Again, again, a week of three planned meetings of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission that we'll be hosting virtually. To establish our quorum, I'll ask to a roll call Commissioner Cameron. I am here. Good morning. Good morning, and thank you for your patience. Good morning, Commissioner Bryan. Good morning. I'm here. Excellent, Commissioner Zindiga. Here, good morning, everybody. Commissioner Stevens. Here, good morning, everyone. OK, great. And as you know, we have been able to conduct our meetings using virtual technology during the course of this pandemic, given the relief that Governor Baker issued at the Declaration of a State of Emergency from certain provisions of the open meeting law. We'll continue to use our remote technology today. If there's any issue that arises, please visit our website at massgaming.com. And I will call to order today's meeting. It is number 309 of the public meetings of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. It is now 1004, June 23rd, and we welcome everyone. We have a special meeting today on one topic, and we'll get it started by asking Interim Executive Director Karen Wells to set us up for today's discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, commissioners. As you are well aware, we had quite a productive meeting last week, but there were some open questions, and we wanted to just get some more information to the commissioners so that you could finalize the guidelines for the opening of the casinos. Staff has done a lot of work as far as figuring out not only best practices, but what's going on in other states and getting some additional public health guidance just to help out with those decisions that we can hopefully resolve today. There seem to be three open issues for your discussion today, and if we can resolve those, I think we can move forward with the guidelines today. The first one is mask enforcement, particularly where the commission did agree to allow drinking in the casinos if someone seated at the slot machine. And the second one was the height of the plexiglass. I can ask the casino representatives to give you a little more information. The ability to obtain the plexiglass at the six foot height is quite difficult, and I can let them explain that. So we can make some determinations on that requirement. And then the third issue, which we never really got into a fulsome discussion on was the occupancy and what the occupancy level should be at each casino during this time of COVID. So as to the first issue on the mask enforcement, I think there's basically a choice for the commission whether to keep the language as is, which is a strict language that everyone's casinos just require that everyone wear masks. One ask from the casinos was just to have some kind of reasonableness requirement baked into the guidelines if they make reasonable efforts to enforce that because they understand that there may be someone sitting in a slot machine with a bottle of water, and they may slide over to machines and may have their masks down during that period of time. So what kind of efforts are required by the casino in order to enforce that people are having their masks up and not carrying their drinks around? So I'll leave it to the chair to jump start that conversation and see what you think. My recommendation is for each of these individually, if there's some disagreement, we could just take a vote on each of these issues and then collectively vote on the entire package at the end. That may be the most efficient, but I'll leave it to you commissioners to make that determination. So first I want to thank, again, my fellow commissioners for all of your hard work. It's been a very demanding time since actually well before March 14th. And while we can't ever really meet in person, whether virtual or not, we work as a cohesive group through this public forum. And I can't tell you how much I appreciate that and how much gratitude I have to be able to work with you. I also want to thank the entire team. I'm looking at the Brady Bunch pictures here and I can see Bruce Bann in Berkeley and Loretta Lilios. And I know how much work you've done to come up with a document that's so close to give excellent guidance for our licensees. And then I want to turn to our licensees. I can only see three faces. Seth, you're a little bit shadowed, but I see you clearly. Seth Stratton of MDM Springfield, Jackie from Encore Boston Harbor, and Lance George of Plain Ridge Park Casino. You have been working extensively with our executive staff. You have been participant in this very public forum, which is unlike all the other regulators that you must deal with across the country. That's our system in Massachusetts and we can't be more thankful for your candid participation. So I just wanted to remark on that and thank you. With respect to our first item up, I think Karen, the only distinction I'd want to make, and of course I'm going to ask each of my fellow commissioners is that I want to make sure that the ask is with respect to any, would not with respect to requiring masks. Right, correct. It is simply a very narrow window when perhaps because of excitement to be able to leap to a newly available slot machine that a patron might have a lapse of memory and forget that they cannot walk around with a drink unless they are actively gaming. And for that we want to apply some kind of a reasonable standard as opposed to enforcing the wearing of masks generally. Is that right? Yes. Commissioners, commissioner Cameron. Yep, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I actually don't see that big a distinction. I mean, we're requiring masks, but of course we expect the licensees to make their very best effort to have their patrons comply. So I don't know that it's requiring versus having reasonableness. I think we hope we're reasonable in everything we do when it comes to compliance. Madam Chair, what might be helpful if Attorney Lilios has that language there, she could give you the sort of the two options and see if you have any preference one way or the other because you could do it either way. As commissioner Cameron indicated, the expectation is that the enforcement arm of the commission will be reasonable given the circumstances, but it's your choice whether or not you'd like the language as is or some modification. Sure, good morning. And as a reminder, the language that is in the current documents that you considered at the last meeting that guests shall not be allowed to carry or drink beverages while moving about the gaming area. So again, this particular language is focused as you mentioned, Chair, on that narrow part of the mask wearing involving drinking beverages. It was some concern by the licensees that the language as it stands in the current document sets like a strict liability standard so that if a guest does get up and move to another machine or another table and forgets about leaving the drink behind, that there is a de facto violation on the part of the licensee regardless of any best efforts. Some alternative language for your consideration is licensees shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that guests do not carry or drink beverages while moving about the gaming area. So the reasonable efforts language is built right into that standard in the alternative language. I actually don't feel comfortable altering the language we settled on at the last meeting, but I think to achieve the goal to add that phraseology to say and licensees shall make reasonable efforts to enforce, I think covers the request they're asking without in any way watering down the fact that guests are not supposed to be moving around. My concern is that there's some hint to guests that it becomes sort of reasonable in their part. I think if we have two sentences and keep it distinct, it addresses what they're asking for and doesn't water down eight C. I've had conversations with Bruce and Burke about reasonable this is used in enforcement all the time and I have confidence they'll be able to continue to do that in this area. So just to clarify, Loretta, can you read the two sentences that Commissioner O'Brien says could be coupled? That would be helpful. So I believe, Commissioner, that it would be guests shall not be allowed to carry or drink beverages while moving about the gaming area. Licensees shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that guests do not carry or drink beverages while moving about the gaming area. Are you getting me to say should ensure that guests do not violate this rule? Yep. Just shorter, we don't repeat it. And then it's clear that, you know, it's a reasonable standard in terms of enforcement, but that the rule on guests do not move around. Remember, this is where our greatest risk is occurring where the mass are likely to be lowered because they're drinking and moving around in the closest quarters where six feet is likely to not be achieved. So this is where, you know, for all of the licensees to really have a sustained reopening, safe sustained reopening, this is where you're gonna wanna employ your best efforts, but as Commissioner Cameron made clear, we're fair and we're reasonable. And, you know, the intent of a patrons can be probably mapped out given our ability to monitor. We'll be reasonable, but that is probably where your greatest risk is. So you'll want to use every measure to enforce this really reasonable rule. Commissioner Zinnicka, just one second. Commissioner Zinnicka, would you like to go before or after Mr. Stratton? No, I was, I can chime in now and then react if necessary. I think the combination language is reasonable. I'm in agreement with that. I think something we talked about last time and I think I made the point of is that our leverage is really with the licensees and they have their own leverage with patrons and they have to deal with very, very different people all the time and in fact, they do. So long as we are applying our test as a reasonable mess, I think it's fine. And I think it should be communicated to patrons in the same way so that if anybody gets reminded a few too many times, then they can point to, well, you're not supposed to, you're not allowed and therefore now you have to either exit or