responsibility. And we'll talk to you about that at some point when appropriate, but my hats off to Lance and the entire team. Well, that gives us pause. Save that comment for after the. Thank you so much and not shocking. Thank you. Loretta, are we all set with respect to your piece? We are, and we are chair. We are good. It's complete. Thank you all very much. Thank you to chair and commissioners and thanks to the PPC and Penn teams. Thank you. Thank you. We'll look forward to the continuing process. Thank you to the entire team, Monica, Andrew, Super Roger. It's so nice to see your faces. Please stay on. We're moving on now to item number five, research and responsible gaming, our director research and responsible gaming, Mark Vandal Linden. We have a nice report. It is 1143. I should just check in with my fellow commissioners. Are you good to continue honor? Does anybody need a short break? Hearing none. We are gonna continue. Oh, good. Okay. We're gonna continue. There you are, Mark. Good morning, madam chair and commissioners. Good morning. I am joined today virtually, obviously, by our co-principal investigators for the magic study, the Massachusetts gaming impact study. Dr. Rob Williams, who is faculty of health sciences at the University of Lethbridge in Lethbridge, Alberta, as well as if you're very familiar with Dr. Rachel Bolberg. She is professor at the UMass Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences. As usual, Dr. Bolberg and Williams prepared a pretty comprehensive and thorough presentation for you. But also as usual, I wanna highlight and drive home just a few. At the heart of what we're doing with this particular study is trying to understand gambling behavior. Specifically, we want to better understand the gambling behavior of Massachusetts-developed residents in order for us to more effectively prevent gambling problems and where gambling problems are present or prevalent. How do we effectively treat, provide treatment for those individuals? There's a lot of questions that we need to answer in order to effectively do that. So what are the predictors of problem gambling? How and why does problem gambling develop? Once an individual has developed a gambling problem, what is the course of the disorder? What does it look like? How does it manifest? And finally, how do people recover from a gambling problem? What are the characteristics of somebody who effectively is able to remit or recover from gambling, a gambling problem? And what are the characteristics of an individual who continues to ongoing, chronically struggle with gambling problems? These are the types of questions specifically that cohort studies are intended to answer. The legislator had the foresight to require the Gaming Commission to implement and oversee an ongoing research agenda. And included in this research agenda specifically was a study of the etiology or causes of problem gambling. So with this directive in 2013, the Mass Gaming Commission selected UMass to launch this cohort study. So this is a study that has been going on effectively since 2013. And we've done four waves of this study, examining gambling behavior of the same group of people over that course of time. So Dr. Williams will lead this presentation and he will describe to you what has changed among these individuals over the course of time. Obviously a lot has changed in the nature of gambling and gambling availability since 2013. So it adds an extra layer of interest for their study. And again, let's bring it back to we want to understand gambling behavior. So we can work with our partners to develop effective treatment so that we as a gaming commission can develop effective prevention activities specifically through the form of game sense. The study is instrumental in doing that. So with that, I will turn it over to Dr. Williams and Dr. Goldberg. So I'm going to be presenting the slides. Rob, do you wanna do a little introduction before I share my screen? Sure, we'll do. So thanks for the introduction Mark and good morning commissioners. Yeah, today is a fairly short presentation. I'm thinking more than 10, 15 minutes and it's really a snapshot of the first four waves of the magic study. That in the final wave of magic, wave five has been completed and we are in the midst of fairly comprehensive analysis of all five waves of the much more substantive report and in the future you'll have a much more comprehensive presentation about what we've learned in this study. Again, a good part of the purpose of this study was to identify predictors of problem gambling in Massachusetts and then operationalize those predictors into some public health policy. What we're gonna talk about today is really a snapshot of two things. First is the transitions of four different categories of gamblers over the waves. Like is problem gambling a stable entity or an unstable entity when you have remission? Is there a high rate of relapse? And the other thing is that this is the Massachusetts gambling impact cohorts study. So it also provides a bit of a canary and coal mine in terms of whether there's changes in gambling participation and problem gambling as it relates to the introduction of casinos to Massachusetts. So that's what this is about. And so Rachel, if you could start that slide back. Okay, all right, let's move on to the next slide here. So a little bit more information about magic. This is