modify in some way. And before we turn to Mr. Stratton, Commissioner Stebbins, do you want to chime in now or? Yeah, I'd be happy to in just picking up on a point, Commissioner Zinnicka, obviously any enforcement that any of our licensees do in their day-to-day operation is measured with a great degree of reasonableness. I like the combined language. But again, I want to go back to the fact that a strong communications plan and having patrons educated about this before they even step on the floor, I think we'll go a long way towards reducing these interactions or these infractions by patrons. So if I know coming in, I can't walk around with my drink and I'm hoping the licensee will be thoughtful enough and courtesy enough to provide me with a new drink when I sit down at another gaming location. I think all that is part of a pre-opening communications plan will be extremely helpful. Mr. Stratton, Seth, good morning. Thank you and really appreciate the candor and the of the conversation. And we'll of course make our best efforts to enforce any requirement. One of the things though, I do want to just clarify and consistent with our conversation with the staff, there are really two issues that we've been talking about here, one of which is, I think, more challenging for us than the other. We're talking about not walking around drinking drinks with masks down, which I fully understand and appreciate the concern from a public safety standpoint. Separately, walking around with a drink, that's a bit more challenging for us and harder to understand the public health concern of someone with a mask on carrying their drink from one position to another without consuming that drink. That's probably where our biggest challenge lies as folks want to responsibly move around. And obviously there is significant time between when you can get served a drink and find a cocktail server to serve another. Patrons view those not as free drinks but something they've earned.  And I hear the direction the commission is going. I guess I just want to highlight that issue and ask if there's any flexibility in terms of the latter scenario, which would be someone literally carrying a drink like any other good they have in their hands with a mask on as they move from one position to another in the casino, which I think probably presents less risk and is more consistent with what we're seeing in our other operations and other jurisdictions. Well, I'll be frank.  We, because they're heading to another to actively game or are they walking around to hold on to their drinks to just hang out? It's a fair question. I think we don't see, and you know, in Jackie and Lance, if you have a different experience, but we generally don't see a lot of people congregating, walking around, drinking, that the drinks are usually an amenity for folks who are engaged in gaming, but they do move around from one position to another. And one of the biggest complaints we hear understandably from patrons is it takes too long to get a drink. That is round times, you know, you have staff, they have certain round times. So they hit every, to limit consumption, we have 20 minute round times so that people aren't getting over served. And so if someone gets a drink, it's gonna be at least 20 minutes later that at least that someone comes around for another one. So that's the, that's why a customer would be incentivized to hold onto a drink would be so that they can move, don't have to wait. So before I turn it over to my fellow commissioners, it sounds as though we're probably not saying a very different, something very different because we know that bars are not open right now in phase three. We know that you can't have a drink standing and not actively gaming because we decided that last week after a great deal of discussion based on all, not only our review of every other jurisdiction and the public health implications from other jurisdictions, but also of course looking at what is permitted in this current state of affairs with respect to public health in Massachusetts. So I thought that maybe we were just addressing that issue. If the individual is going to go walk around but they're going straight to a seat, they're not supposed to, they're supposed to leave their drink there.  Commissioners, that's a distinction. They want, he's suggesting, I'm assuming you're saying from active gaming spot to another active gaming spot, can they carry their drink? Correct. I think that was the risk of mimicking a bar set up too much. And we went through this the last time with all due respect to Seth about the language in AC covering the concerns that we had given the status of bars in Massachusetts right now. I think the reasonableness standard addresses concerns that was going to be this overly strict liability enforcement. And I think the scenario he's talked about is already baked into that amended language we talked about adding on to C. I'm not comfortable changing it and watering down the language we agreed on last time. Commissioners, in again? Well, I'm just trying to be reasonable in the sense that, you know, what we want is people to be wearing masks when they're walking around, whether they're having a drink or ringing their keys with them or their pocket box, you know. The idea is not to have people loitering, drinking and, you know, walking around.  And when it comes to enforcement, it would be, sir, put on your mask, not, sir, leave that drink. Because it's the mask that we are most interested in. Commissioner Stebbins or Commissioner Cameron? The one thing I was thinking about is we don't want the unintended consequence of somebody guzzling the drink because they'd like to move and they know they can't walk with it. So I do not want that to be an unintended consequence of somebody guzzling a drink rather than drink it at a normal pace. So just a thought that I had listening to this conversation. I see both sides, frankly. I don't want it to, people to use this as a way to just drink because they can't do so in a bar. So I hear, you know, it would seem to me it'd be difficult to enforce. Well, I'm really just heading, as you say, chair five rows over from someone who is, you know, is really just, okay, I got my drink and now I can walk around. So I do see it as a harder enforcement challenge if we say, yes, you can walk around as long as you're just going to another gaming, I guess the reasonableness has to be the answer here. Meaning, okay, if you're just moving, you know, you're not supposed to walk with the drink. I'm just going to slide down three chairs and, you know, I guess that's the reasonableness piece. I'm just, it's not an easy answer, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Before we go on to Loretta, because I'm going to ask for some guidance from her commissioner, Stephens. Yeah, you know, I think commissioner Camden, Cameron makes a good point. I don't think we want people chugging down their drink knowing that they have to do that before they can move and commissioner Zuniga's point of our real focus should be on, we want people to wear the mask and keep it up as often as possible. You know, you overlaid this with people leaving a lot of drinks around, now there's more responsibilities on behalf of security or cleaning staff or the wait staff to make sure that, you know, all of the discarded or left behind drinks are picked up. So, not an easy decision, but I worry about the reasonableness of this overlaying it and, you know, we're going to be focused on masks and we're also going to be focused on people not congregating. It doesn't rank up there with the other two in terms of importance for me, but I understand the criteria that we know will be set for them is that we don't have the advantage of seeing what that language would look like at this time. Okay, if we could go to, I want to just chime in briefly and then go to Loretta Lillios to just remind us of what the guidance is currently with respect to restaurants and eating and drinking and moving around. I want to make a really important point here. We're not in the same time when your guests expect you to be able to finish a drink. We're not at the same time where guests should be expecting that they are going to guzzle it because in order to move into their next, to their next thought. Every patron that comes in the door will understand because of the excellent communications plans that this is an exciting opportunity to re-engage, but it's under very different conditions because we are in a pandemic. Things are going to be different. And 20-minute service that you normally do, you're gonna probably have reduced patrons based on these restrictions. Maybe that can be something you can revisit in order to really support the efforts we are trying to establish here, which is to ensure that when people get up from a seated position probably in closer quarters than we would like, they're not forgetting to put on their masks and they're not beginning to continue to drink the drink that they were enjoying sitting down. We know that seated, facing forward at a slot machine, sipping a drink with your mask down and not going up and down if you are six feet away from another patron or person or if short of that, you are protected by a non-porous barrier. We are going to achieve the best conditions to make sure you open up safely. So, if there is a navigation issue that you're trying to correct because now you wanna serve the drinks which are an essential part, we've all conceded that of the business model, then maybe you need to think about how you can best accomplish that in the safest way in accordance with what we have right now here in Massachusetts as health standards. Loretta, am I misreading the guidance right now? Currently the phase two restaurant guidance indoor and outdoor contemplates being seated with distancing or plexiglass barriers. And the bar scenario that you referenced earlier is a phase four rollout. So now with that said, I probably sounded very tough. It's not tough mean, it's trying to be really smart so that this is a sustainable reopening and we don't have to reverse. What I'm hopeful for is that we start with the precautions that Commissioner O'Brien outlined with a reasonable standard. And hopefully our health metrics will shift so that we can incrementally be able to accommodate patrons. So it starts to feel more like what they are used to but it won't feel like what they're used to. So incremental change. And this is one where there is no runway investment so that we could maybe, maybe some alleviate this in a few weeks if we get further guidance. I'm open to all the comments from my fellow commissioners. I just wanna make sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that they revisit the amount of time it takes them to make rounds and serve drinks more frequently than every 20 minutes? No, I'm saying if they were saying that guests, they can't serve 20 minutes, I don't not wanna encourage anyone to over drink. Let's be clear, none of us, we monitor that carefully and we will continue to monitor drinks. So what changes were you made? I don't know, I don't know the rule well enough, Commissioner Zuniga, if there's some relief that we can offer so they could freshen up their drink if they're staying seated or they can bring the drink over for them, we can think about something like that or they can leave the drink but rather than them just being able to get up and bring their drink because they want to safeguard that drink. I'm open to suggestions about, giving them a new drink. I think somebody suggested that, one of my fellow commissioners that, Commissioner O'Brien, if you could help me out here. No, I mean, I think there's two things I think that I wanna emphasize, one of which is what you and Loretta Lilios just talked about, which is we are looking at doing this in a manner of consistent with the current guidelines. And the current guidelines do not allow bar, they do allow alcohol and food service when seated. So the alcohol service that's happening here as we've described it currently written in HC complies with those guidelines. I have a concern that allowing people to wander might run afoul of that as we know it right now. And I also think Commissioner Cameron's point about creating sort of this gray area for some client, some customer to say, well, I'm really just going across the floor to a seat of my choice. Oh, it's full, I'm just gonna stand and wait till that seat's available.  People probably won't even contemplate that they're doing it. So to me, the cleaner, safer way to do this, compliant with the rules and the realities on the floor is as we wrote it in C, and that I'm mending it with a reasonable and a standard to make sure we're saying this is not strict liability on the licensees part if they're using reasonable measures. Yeah, and to your point, there is that if you're carrying a drink, it's going to, and you're waiting for one second, it's gonna be hard to not, and then not have a drink. And then also the patrons who are not actively gaming won't be able to have a drink. And I think we just start to really cloud our guidelines. They're guidelines that are based on safety that is right now in place. And again, if we could, we will change our guidelines to reflect the rules, the public health metrics in three, you know, in a month, in three weeks and whatever time it requires because we want success for our licensees. But right now that does sound like it gets where you're walking around with a drink. And I think even if you have a mask on, it's not a key. It's not a pocketbook. Yeah, I agree with that. I really think it makes it very difficult and way too much gray area to, we want to be reasonable but I think it helps. It's difficult to be reasonable when you have so much or you may have that much activity that is within that gray area. So I do think it is cleaner to add that sentence and leave it alone. Right. And again, if I confused on the rule about refreshing drinks, Commissioner Zuniga, please help me here. But I think I heard Mr. Stratton say that they have a 20 minute guideline and if chaos is gonna be created because the guest is gonna be upset that they have to leave their drink, then maybe they get seated and a new drink gets given to them. And if there's a 20 minute gap there, and it's because they hadn't even started their drink at the last place. I mean, I'm hoping that there can be customer service, reasonable customer service assessment there. And I know it's hard to imagine that. Yeah, I mean, maybe servers can be trained and directed to say, here's your drink. If you wanna move around, you gotta let me do it for you, something to that effect. Maybe that's what you mean by your, I mean, you alluded to that already by sort of modifying some of the procedures. I just think, I think we're ultimately talking about the same thing. We need to be reasonable with the licensees who in turn need to be communicating and as well ultimately persuading customers to abide by what's the requirement. So I'm fine with the way the sentence reads when it's combined. Okay, moving on then, I'm not unless the licensees have any comment. I see only Jackie visually, but I see everyone on mute, so we'll move forward. Do we, we could do, if need be, some kind of a straw ball on these issues and then maybe vote comprehensively. I think that would be helpful in case there's some issues where a commissioner wants to not go in one direction that's just on the record. So that I think would be helpful, but it doesn't need to be completely important. I think that's really important. And then if it turns out that we, we'll figure out what ultimately is decided at the end. So with the recommended language that Loretta read that was inspired by commissioner O'Brien. Do we have over the shell of hands those in favor? Could Loretta, I'm sorry, could Loretta just read that back to us so we have it? Yes. Sure. Guests shall not be allowed to carry or drink beverages while moving about the gaming area. Licensees shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that guests do not violate this rule. Thank you. Again, I'm fine the way it reads. Yeah, and commissioner O'Brien, you're fine with that? Okay, so those who are fine with that proposal raise their hands. Okay, I see all five. All right, thank you. We'll move forward then. On social distancing, the rule generally Loretta if you want to go through it for the commissioners again. Sure. So social distancing and this would be for both slots and table games. Could we just stick to slots right now, please? Okay, so on slots? Yes, please. We, your existing version talked about that licensees shall promote social distancing of slots played by either maintaining a minimum of six foot distance between operating slot positions or by installing plexiglass dividers not less than six feet high between operating slot positions. There shall be a minimum of four feet between slot machines separated by plexiglass dividers measured from the center of each chair and chairs shall be removed from disabled slot machines. Okay, so thank you, Loretta. So that's our rule and it's our, Karen, I'll let you set it up but I understand based on the conclusion of our last meeting and conversation during that meeting that our licensees were concerned about the requirement of six foot plexiglass in the event they cannot achieve six feet distancing between the seats of the slot machines. Yes, so I'm thinking what would be helpful for the commissioners if each of the licensees could comment not only about what they're seeing as sort of industry standard for the plexiglass and what's going on in other jurisdictions or in their other properties and also challenges to obtaining that material that may be helpful for the commission. Okay, excellent. We would like to start. I see Jackie, I don't see Seth or Lance. So Jackie, would you like to begin the conversation? Sure, thank you. In terms of the procurement, we're looking at a two to three week procurement period on the plexiglass. So the other issue is we've been able to source plexiglass in standard, the standard size of the plexiglass is five foot five inches. So that's been the biggest challenge because anything else would need to be custom built. I think that's the biggest issues for us right now. Lance, sorry, hi, there you are, Lance, good morning. And just to be clear, that's only on the slots. Yeah, so we're just right now addressing slots. Thank you. Yeah, after the conversation we had last time regarding this issue, five, five, five, six. We did go back to the vendor that we had had an agreement with and asked if they could engineer it there in that process of re-engineering to achieve that six foot. I think we'll get there. The challenge is the same as Jackie and Anko are having and becomes a question of timing. And at this point, I think we're optimistic that we'll have an un-property uninstalled buyer. Long and short, probably two weeks for it to arrive and to be installed un-property at six feet. And to achieve the six feet you have a, are you having to accomplish a fix? But the, because I just want, you were a little bit hard to hear at first, Lance. So was it five, six, or? No, we went back to the vendor who is building and they will be handling the re-engineering for us to achieve six feet. There'll be nothing that will be done un-property to achieve six feet, all that will be handled by the company. Okay. And Seth? So we're probably, I would say, based on what Lance and Jackie stated, the furthest behind in terms of procurement for Plexi, our company's experience has been that this, we generally have not been, as I mentioned last meeting, using Plexi between machines and our experience has been in all of our other jurisdictions that it's generally every other machine with masks on. So that's likely how we would open without. Because Seth, can I just interrupt for one distinction?  