the first major cohort study of gambling in the United States. There have been a handful of other large scale studies in Canada, Sweden, Australia. Actually, Dr. Volberg and myself have involved most of those. So you might ask, well, what's the utility in doing one in the United States? Well, the time periods are different. All of the previous large scale studies were done about 10 years ago and things have changed in terms of gambling availability, et cetera. But the demography of Massachusetts is different from all these other countries. Not only is the demography different but the profile of prevention efforts are unique to each jurisdiction. The availability of casino gambling is different in Massachusetts. This is the only jurisdiction that the cohort study where there wasn't casino gambling available. It's also the only cohort study where a major form of gambling was introduced in the midst of the cohort study. So it provides a better view on the impact of introducing casino gambling. So there are a lot of unique learnings of this particular study which is... And so the findings will be no doubt somewhat similar to the previous cohorts studies but we have no doubt it's gonna be some unique findings for Massachusetts. Next slide. Four major research goals with the two that are being dressed today in the box. First is to monitor changes in prevalence of gambling and problem gambling. Over time that might identify impacts of Massachusetts casino introduction. The second is the term of the stability and course of the three types of gamblers, recreational gamblers, risk gamblers, problem gamblers. The third and arguably the most important is to use this information about the predictors of problem gambling onset, continuation, remission and relapse for the purposes of developing an overarching ideological model of problem gambling that can be then used for research goal number four, which to operationalize those above findings to optimize treatment and prevention problem gambling master's. We will find no doubts there's a combination of endogenous unmodifiable predictors, maybe gender, ethnicity, et cetera. So the focus is really on the modifiable ones and how to change the course of those modifiable ones so as to decrease the future onset and incidents of problem gambling. Next slide. This is the details of the four waves to date. As most people will know, wave one was actually the baseline general population survey. When we got awarded a contract to do a prevalence, sorry, a cohort study, we realized that we had a good basis for recruiting people from the general population survey. So we identified people from the general population survey with a sample enriched for people at risk becoming problem gamblers and people who are already problem gamblers. So the bullet point there in the case that wave one was over selected for at-risk characteristics, all problem gamblers, all at-risk gamblers, people who gambled on a weekly basis, people who spent more than $1,200 in the past year on gambling and having military service. All of those are known risk factors and so we wanted an enriched risk set of risk factors because it gives you more granularity in understanding the variables that cause some people to move in, some people to remit, some people not to move in. So the baseline general population survey had a 36.6% response rate. We identified people from that baseline survey who we wanted to recruit into the cohort. The cohort was formally established in wave two and we had a surprisingly high response rate, 65.1% of the people we identified that we'd like to recruit. Again, everyone on the baseline general population survey had no awareness that we might recruit them at a later point to a cohort study. So we're quite pleased to see that two thirds people did agree to be in a multi-year cohort study. And then wave three and wave four, we have retention rates of the original 65% of people that were recruited. And so 81.1% retention by wave four is pretty good as cohort studies go. When you lose people from a cohort study, you potentially, the generalizability of your findings is potentially weakened. So when you have a very high retention rate with as we do, you have confidence in the findings. Now, I also put the openings of the two casinos in there. It's a reminder when we look at the next few slides that really the only venue that was open in the first four ways was PPC in 2015. Next slide. So again, the first set of findings concerns the changes in prevalence of gambling and problem gambling was in the cohort that might identify impacts of master's casino introduction. Next slide. And what this is, it's a complicated slide, but what it does is it plots the prevalence of gambling participation for each major type of gambling across the four waves. So the top line is actually traditional lottery. And if you look at the legend there, it identifies what type of gambling is denoted by which line. Now, because the large sample sizes, most of these changes, even the minor ones are statistically significant, but a couple of general observations. One is that while there may be some changes, remember that PPC was opened after wave two and prior wave three, that they're not dramatic changes in the panoramic gambling behavior as a result of the single venue opening. That said, there are a couple of notable changes that probably one of which is almost