Do you allow drinking? Yes. I can't, I can't certify that I don't have knowledge of each and every jurisdiction. So there might be an outlier, but yes, generally drinking is allowed. Well, there's- I don't misrepresent that there may be one out there that I'm not aware of that has additional restrictions. But so because of that, and there are some challenges when you treat one jurisdiction and one property different than others and our company's striving for as much universal programming of our safety plan throughout the company. So I think we'll certainly, we've started exploring and we'll explore Procurement Plexi and see if the business case can be made to expand. But I think based on if that's the requirement, we would probably be forced to open with, or I don't want forced, we would need to open with simply the six foot distance, which is a significantly reduced number of machines which correlates to reduced revenue and reduced positions. So I think that's practically where we would end up opening. We would have to explore whether we can collectively roll out Plexi, if there's any sense from a business standpoint to do so to expand the offerings. But I don't think we're presently prepared to be opening in early July with Plexi on slot machines. So we'd have a significant reduction in our offerings. Okay, can you show us in a go? You know, I have a question and only because I've been venturing out a little bit myself more and seeing other businesses, we sort of arrived into this notion of the Plexi glass, but there are other instances where they simply put in what you need is a clear solid surface, including, you know, some plastic. Have any of the licensees looked at things like that or know of other solutions like that? I mean, I know that Plexi glass is solid and very durable and whatnot, but are there other materials that might actually... Yeah, I think the language is non-porous, non-porous. Yeah, non-porous and clear because we wanna see through in camera coverage and all that stuff.  Yes, an answer to your question. What we're looking at is not technically Plexi, but it is non-porous. I forget the exact ingredients, but it looks like Plexi, but it's not actually Plexi. Seth, if there was any relief on the height would that alleviate any of your business considerations? That's hard to say at this point because again, because we were kind of the furthest behind on looking at Plexi. It sounds like the other two licenses are finding solutions on the height piece. I think that's if we pursue Plexi to expand the number of games, I'm guessing that we'll be able to find the six foot height. If it's more costly than that, certainly is part of that economic analysis of whether it's feasible to do that. So sitting here today, I think we're less concerned about the height than the overall requirement. Jackie, would any relief on the height requirement be helpful? It would be very helpful to us. We would be able to get it installed. As I said, that's the standard size that it comes in and we'd be able to get that installed faster because we would need to have it custom made. So what's the big time if you don't have a custom and you do the six feet? We haven't even got there yet with the manufacturers. So one of the things I wanted to add is that we've considered of course the measures that other jurisdictions are taking to combat the virus and we've actually had the benefit of being late in the game. The sad news is that we were late because we experienced a health crisis that was different from other states and other jurisdictions but we've learned from our fellow regulators and other jurisdictions and the measures that are imposed by both the state, federal and state authorities. I think that I'm hearing MGM Springfield has had not been considering adding a non-porous barriers in order to achieve a protection when social distancing of six feet can't be accomplished. I think we have established that right now that the choices we're giving the licensees makes best sense. I don't wanna be unreasonable and I wanna hear from my fellow commissioners but if there were industry challenges in achieving a proper non-porous barrier, one suggestion I could make for our guidelines is to suggest that there be a range of five feet to six feet, five feet, five to six feet to be achieved in the height of the plexiglass. I wanna make clear that I like the idea of our licensees working to achieve the safest measure and the only thing we can turn to right now is the guidance that we're receiving from the restaurant guidance and that makes sense but while seated at a slot machine sipping a drink, a patron is a lot like a restaurant diner but there are also distinctions. The slot player is focused facing the machine. In fact, if I'm a successful slot machine player I probably don't turn my head much. I really focus straight forward at the machine. I'm not engaging in conversation across tables with my fellow patrons at the restaurant up to the six member group that is allowed right now. So that distinction that I'm attempting to make is in fact could reduce the risk of spreading the virus if six feet isn't achieved but I have a non-porous barrier between me that extends up above me. And I'm thinking given that we don't really have the capacity as experts to make that distinction, it seems reasonable to me and I look to my fellow commissioners to say that we would ask you to make your very best efforts to create the safest barrier. This would just be a suggestion that we have in the guideline arrange that it be no less than perhaps by five. I'm fine with that suggestion. I've always thought of it as sitting down that really, but as you point out, facing forward that really minimizes the exposure.  So if it's something that doesn't require, end up in not requiring a lot of customization, I think it's very reasonable. I'm commissioning up Brian. Covenant level, I'm surmising, although I'm not an expert that part of the reason the six feet is chosen is you're looking at the average height of individuals that are gonna be there. And I think that restaurants, I think the scenario we talked about before is back-to-back boots still have six feet, separating people, you're facing opposite ways, et cetera. That's still the restaurant height. I do think you have a greater risk of, because you're having parties that up to six congregate, you may have people standing closer than that that you don't have in a restaurant. The five, 10 and a half, five, 11 variance was not particularly concerning to me. Five, five to me is concerning to me. I think it's too low. So I would key it to the governor's advisory board certainly they come in and say that's acceptable. But given the fact that six feet is mandated in restaurants to me, five, 10, five, 11 seems like a de minimis variance to go lower than that to me. I think you're getting people whose faces are now gonna be above it sitting and that sort of thing. So my comfort level doesn't go down that low on the range. Commissioner Cameron. I, are we expecting any other guidance or we think we have all the guidance we're going to get at this point? I mean, there's, has anyone? I'm providing a range of, although the guidance that we're giving them is based on our exact conversation today that there's some industry challenges around the plexiglass. Sure. So our guidelines, if we have a five, if we have, we have a range.  But we would be, you know, they would have our guidance from us to be able to work from. In other words, our guidance is always going to be subject to federal, state and local oversight. And, you know, as we know, the advisory board has been issuing industry standards. And, and if we made a decision today that said, okay, you know, five, five to six feet, we think is, is reasonable. Does that then have to go back to the working group and the governor's office to take a look at and see what they think? I'm just trying to understand. I think all of our guidance, no, I think all of our guidance will be subject to review. And I'm hoping that we don't have to go back to the working group because we aren't, they are not giving, you know, we are giving guidance to that is based on our role as regulator. And we're just part of the layering because ultimately it comes from the governor's office and the governor's, the opening advisory board. We've always said that everything that we do right now is subject to the federal, state and local authorities. So I'm still, so they would, we would give this guidance and then there may be, there may or may not be additional guidance. Let's just say on this particular piece, if they said, you know what? Now that we've heard, you know, that how people work at a slot machine, that they really may be different from a restaurant, they may say there is a distinction from the six foot requirement or they may say there's not a distinction. But I think, I don't think that any industry, well, I just know that we have to do our work as a regulator and our guidelines will be guidance for them. And they will then, you know, under this declaration of emergency, that the governor's advisory board and the big political administration can impose further restrictions and guidelines and guidance. So if we had a consensus that we could, that said, okay, you know, anywhere between five, five and six feet, unless further guidance comes out, is that the caveat that goes into this guidance that we're giving now? I'm just struggling with who goes first. Well, I think that that's our overlying, that is our overlying that always everything, I think we've started every meeting with that understanding that we are just giving one set of guidance that could always be overridden. But it does seem, you did manage to get six feet in the queue in less than a week. That's right. So, Mia, I'm wondering why we're spending meals on something. No, this is just a suggestion from my part to give some, you know, I have been able to personally think about it. I've actually positioned myself and my husband, and you know, we've actually thought about where your face would be turning in the course of sitting while actively gaming and how it might be distinguishable from the restaurant patron. Right now, we only have that six foot standard for height for plexiglass based on the restaurant standard. And so I'm suggesting as a recognition of what we understand as an industry challenge right now to give a little bit of a range of options from five, five, five to six feet. With my position would be, I would like to see best efforts to achieve six feet, but it would be, you know, a range of five, six, five, five to six feet. Yeah, I'm fine with that. And I suppose you're also suggesting that they effectively take a risk on anything under six feet. If someone else later comes in and says that's inappropriate or that's unacceptable. Isn't that the case? I couldn't quite hear the end commissioner soon ago. So I guess you're suggesting that someone else, the state, you know, whoever besides this commission can come in and say at a later time that five, five was inadequate and then make them go through something different. I think our licensees, our licensees know that they are subject to the reopening advisory board's guidance. Am I right? Licensees? Yes, Lance is giving the thumbs up. They all understand that they are subject to the casino is in phase three. They will be looking for guidance from that.  And they either have to reformulate or rebuild or disable machines so that they achieve the six feet distance in some other way. In other words, by us giving the range which I agree with you, we should, then the addition now, they take on the risk. They decide to put in something that is five, five. They take on the risk of this advisory group at a later time coming in and saying that's inadequate. That's exactly right.  Or they wait for the advisory board's guidance, which, you know, we have been trying to be as consistent as we can from everything we know in Massachusetts. Loretta's done such a great job advising us on that. And we've also been looking at all of the jurisdictions. We, you know, this is an ask. The six feet would be preferable. It would have been preferable last week. We have been told and informed that there is a challenge. I hear PPC saying they can make a fix, you know, and I'm not sure if you've already gone ahead, Lance, and done the ordering. Again, I, you know, I would encourage the higher you can go, the more of a barrier you're creating for the safety of everyone. I just am not convinced that it's unreasonable to say that five, five might be not sufficient. And so by giving a range, we're giving the opportunity to our public health experts to indicate otherwise if need be. But I think our licensees of all affirmatively, they all affirmatively understand that they will have to be in, you know, conform with the guidelines that come out of the governor's office. Madam chair, if I can just have some clarity because we've talked about it and made this kind of hand gesture, we're not talking about plexiglass on both sides of an operating machine. That's the, that was me being a player that I'm focused forward, focused forward. Okay. As opposed to, you know, having a meal with someone where there's more speaking and more activity. If you can't achieve six feet social distancing between the tables, they must achieve a six foot high plexiglass in a restaurant. Right. But just to make clear, we're not asking for plexiglass on both sides of an active machine. Because the next machine down will have a plexiglass barrier on its side. So you obtain that six foot distance. See commissioner O'Brien saying yes. I think I'm saying it correctly. To be clear, the plexiglass would allow you to have less than six. I think we settled on four and a half feet or greater to allow in some places like when has the ones that they could then do every other if they insert the plexi between those. And then otherwise you could have six feet with no plexi divided. Just to clarify on the red, is it four and a half feet or four feet? I'm sorry. Current, there's a minimum of four feet measured center of the seat to center of the seat. Yeah, that was my recollection too. Thank you. Is there anything that can be, I understand, you know, the standard size plexiglass available at obviously varying heights. I think commissioner Zuniga talked about this the last point, trying to find a way to raise it by putting in some type of platform or frame on the bottom to raise it to six feet. Just talked about restaurants between booths which is only up to six feet. And obviously a good part of that distance is the actual back of the booth. Is there anything that our licensees have contemplated about putting something on the bottom to hold the plexiglass? It could raise it to the six feet even though you're still buying the standard kind of off the shelf piece of plexiglass or other impervious service material. We have been looking at a number of options. As I said, we can achieve the six foot. It's just a custom order. And they're not clear on the lead time at the moment. So there's certainly options in terms of achieving that six foot height that we're still investigating. I don't know if our other licensees want to weigh in on that question or not. We certainly discussed what or how we could re-engineer what was being proposed to us at the time which to Jackie's point was five-five which does seem to be a bit of a standard. Where we ultimately arrive is put it back into the lap of the manufacturer. And so they were the ones who took on the responsibility of re-engineering and adding additional height. Second, Director Wells. What have you learned or what have you? I think obviously it's challenging because everyone wants to do the right thing here. I think it's a ultimately it's a public health issue and I understand that but there's also considerations on the business. So as Enrique pointed out, it's the assumption of the risk. If the commission gave this minimum five-five, then there's an assumption of the risk for the licensees if they want to get any further guidance from the governor's office. What I'd be interested to know is when I'm hearing is that this five-five is sort of that industry standard. So if the licensees could let us know, is that what's going on between slot machines and other jurisdictions? And then would Massachusetts be an outlier requiring the six feet? I'm kind of curious if other jurisdictions are just having the five-foot five because as the chair pointed out, people are seated, people are facing forward. And in Massachusetts, we're requiring the masks. Does that combination of things compensate for the potential seven-inch difference? So I'm curious what the licensees could tell us about what's going on in other jurisdictions. We have no other jurisdictions that are requiring Plexi between slots. So again, we don't, we're looking at it kind of as an issue of first impression here in Massachusetts from our standpoint. Bruce Band, can you remind me on the, where Plexiglas is being required? Or where it's being used, Bruce Band? Can he, maybe Bruce can't hear me. Bruce, right, where it's being used, if not required. Seth, is the Bargata using Plexi in New Jersey? I don't believe- I don't believe all their tables not on there. Okay. And in terms of any of the other jurisdictions using Plexiglas? I know that they're using it in California at some of the reservations. I'm not sure of all the Mississippi casinos. I would have to check at the individual ones. Of course, MGM has some casinos there, but I would have to check at the non-MGM casinos. Right, so we could find out the height, but I kind of feel like that was work that we really wanted to have done for today. I'm making a recommendation that we give a range. The range, if my fellow commissioners are concerned that we're going to look less than stringent, I can assure you that we are really taking into consideration every public health consideration that we have in our current state of Massachusetts. The only difference here is that if we pass the guidelines and say six feet like we're going to do, and then there was some leeway, just because we can't have a current today, yes, that's going to be fine if we can, because let's face it, the administration is working with a lot of industries right now in phase two, nevermind phase three and future phase four. They are aware from the industry, I know that there is a runway issue. We're informed by the industry that there's a runway issue. So today, to sort of address their runway issue, I'd like to be able to give firm guidance on our part and not have a peace hanging out there so that when the public health experts take a look at our guidelines in conjunction with the guidelines from the industries, they can make some reasonable, they can insert their expertise and also ask questions and perhaps it might be, why is this a range of five, five to six feet? And it can be an explanation and then the public health experts could give either a blessing or not and say, no, it's got to be six feet. Now, whether or not that can happen at the timeframe that my licensees, our licensees want, well, I can't address that. We can only hope that we will be working in support of our licensees to advance the guidelines and explain the timeline. This is a complex industry. I think everyone in Massachusetts understands that. We're trying to give guidance that will allow them to move forward subject to the state's final review. So I understand that it may feel like if you say a range that you're giving on a concern about safety, I don't want you to think I'm doing that. I'm saying could we give a range so that the public health experts could look at that and we wouldn't have to revisit this if we say six feet, and there is a range. Unless we just want to impose six feet, six feet, six feet and make that the decision today and pass it forward, but I just wanted to be cognizant of the industry challenge. We could also say six feet or the governor advisory board's recommendations, whichever is shorter. Yeah, I think I'm just concerned that we're, I wouldn't want them to go ahead and order and think, okay, this is great. Five, six, five, five, I can do it. And then you're told after the fact that's not acceptable. I don't know how that's helpful on our part. I'm not suggesting they go ahead and order. And I don't know what our licensees, if they've gone ahead, that is their risk. They know they are subject to the governor's advisory board's decision. They know that we are not the last stop. With respect to this pandemic under this declaration of emergency issued by the governor of the commonwealth, we are not the last stop. I'm not sure why it's not reasonable to give, unless we just want, if we do a straw vote that we just want to require six feet. And that's our recommendation through our guidelines. We can do that straw vote. I just want to make sure we are hearing our licensees. This was the stumbling point last week. I know Plexiglas alone is a stumbling point for MGM Springfield. I see it as an outlier for them. I think Seth, I'm hearing you say that you're going to take measures to reopen that in the way that you may not introduce Plexiglas. We gave the choice and it's based on sound reasoning because it all came from an analysis of the current state of Massachusetts health issues and metrics and data and informed by other jurisdictions. It's not lost on us that other jurisdictions may have had less stringent or less restrictions, less stringent regulations and less restrictions. And some of them have to revisit. It is my hope, and I don't want to speak from my fellow commissioners, that we advance the casino's businesses and not have to take steps backwards. So the idea that Plexiglas, if you want to have every other, that seems to be, we have a reasonable standard and I know that that's not what MGM wants. They want every other seat, which is four feet distancing between people with masks that can be lowered the entire time someone has to drink in front of them.  