certainly attributable to the introduction of PPC. So the red line with the numbers on is the most important one. And that is the extent of the cohort that patronized out of state casinos. And you see prior to any casinos in Massachusetts, you had 32% of people stable from wave one to wave two. And then PPC opened, and there was a fairly dramatic decrease to 21% in wave three and 19% in wave four. Now, there may be other explanations for this, but it's one of the most dramatic changes that we see in this. And with the introduction of PPC, it's plausibly, we think, almost certainly related to the creation of domestic casino opportunities. I mean, that's good news. I mean, a good part of the purpose of introducing casinos was repatriation of casino money that was going out of state. And the magic cohort provides evidence that that is happening in a significant way. Now, there are other changes there. I wanna focus on the second bullet point, which is wave three increases in traditional lottery. So you notice that there's a change from about 70% to 75% wave two to wave three in traditional lottery. Now, I know there's been a concern in Massachusetts about the impact of additional type of gambling casino on lottery products. And one thing you can say for sure to date with the magic findings is that there's been no cannibalization or decrease or negative impact really as a result of the casinos to date in wave four. We have analyzed wave five, which will include MGM and the impact on core. But to date, we see no evidence of that. In fact, in wave three, there was a significant increase in patronization of traditional casino products. Now, when we drilled out into the data and looked at revenues and looked at revenues for particular types of lottery products, it seemed that this is actually has nothing to do with PPC is more likely to do to a fairly massive Powerball jackpot in 2016, which always creates a lot of hoop-claw and more people who would normally buy a lottery ticket, do buy lottery tickets. And so that's probably what the 2016 increase is. And again, it's not dramatic in any case. The other anomaly there is the purple line and that is daily lottery. And we think that's totally artifactual. One of the complications we've had in doing this cohort study is that the wave one and wave two were not intended to be cohort questionnaires. Wave one, again, was the baseline general population survey and we're trying to ascertain the social and economic impacts of gambling in Massachusetts. And so it didn't have a comprehensive set of questions and variables pertaining to the etiology of problem gambling. And so we expanded the questionnaire in wave three and kept it stable from wave three on. But some of those minor change in question wordings did produce some changes. And we think this was simply due to adding a couple of additional instances of what constituted a daily lottery and that more people recognize those and that more people then endorse that. Plus the fact that when you have an increase in power ball participation, it tends to have a beneficial impact on other types of lottery related products and that's instant tickets and raffles. So anyways, that's probably the story with lottery products and raffles. But there were significant but minor changes in bingo online gambling. Now online gambling has been increasing around the world generally, but a much more comprehensive way of ascertaining whether people are participating in online gambling was also contributed back to the increase in wave three. But anyways, the takeaway from this is that it definitely looks to be recapture of casino revenue as a function of the introduction of PPC in 2015. Next slide. Equally important is the impact on problem gambling. People can be categorized in four groups, non gamblers, recreational gamblers at risk gamblers and problem gamblers. And we use the instrument that uses those categorizations. What you see here is the percentage of people in the cohort in each of those categories across all four waves. As you see, if you have a overwhelming membership of the cohort is recreational gamblers. And for the most part, that doesn't change much. You did see a bit of an uptake in wave three. And again, that's probably almost certainly due to more non gamblers buying the powerball ticket and the changes in question wordings for the daily games which cause greater overall endorsement. And so again, the change in recreational gambling is really not meaningful. And the extent it actually has changed, it has more do with powerball jackpot and questions of wording. So when you have an increase in recreational gambling, you'll have a decrease in non gambling, which is the black line. The yellow line is at risk gambling. At risk gambling sort of counterintuitively in wave four is significantly lower than wave one, 10.8% versus 12.8%. Again, not a meaningful difference, but it's always a good thing. At risk gambling is really sort of subclinical gambling. These are people who have signs of problematic gambling, but not to the extent we categorize them as a problem gambler or having an addiction. Now the most important line here is the red line, which is the percentage of the cohort that are problem gamblers. Now remember, the cohort does not speak to population prevalence. We have an enriched sample, and so 3.8% of the cohort were problem gamblers in wave four, but that is not as much higher than the population prevalence of problem gambling at that time. Most important thing is there seems to be, and there is a statistically significant increase in wave four problem gambling, 3.8% from those earlier waves. Again, the magnitude is very small, but again, it's plausibly related to casino introduction in wave two, and imminent casino introduction at the end of wave four. An important thing to recognize about problem gambling is that the problem gambling is simply not due to the increase in availability that as we'll see in subsequent slides that problem gambling is actually very unstable entity and that people move in and out quite quickly, but that relapse is also quite high and relapse occurs with just reminders of gambling. And so although the hoop law associated with the imminent opening of MGM plausibly might have also added to that uptick in wave four, that we did see increased chronicity from wave three to wave four. Fewer people remitting from wave three to wave four as normally would. And so anyways, that is a bit of concern. Wave five will be the more important figure. Next slide, please. So the second major topic is the individual stability of four categories of people across all four waves. Next slide. Now this looks a bit confusing, so let me describe it. What we have here is 309 rows with each row representing an individual and this denotes the 309 people who are non gamblers in wave one. By non gambling, it means in the past year they reported no lottery products, no raffle tickets, no gambling of any sort. And wave two, wave three, wave four, each of those columns shows their status. Green being recreational gambling, yellow being at risk gambling and red, which is almost imperceptible there being problem gambling. So what you see is that the bulk of people who are non gamblers, I eat in the white category, wave one, or also non gamblers in wave two. And the bulk of non gamblers wave two or non gamblers in wave three. That said, there's a pretty significant movement. The majority of people who are non gamblers in wave one did become recreational gamblers at some point, which is fairly commonsensical because all it takes is to buy, I mean, most people who espouse to be non gamblers that still over, of course, a few years, you'll buy a 50-50 raffle ticket or maybe someone will buy you or you will buy a lottery ticket for someone else. Doesn't take much to move you into the recreational gambling category. So that's basically what happens with non gamblers. But a good portion of those move back to non gambling. Very, very few of these people move into at risk gambling and even fewer to problem gambling. So it's a fairly stable category and the transitions that occur is really to recreational gambling, mixed labels. Recreational gambling, this constitutes by far and away the largest portion of cohort. Now each line here actually represents 50 individuals. And the total graphic is to convey a couple of points. One is that this is by far and away not only the largest category, recreational gambling. Again, people tend to focus, especially researchers on negative aspects of gambling, problem gambling, but you have to remind yourselves that the huge majority of people who engage in gambling do it responsibly. And that's what we characterize as recreational gambling. They are not only the majority, but that relatively few of these people transition to at risk or problem gambling, the large majority of recreational gamblers continue to be recreational gamblers at each wave, a small portion transition into non gambling. And 19.4% did transition into at risk gambling at some point and then even smaller percentage 2.3% became problem gamblers. So it's very, the risk of problem gambling if you're recreational gambling is only 2.3% over four years. So it's very, very low. So this is a very stable category. Moving to the next slide, please. At risk gambling, by contrast, so we're back to each line representing individual with the 280 individuals who were at risk gamblers at wave one their trajectory over the four waves being plotted. So in contrast, recreational gambling at risk gambling is the most unstable. So the minority of people who had problematic levels but non clinical levels of gambling behavior in wave one were still having subclinical levels of gambling behavior in wave two. Most of those people actually transition to recreational gambling. And so that's generally what you see there, a good portion of people in the at risk category moved to recreational gambling. And even though we call it at risk gambling, we certainly see that the red shows again that 16.4% of people in wave one became problem gamblers at some point back in some point in the subsequent three waves. So you're still at much higher risk than if you're a recreational gambler, let alone a non gambler. But the huge majority of these people actually transition back to recreational gambler. And what this indicates is that when most people start having trouble with a behavior, whether it's substances or any excess of any sort of behavior, once you get your fingers burnt, you remit and you change your behavior. You rethink what you're doing and you change. It's only the minority who persevere, persist and to get into trouble. So that's a good thing and that's something to remind us that again the large majority of people who have initial troubles