We understand that. That's part of the considerations. So it's either six feet. Can you hear me? Oh, yes. Anrika, yes, we can. Thank you. Sorry, I had to move to a phone line. I'm not sure if I interrupt it, but I'm okay with essentially what you are suggesting, Cathy, that we provide some flexibility in the range and then, you know, because we need to move forward. Right, so I'm, and just so you know, Anrika, we have you at the last two digits are 93 and we can see your yellow box lighting up. So chime in anytime you want. And I know Anrika has a firm stop at noon. So why don't I do a straw vote? Commissioner Stebbins, you haven't weighed in so much as of late, I don't, so there you are. Sorry, Madam Chair. Yeah, you know, listen, I think our licensees understand the inherent risk. I know we're stuck between guidelines for phase two and what might come out in phase four. I really would like to see our licensees try to achieve six feet, make all reasonable efforts. And if that includes taking a piece that's five, five and putting some type of bracket on the bottom to raise it to six feet, I would hope they'd be able to consider that. Maybe we could make that part of a proviso that all efforts, best efforts, feasible efforts being made, that that's really the direction we want. The more height, the better. That's my feeling. I just, because I don't have that public health expertise, I would hate to be instituting a requirement that turns out not to be necessarily required from a public health perspective. That's the only reason why I'm suggesting a range. Otherwise, I'd be staying right with you, Commissioner O'Brien. Six feet makes me feel really good. But there would be that range in the event that there is public health support for a lesser standard based on the activity at hand, which can be considered different from eating at a restaurant. Commissioner O'Brien, I mean, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Cameron, what could help you get more comfortable? Well, I don't feel comfortable making the decision that five, five is okay because I don't have that expertise to say that. So I think I'm really leaning toward what Commissioner O'Brien said, which was, right now the standard is six feet unless there's a relief given by the public health officials here in the Commonwealth. If they take a look, if the case is made that five, five is really something that they want public health to consider, and they consider it, they have the expertise and say, we're comfortable with that, then that's fine. But I guess I'm just not comfortable saying that five, five is okay because that's the industry standard. Yeah, I don't think anyone's saying that, Commissioner Cameron. I don't think anyone's saying that that's five, five is fine, where I think we all are admitting we don't have the public health expertise but we're giving a range so that when the public health experts do see our guidelines, they would know that the first question they might say is why is the range? And we can indicate that in the industry may already be indicating that five, five is the challenge. I would love for them to be working to get the most height possible. So I don't know if necessarily that the language is different. The five, five, it is different because the five, five in what you're at when you're suggesting is really a manufacturing driven number. It's not a public health driven number. And so we're really talking about when PPC is achieving this, MGM is not going there right now. They're gonna do a cost assessment. So I'm not sure this provides any relief to them. And so we're really talking about one of the licensees who is going with a default height at this point while also exploring other options. And so I'm comfortable saying six or if a lesser height by the government advisory board but my concern is also that five, five is not health driven. And so I don't want to in any way signal back to the advisory board looking at us as experts that somehow have our knowledge about this. That's an acceptable height. Fair, that's very fair. Can I also mention that each one of them, each one of these metrics is supposed to be a standalone and we're overlaying a number of them which in my mind were positively which is why I think this range is appropriate. Thank you commissioner, that's a really good point. Loretta, can you maybe suggest some language for us please? I don't see her. There she is.  It's the board shifts. So, and I don't want to put you on the spot. Commissioner Wells commissioner, I mean commissioner Brian interim executive director Wells. You could use language as a point for your discussion on maintaining either a minimum of six foot distance between operating slot positions or by installing plexiglass dividers not less than five feet, five inches unless the Baker-Polito administration specifically requires otherwise or you could say installing plexiglass not less than six feet unless the Baker-Polito administration authorizes the use of plexiglass dividers in height less. I really don't love inserting that language in here because every single provision here, this documents how many pages long they're all subject. We have said this repeatedly, they're all subject. Every provision is subject to the oversight of the governor's office, the governor and the Baker-Polito administration. Every single provision could be, we could have made, we may be spending a lot of time on this one but there may be other ones where we haven't made the proper suggestion about something. So to insert it there, I'm uncomfortable with inserting that language into a particular provision. We're giving a range. I would like to give a range that assists. I'll copy, I'm really hoping that if we gave a range that perhaps our colleagues, our licensees at MGM Springfield might think about using plexiglass because I think it might actually create additional safety because every time we're putting up something that will act as a barrier might be helpful. I'm not sure that that will prompt a different than that's their prerogative. Our rule is six feet, it has to be achieved for plexiglass and it seems to be, plexiglass is a problem for one of our licensees in general, the height of an additional challenge. Alternative language could be installing, that licensees shall use best efforts to install plexiglass in a height of not less than six feet between operating slot machines but in no event, less than five feet, five inches. As an alternative to the six feet requirement. I hear Commissioner Zuniga say he's okay with that. Commissioner Stebbins? Commissioner Stebbins? Yeah, you know, I'd like to keep to the reasonable effort to reach six feet. I think we're erasing some uncertainty for our licensees if we go with what the current recommendations are of the Governor's reopening committee. I hear you, Madam Chair, in terms of, you know, their review of this overall document but sticking to a number, however they reach six feet high with a piece of plexiglass, I think would just be give them a little more confidence or is a more credible direction for us to give them at this time. Do you agree with the language that Loretta just said? No, Commissioner Stebbins is suggesting that we need to insert in that particular provision something about the Governor's advisory board. I really am uncomfortable with that because I don't want to suggest that this provision, you know, we're going to be, the whole, all the guidelines are going up and they're going to review every provision carefully and they're going to have their own guidelines that they always have. Yeah, Madam Chair, I'm not suggesting we include that language whatsoever. I'm saying we should almost leave it the way it is for trying to try to get to six feet. And if that's a five, five piece of plexiglass with some type of base on the bottom, as long as they're reaching that six feet height, I would feel more comfortable with and I'm sure they would before they go out and spend a lot of money on a piece that's five feet, five inches. But what we're not doing is flagging the issue that the industry is having for the height. That's my point. If we give a range, it would flag the issue. Okay, licensees, maybe you have suggestions on how we can be helpful. If five feet five is not a big issue for you, help me out because we'll just go with straight six feet here if that's, if you're not going to be putting in plexiglass, we obviously would love to have the highest protection. You raised a business consideration. I'm working right now to be able to assist you in a reasonable fashion. I've got at least three commissioners who are uncomfortable with that. I've got one commission who's comfortable with the idea of a range. Any help on how, if this is not a, if this is an attempt to address I understand it's a true industry challenge. Madam Chair, if I may, I think, you know, obviously our preference is the five five because that allows us to order it and get it installed as soon as possible. However, if there's a best effort requirement to reach the six feet, it's a practical matter. We know that we can custom order it and we can reach the six feet. So I'm not sure it really solves that problem. Let's be clear. If you want to start ordering it today