actually sort them out on their own. Next slide please. The final and probably the most important slide here is the stability of problem gambling. So this is a little more complicated slide in that in addition to showing the trajectory of everyone at wave one who was a problem gambler in the subsequent three waves, I've plotted the trajectory of anyone who was a problem gambler in any of the waves. So it's a little more complicated. But the first overriding thing that you'll see from this is that this is a remarkably unstable entity. It's more stable than risk gambling but still fairly unstable that the mortal duration of problem gambling is only one year. And that's counterintuitive to a lot of people who have a sense that addictions that probably include gambling addiction are more chronic than they actually are chronic. And we think problem gambling is different in some respects. Now, couple of points here. One is that the mortal duration is actually only one year. So that seems more unstable than other sorts of addictions. But you'll see that the people who did remit in the subsequent wave three and wave four was fairly high rates of relapse. So 25% of the people who had recovered by wave two had relapsed by wave three or wave four longer term relapse is unknown, but it's gonna be much higher. We'll have a better picture of the relapse rate after we look at wave five. And so problem gambling is still chronic in the sense that it's a truism of all addictions. Once you develop addiction, whether it's cigarette smoking or alcohol, you're always at much higher risk for continuation and relapse. And that's also the case for gambling addiction. That said, the remission rate may be higher than other addictions in that if you are a substance abuser, let's say you have a problem with alcohol, you can sustain that for multiple years because at least from a financial perspective because it doesn't have the same impact on you as if you're a problem gambler. Problem gambler is a good portion of those are gonna run into financial difficulties and that might force them to remit. So we think the remission rate is actually higher, but the ultimate relapse rate may not be any different from other addictions, but so that's the picture we're finding here, but that's good news from a prevention perspective because it means that there's lots of people remitting on their own. I mean, we don't have this sort of detail in here. We'll contain it in the final report and our final presentation to a greater extent, but only in order to these people remitted because they access treatment. Most of these people did it on their own and so one of the important findings here is that most people can do it on their own and we need to have things that will facilitate this self-help type of strategy, but we'll also be able to look at the role of treatment in maybe accentuating that remission rate and continuation of remission over a long period of time, but that's not part of this. At this point, all we really wanna show is the remarkable instability of problem gambling, but the high relapse rate and I think that's it. Rachel, wanna move to the final slide. Yeah, so that's all I have and both Rachel and I are keen to take any questions you might have. If we could perhaps have the slide disappear so that we can see faces, it's easier for me to navigate there. Thank you, Rachel. Questions for Dr. Williams and for Dr. Valver. Are you okay, Commissioner Cameron? Okay, sure. Thank you, thank you. I was interested in the, well, first of all, I think overall, this is pretty good news. It would seem to me in particular that people are able to recognize the issue and move back to a recreational level. You did speak about this, Dr. Williams moving back so they get burned and then they change their behavior. So that seemed interesting to me and do you know if that is similar in other jurisdictions or nobody has this kind of research? This particular finding about the instability of problem gambling and the fact that most people who are at risk gamblers go back to recreational gambling is very similar to what has been found in Canada, Australia and Sweden. So it's a consistent find, which is good. So it says that Massachusetts is very similar to other jurisdictions around the world. So that's a universal finding. Thank you. Other questions? If I may just... I just want to make sure, Commissioner Zunagai, are you on? I just want to make sure you have, if you are muted, now you're not. Oh, thank you. Thank you. I realized I was muted. So I did have a question for Rob. If we can go to anyone, perhaps one of the slides where you're looking at the problem gambling, I guess it's the last slide before the questions. What I'm most intrigued by are the number of people who go from recreational gambler all the way to problem gambling and then go back to recreational gambling. In other words, they seem to hop over a category that is in between. Are there any characteristics that you are entertaining from those kinds of people? Yeah, that's an interesting observation. We've noticed that as well. And so the sort of lore around addictions is it's a gradual sort of thing, but there are actually several trajectories. There's some people who very rapidly move into it and other people it takes years. And so we haven't analyzed that in detail yet. That's for a final report, but we know those differences exist