based, if you want to start ordering it today, I'm not sure when the advisory board would be able to give you this guidance. So, and that is, that's why we're here today to give you the guidance. So if you can achieve the six feet today and it's not truly an industry challenge then, and you want to move ahead, otherwise you would need to wait for any further guidance. So six feet can be achieved and that's, and you want to move ahead, but that's more in your interests than you, because I would say otherwise you would have to wait for further guidance from the public health experts. Six feet. Okay, Seth, I don't see, now I see, thank you. Six feet in height is not an area of concern for us. As I've mentioned, it's the overall requirement. So if we do move forward with that, I presume we'll be able to make sure it's satisfied. Okay, and Mr. George? Yeah, I think you know where Penn is and where Plain Ridge is certainly comes from moving forward at six feet. Okay, let's keep it at six, we'll keep it at six feet to make best efforts for six feet. If you need to revisit, revisit it. Let's go forward. I think, Anrika, you're comfortable with that? Yes. Thanks. Let's go forward then on table games. Right now the requirement would extend to all table games for Blackjack style in that we would not have crabs, roulette, and poker at this time. That doesn't mean if the public health metrics don't shift that you wouldn't be able to introduce those games, but at this time that's the recommendation. I think we can move forward then on the issue that's open at all, I think was the use of the Plexiglas on all Blackjack and it might be a little bit of a deviation as to the six feet. And that's five, 10 and a half inches or five, 10 at the height of the Plexiglas for table games. I'll defer the licensees. I think it was five, 10. So I think the question is, is the commission comfortable with a two inch deviation? So basically for table games, would a minimum of five, 10 be the requirement. Any licensees want to chime in on that in terms of your Plexiglas for your Blackjack style tables? Yes, we would commit to put Plexiglas on all Blackjack style tables at a minimum height of five, 10. Okay, I know that that's not an issue for you, Lance. How about staff? Yeah, we agree. Okay, commissioners, that is not six feet. How do we feel about five, 10? I would like a reminder of is that something you've already looked at with a vendor and that's what the height was. Again, is that industry standard as you say, I'm just trying to remember that conversation. Sure, so we've actually, we built those in-house and that was the maximum height that we were able to achieve. And that's being used across jurisdictions right now. So there's somewhat of a prototype that's being used for Blackjack style tables. That's correct. Right, and Seth is nodding his head, yes. And I think that was discussed last week as well. Bruce, do you agree with that, Bruce Van? Yes. Okay. Do we have commissioners in again? Would you like to weigh in? Yeah, perhaps this is now a theme of mine, but I'm fine with that. The person is also still sitting down and facing forward to a barrier. So I'm fine. Great. Commissioner O'Brien? As I said last week, the two inches to me is de minimis and is in my comfort zone. So the 510, 511 that we're talking about last week, the 510 number is fine with me. Okay, Commissioner Cameron, are you knowing, learning today that that's kind of a standard? Are you more comfortable? I am. Thank you. I am. Okay, Commissioner Stebbins. I'm comfortable with that. Okay, so do we need to make any other changes with respect to the social distancing on table games? I don't think so. Okay. Loretta, how are you feeling? I know, agreed that was the outstanding item. There had been consensus reached on the other portions of that section in the prior conversations, prior meetings. Excellent. Okay, so now occupancy. I believe our restart group had a lot of discussions around this and there was a lot of math going on, including I think we used an advocates perhaps and a calculator that had a real, I think it had the old fashioned. It's nostalgia. That's it. So, with that said, we were trying to take into consideration many factors and I'd like, in terms of Executive Director Wells, if you're in a position to prepare us for that discussion, that would be really helpful because it is challenging. So, Commissioner Zemigal, let us know for any reason if you need to, anything repeated, okay? We know you're moving. Thank you. Thank you. So, Commissioner, there are different models that we explored and you know that from the last time we had different options in the memo and then we had numerous conversations about how to accomplish that, looked at other jurisdictions. We're looking at a variety of issues, particularly what's going on at the casinos, what's expected to happen when they open. There are jurisdictions that use a percentage of the occupancy, however, the group that work together, the internal working group came up after a long period of debate and deliberation about a potential solve to the occupancy level issue. And that was a metric that would include identifying the number of open positions. So, the number of gaining positions once the casino opens, tripling that because not everybody's going to be sitting at the machine or at a table the entire time they're there. There's going to be a little movement going along and also adding the number of employees. We want to keep the employee number separate because the casino's going to have employees and we wouldn't want that to detract that from the calculation of the patrons. Add that and also if there are any amenities that there's, for example, they're opening restaurants, the governor already has guidelines for restaurants and the capacity at restaurants. So for each restaurant that's open, the casino would just follow the restaurant capacity guidance which has already been provided by the Baker-Polito administration. So those three things combined together would give you the occupancy. The one caveat is that we do have one licensee PPC which has a racing component. So we'd need to add the numbers to the occupancy for the racing component which would include the number of PPC employees, the number of MGC employees, the participants in the racing activities and the potential spectators. And I think Loretta has that sort of broken down. So that's the general thinking of the metric right now. We have gone through various iterations. The numbers tend to come out the same as far as why comparison to other jurisdictions that are under these kind of tighter guidelines that we have. So that's kind of the final recommendation that we've come to. I think I can defer to also to Commissioner O'Brien for some sort of a deeper dive into why sort of starting with the open positions was important. But also I think it's relevant to keep the employees as a separate metric for the occupancy level. That's helpful. So Commissioner O'Brien? Yep. So we did do a number of scenarios some of which were appended to D which was the materials that were provided last week that we're still referencing which went on some open slot position and gaming position availability and also occupancy percentage. When you look at some other jurisdictions that are capping at 25% of occupancy the calculations just laid out by Executive Director Wells are in that ballpark. What we felt comfortable with in terms of keying it to available positions is unlike some other jurisdictions like say New Jersey and Rhode Island again, we do not have bar activity. And so there was a question of keying it into the main activity is going to be the available gaming positions on the floor. There will be the other amenities the restaurants, et cetera. They are subject to the already existing rules. And so keying in the fact that what those numbers are that consistent with the guidelines of parties no greater than six should really be arriving if it's consistent with what the governor's directives are in restaurants coming into that meeting three in a party would allow flexibility for parties up to six individuals coming in availability of the seats and overflow without overly taxing the floor and creating a risk of people idly standing around which we had concerns we're going to exacerbate some of the conversations we've had about what to do with the drinks and the alcohol. Separating out the employees particularly at this phase also allows the licensees the flexibility to determine who do they need to actually effectuate the security the services, the cleaning everything that's going to be needed in a way that doesn't have them worrying about pitting clientele versus the employees they're going to need to execute this. The only thing that I think we did talk about that's worth maybe additional discussion too is whether we want to overlay a cap on it at this stage of and a no event greater than an occupancy percentage. I don't think we're anywhere near that risk of creeping up to an unacceptable percentage given how we're opening and how the licensees are opening given the restrictions but I do want to throw that out as another aspect of the conversation that the working group had as well. And just to add to that we would be monitoring the needs as the reopening begins and the public health metrics inform our restrictions and how the casinos are doing and we could come back to the formula but it is based on the open positions each licensee would have at the time of the opening. It also allows for flexibility so that if plexiglass is on route and there's a reconfiguration that allows that number to go up there and communication with IEB obviously about the layout and therefore that number would be the factored in in terms of the greater availability of the open game. Right and that communication is presumed and part of I'm sure other requirements and regulations I don't know if we need to include that in the guidelines but it does allow for that flexibility as Commissioner O'Brien points out as your gaming positions expand you would be able to make the adjustments. Do you want to just again go through it one more high level to make sure everybody's heard it and Commissioner Zuniga, do I still have you? Yeah, I'm still here. Okay, we'll just repeat it one more time so to make sure everyone understands it would be the formula would be, Karen? I can jump in. Okay, thank you. The formula would be the number of available gaming positions times three plus the gaming area employees plus restaurant capacity utilizing the occupancy limits set by the governor's guidelines regarding restaurants. No, I did do draft this with restaurant capacity but you may want to do plus capacity of available amenities. I like that better. The occupancy limits. I think that captures it more accurately. Yeah, I like that better. Amenities versus restaurants. Cause all the amenities are being defined by the advisory board. Right. Did you hear that? Okay, Commissioner Zuniga. Yes, I did and I think it's reasonable. Commissioner Stebbins. I think that's reasonable. Commissioner Cameron. Yeah, it would appear to me that the working group thinks this is the best way to move forward the most accurate way so that there will not be the risk of congregating. My only question was the ability of the licensee to capture this number. Is that, how is it doable? And do you mean it's like almost too fluid? Commissioner Cameron. Well, I just wanted, I'm just trying to think about how you in fact talk about gaming position times three plus employees plus other amenities, the percentage that would be allowed. I'm just wondering how in practical terms that number is captured. Cause one of the things that we've seen with other formulas would be to take the available gaming positions and maybe multiply it by a certain percentage. And I think what we've really done is the formula actually outlies, it really lays out the thinking behind the formula and maybe more exact than a general percentage, whether it's 15%, 20%, 30%. But to the extent that would be more helpful if we would wanna capture the percentage that really captures those factors. And because each facility has different amenities, this, it might be helpful to have it broken out as recommended today. Again, maybe as we go forward, we might need to reconsider how we define it. But do you wanna hear from the licensees right now, fellow commissioners? I mean, I believe the working group, it makes a lot of sense to me that the rationale, the whole idea of how you got to the number makes so much sense. The issue for me is just how, yes, how... Workability. Yes. Okay, Jackie, Seth and Lance, the workability, does that, how does that formula sound to you, Jackie? That formula sounds fine, thank you. And we are installing counters. So we'll be able to track that. Excellent, Seth. Yeah, the formula sounds fine. We will, I think as I mentioned previously, we'll have to control that access to the building. It's hard given a, you know, form model, it's hard to control on and off the floor. So we use those occupancy numbers as really a building occupancy, at least the first level building occupancy, which we control through people counters and surveillance. So I believe it's, I believe it's practical and achievable to hit those numbers, to use those numbers as limits. Excellent. And Lance? No issue, certainly workable and software helps us aggregate the occupancy. And we'll be working very hard to control the entrances you folks know. We'll take it down from three to one. So we have that control over who gets in and then we'll use the other two for exit only. And again, the software does aggregate for us entrance and exit to use the number. Excellent. Commissioner, I'll just go with each of my fellow commissioners for final questions on this topic. And then we'll circle back to make sure we're all set. I'm cognizant of the time, but we are not rushed. Commissioner Zuniga? No, no questions. Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner Stevens? No questions, just one comment. I will be curious to see what each licensee has for a queuing plan. Obviously there are going to be some peak times where you might be getting up against this occupancy limit. So your property has some different challenges with respect to queuing patrons. So I'll be looking for that as part of your final plans. Commissioner Cameron? Very comfortable. No additional questions. Thank you. And thanks to the team for all of that work and putting those numbers together and being thoughtful about what makes sense. Thank you. And it was a great team effort and discussion. So thank you. My favorite part, of course, was the calculator that Bruce used. And Commissioner O'Brien, I know that this was you advance the discussion, but as it evolved today, are you comfortable? No, definitely. The only thing I would do is reiterate what has been said in terms of the team effort and the amount of work that went in for the other members of the working group to allow us to bring it to a conclusion yesterday. All right. So Loretta, outstanding issues for you, we are to finalize these guidelines. And are we all set now? Yes, I believe I'll be able to do that today. So just for clarity, we're also adding for the racing for PPC. We're going to add in the racing numbers of employees, MGC, and patrons to that number. We could put that in an appendix. And I think the IEB could put that together separately. Karen, just so I understand, we're not talking about the racing barn in those facilities. We're strictly talking about the clubhouse to watch the races and for patrons to come and make bets, et cetera. The gaming floor. And that includes. Yeah, but Lance, help me out here. There is an area outside. Now, there would be a reduced capacity for outside. There's a little smaller area for racing there and then inside. So Lance, if you want to comment on that, that would be helpful. To be clear right now, under the guidelines, no spectators for the horse racing. So we are only talking about gaming floor at this moment for calculating occupancy. So we would use the language simulcast area instead of gaming floor for racing. Right, exactly. The local occupancy $593 and whatever the governor's directive is as it relates to a percentage of that $593 is what will be used. Does that make sense? Yes. OK, great. This one does. Is that helpful? OK. Commissioner Zuniga, were you able to hear Mr. George OK? Yes, just fine. OK, excellent. All right. That's a really good point. Thank you for that clarification. So in terms of process, we did reserve the right to vote today. Of course, we don't have a finalized document, but we have certainly aired our discussions. And we've gotten clarifications that were very helpful for today. We got clarifications from the licensees that are very, very important. We have great competence in Ms. Lillios in terms of being able to move forward on amending the document per our discussion today. How can I don't see our general counsel, not because he's not on. He's just not on my screen right now. But in terms of moving forward, there he is. Mr. Grossman, good morning. Moving forward, we could vote on our guidelines as presented in the hard copy subject to the amendments that were discussed today. And then do we need to do another? I'm trying to avoid having to reconvene for final approval, although I would like to reserve, of course, if there were some inadvertent error. If Commissioner O'Brien saw something that needed to be corrected, we could, of course, reconvene to amend. This document is always subject to amendments. So could we vote subject to the amendments being memorialized as per discussion? Yeah, I think that that's right. And I think you just want to be clear as to what your intention for these guidelines are exactly and how they will go into effect or when they would go into effect. And for how long? Presumably they will run parallel with the governor's reopening committee's advice. So that's just something else to consider. They may need to be revisited in the future. So we should leave that open as well. But yeah, I think otherwise, Madam Chair, the way you framed it, I think it's exactly right. Commissioners, does that sound okay? Is it a comfort level? Okay, I'm seeing some nods. I think I saw Commissioner Zuniga's phone nod. I'm okay, I'm still here. I'm on the street though. Okay, he's outside on the street. Well, we know you have a hard noon stop. So if there, can I, first, I just want to pause. Are there any other questions concerning this document? You've had it with, you know, from part of aisle now, we've had a lot of discussion, but there is absolutely no reason to hurry. Any concern, comment at this time? I am not seeing any of my commissioners asking to speak. Okay, then if any, if we would like to move on this, I am welcoming a motion. Madam Chair, I move that the commission adopt the minimum requirements for the initial phase three of the grouping of gaming establishments as set forth in the memo that was provided by IB on June 16th, 2020, but consistent with amendments discussed that date and at today's second. Okay, are there any further comments, questions? All right, I will do a roll call vote. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. Commissioner Stebbins. Aye. Chair votes yes, five, zero. We appreciate everyone's good work on these minimum requirements. We wish our licensees, you know, great success when the reopening is permitted. We don't have a certain date that will always be dependent on the public health metrics. And we thank our state leadership for the guidance that they will give us going forward on the reopening and to each licensee. I thank you for your patience today. Very, very meaningful. And we, of course, will continue to work closely with each of you and to Bruce and Burke who are experts in their team. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. With that said, if there's no further comments, Commissioner Cameron, Commissioner O'Brien, do you want to say anything further? Yeah, all right, thank you. Okay, thank you to everyone. Commissioner Stebbins. I'm all set, thanks to the team, great work. Okay, and Commissioner Zuniga. Thank you, everybody, all set. Okay, do I have a motion? Move to adjourn. Second. Okay, we'll call vote. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. And Commissioner Stebbins. Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you so much. Everyone be safe. Thank you, 5-0.