and there tend to be in other research, demographic differences that suggest that. And so one of the things that have been found in other searches is that female problem gamblers tend to have more rapid trajectory than males, which tends to be more gradual. But I'm sure there's other characteristics and but we'll be able to identify those different trajectories in the final report. Yeah, I look forward to that. I remember from a prior report that you started to identify the protective factors and the risk factors between some of these categories. And I think that's what ultimately provides a lot of great information to people like cause and others that DPH, for example, to develop prevention and messages and other kinds of services. Yeah, to my mind, there's three really important things from that slide in the study. One is what are the variables that predict onset in the first place? And are there demographic differences in what those variables are? The second is what differentiates chronicity? Like there's still like a quarter of people who are chronic problem gamblers weren't able to remit across those waves versus remission and to what extent does formal treatments play a role in that? We already know that minority of people are accessing formal treatments. So we know that people using their own resources is a very powerful weapon. And especially us, I'm a clinical psychologist by training, but we don't give enough credit to people's own resources in changing their behavior. And we need to provide them with more tools to accentuate that. So determining what it is, what variables differentiated people who continued versus remitted. I know in the other longitudinal research we've done in other countries, it's the presence of comorbidities. So people with mental health problems, major depression in particular, were more likely to be chronic in the next wave versus remit. And so one of the implications of that from a treatment perspective is that if you deal with the mental health comorbidities, that's gonna have a prophylactic effect on problem gambling, even though that might not be the focus of your intervention. Yeah, so there's lots of really important and interesting policy relevant findings that will derive from this. And we hope to make it as specific and as demographically specific as we can. If that builds on the question I had, I thought it was fascinating to hear that just the buzz of the introduction I'll play into jurisdiction, the anticipation is the word you use, doctor, can be a trigger. And so just now I'm also hearing you say in terms of the shift of the problem, gambler, if it's an organic medical need, mental health issue for the gambler, then it's not necessarily always external triggers or does that just compound it? And I'm thinking of things like advertising and marketing, aggressive commercial intervention. I guess I'm wondering if it's because, what are the likely triggers when you say anticipation? It's really no different from any addiction. If you're a smoker who's given up, then going back to the vacation property where you always smoked or you always had a smoke when you had a drink at the lounge or people you're with or advertisements on TV, we don't have much, we don't have any of those anymore, but any of those things, anything that was associated with the behavior becomes a trigger and that trigger causes craving. If your own internal resources are low ed because you've got these comorbidities like depression and you just don't have the resolve to stay the course, then you're more likely for those triggers to move you in there. So people with mental health problems, these triggers, they're able to ignore them, people with other burdens have less resources to ignore them. And if they don't have access, as you said, it may not even be access, just the anticipation. There's a lot of gambling outlets. And then I know we've talked about, I think the last presentation, which that it matters what the type of gambling outlets, but in this case, where the casinos weren't even built yet, but you suggested the anticipation could be a trigger, would they then likely go for underground casino play or illegal options, or would they go for more lottery play, which would have been legal? Problem gamblers tend to be fairly diverse. They are not exclusively casino gamblers, exclusively sports bidders. They tend to involve the lots of different types. And so all of the above, so they're more likely to patronize legal outlets, the more likely to buy lottery tickets, the more likely to do all of these things. So just the buzz of when casinos were coming, I think that's fascinating, could trigger them to start playing the lottery more or go to bingo more. But to put a finer edge on this, you gotta remember that the change is only 3.1 to 3.8%. And this isn't a rich sample. If we hearken back to our results on the social and economic impacts of gambling, you know, in Massachusetts study, if you recall, one of the important results of that was the introduction of PPC had no measurable impact on the population prevalence of problem gambling in either the state or the Plainville, Houston surrounding communities. And so we have no doubt that the hoopla advertising and the Minders talk about casino gambling has probably increased carnicity in a small subset of problem gamblers. If that information wasn't there, who might have admitted, but in the grand scale of things, it's a very small segment of the population that we haven't seen a dramatic increase in problem gambling in the state. And I mean, this is more for the Sigma study in wave five. There's a lot of evidence that Massachusetts residents are fairly inoculated and are near to the impacts of casino gambling because of the availability in adjoining states. And so the ultimate negative impacts to the problem gambling me are likely not gonna be as dramatic as it would be in a jurisdiction that had no casino gambling available in neighboring jurisdictions. Thank you. Other questions or comments, Mark, do you wanna chime in? I can't remember what I was going to say earlier, but I would just like to say, I do find it encouraging that there is movement between especially problem and at risk gamblers and that our goal really is to, when we're thinking about the game sense program, is to target those individuals specifically and what can we do to move them down that continuum? And if we know that there is a lot of movement there, that it is encouraging to know that what can we do to nudge them down that continuum? Or for problem gamblers, what can we do to provide them with an outlet to get to help? And if it's a voluntary self exclusion program specifically and we think about the different time options that are there, it's a specific timeout that we can offer in individuals. I think that overall the magic study has been encouraging in terms of our understanding of gambling behavior and the interventions that we try to tailor for specific gambling types. So we'll save that last slide. It is a very good visual, fascinating. And commissioners, any further questions? This is, I'm still playing catch up on the cold heart study, although I was aware of it because of my earlier work and when I met Mark and the cohort was being formed. And so for me, I'm catching up, but it's just fascinating to see how it's come full circle. So thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Any further questions? Mark, are you all set? I'm all set, thank you. Excellent, thank you so much. Moving on to community mitigation. We have an update on one matter of the head and suspended for further review. So we have Joe Delaney and of course, Mary Thurlow chiming in as well. There she is, thank you. Great, thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. For your consideration today is the West Springfield Police and Fire Community Mitigation Fund application. As you may recall, we discussed this application at some length on June 25th and we did not come to a resolution at that point. In the meantime, we gathered some additional information from West Springfield, which was included in your packets. We had a few additional questions for them. So the remaining items that needed to be addressed on this were whether or not, or whether these funds would be considered as supplementing or supplanting existing funds. And the second item was whether the amount of the request is appropriate considering the cost of the impact. So with respect to the first item, the supplement versus supplant argument, I'm not sure we can ever come to a perfect answer on this, but I think over the last month, we've kind of come around to the idea that we consider this supplementing rather than supplanting. And so, in West Springfield's case, they're losing federal funding, federal grant funding, and they are asking us to supplement that pool of funding which seems to be a reasonable argument. Now, when you look at the term supplanting funds, it's more like a community asking for funds to take the place of existing funds so that they could use that money somewhere else. And that is certainly not what's happening here in this case. So based on this, we are recommending that the commission consider this supplementing existing funds. So now with respect to the second item, which is the appropriateness of the request, the requested amount, absent having a completed look back study, it's difficult for us to ascertain what the exact cost of the impact is. Now, we do know what the cost associated with the additional staff that West Springfield added, but that does not necessarily correlate with the cost of the impact itself. Now, of course, the completion of the look back study is not the responsibility of West Springfield, but it is what the responsibility of MGM. So, we don't want to unnecessarily withdraw money from West Springfield because that study hasn't been completed. And also what we do know is that the request that they're making, which is $200,000, only makes up about 19% of the cost of this additional personnel that they added. They have estimated that for 2021, the total cost of the 16 personnel that they added to fire and police is about $1.06 million for 2021. So, in order to move this forward, we are recommending that the commission make a one-time grant in the amount of $200,000 with the understanding that no further grants will be made for these uses unless the look back study clearly identifies the cost of the impact and that the cumulative impacts on West Springfield exceed the amount of money that is received under the surrounding community agreement, which right now is $375,000 that the West Springfield receives. And with that, I will open it up to questions. Any questions for Joe? Just first off on background, any reminders needed with respect to the original application? I know that most of us have had the benefit also of two-by-two briefings. Commissioner O'Brien, do you want to chime in on this request? No, I did benefit from the briefing the other day and I was leaning toward this resolution in the June meeting in terms of looking at supplanting versus supplementing. And I do think that we have talked about that, not dissuading people also from finding other funding sources, et cetera, which I think the distinction that Joe points out of taking funding to then go take municipal resources for something completely unrelated, that's not what this is. And so I think that the recommendation that they're making today is consistent with the questions that we had the last time. I think it's consistent with the rules. Joe, I don't know if you wanted to get into any more. You touched a little bit on the fact that there's a limit to some of the information we have, but I don't know if any, I was satisfied with the questions that we had last time that were sufficiently answered by the team, but I don't know if anyone else has questions. To me, this is accurate. Yeah, I think that the questions that we posed to them, they certainly gave us good answers to those questions, but still those answers didn't really sort of settle with that issue of supplement versus supplant, because like I said, it's really kind of a bit of a gray area that we have to weigh in on. Kim, Mr. Kim. Yeah, thank you. I also agree with the recommendation of the working group here. Without the look back study, there is no way to tell for sure about the impacts, but I do think they did make a good faith after to answer the additional questions. They know that we are looking at these matters closely, and the 19% only of the existing costs, I think was an important piece of this as well. So they are not looking to cover a huge portion of this, or it's still significant, but I do agree with the recommendation that we allow a one-time opportunity because it was not their responsibility to conduct the look back study, and there are reasons why it wasn't completed. So I agree with the team's assessment. Other comments, questions? Yeah, Madam Chair, thank you. I also agree with the team's recommendation, and it certainly follows the rules of the program. Joe, just for some clarification in your conversations with the city of West Springfield that what they receive now from MGM is directed towards some of their public safety needs to 375,000 in the surrounding community agreement? Yeah, they indicated to us that all of the money that they receive from the surrounding community agreement goes directly towards public safety. Okay, and I think Commissioner Cameron will correct me, but I think in some of the early work that we've had from Mr. Christopher Bruce, there are some signs or some indications of the presence of MGM impacting public safety in West Springfield. So I think, Joe, to your final determination, this kind of period we find ourselves in where the look back study hasn't been completed in kind of the ongoing needs of the city of West Springfield. I think your recommendation makes sense, a one-year agreement, and hopefully the look back study can be reviewed and MGM in West Springfield can work out any issues that they need to, but I think this is being responsive. And again, it's 19% of the overall cost of these additional public safety employees that they brought on, I think sounds reasonable. Hearing no for the comments, do we do need to vote on this correct today? Yes, there should be a motion in your packet. Madam Chair, I move that the commission issue a one-time only grant in the amount of 200,000 to West Springfield for public safety, operating costs as discussed here today, and in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the July 27th, 2020 memo, included in the commission's packet. Second. Any further questions or edits needed? Okay. Hearing none. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner Zunica. Aye. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Stephens. Aye. And I vote yes, five, zero, shard. Thank you. Thank you to Joe and Mary, and thank you for the briefings beforehand. This all seemed like the most reasonable and a fair resolution, particularly given our challenges right now. So thank you. Moving on to, thank you so much. Moving on to item number seven, do any of my fellow commissioners have an update for today? Commissioner Zunica, is your update that you want to go back on vacation? It's not a very long update, let's just put it that way, but no, no, thank you. Also, thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, great. All right, hearing none. I have no further business that needs to be addressed, so do we have a motion? Motion to adjourn. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Any questions, comments? Okay, Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zunica. Aye. Commissioner Stephens. Aye. Thanks everybody. Yeah, of course, all of us say thank you to the entire team. This was a lot of work, very great preparation, put us in a very informed position for today's meeting, so we appreciate everyone's input, the entire team that's here, and to all stay safe and well, and try to remember that it's important to breathe. Take a little bit of time during this very, very busy work period for all of us, so thank you, I felt yes. Five-zero, meeting adjourned.