Okay. They look at started convening of Massachusetts gaming commission. We are holding this meeting this public meeting virtually so I will do April call. Good morning. Again, commissioner. And you're again. Morning again. Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning again. Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. I'm here. Again, commissioner me. Good morning, madam chair. I am here. All right, we're going to get started then and today is November 16. It is our public meeting number 402. It's my understanding today. We're going to move right into our community fairs. Programming for today. We have quite a bit on for you. Chief Delaney. Good morning. Thank you. Madam chair and commissioners. So several things up today. But the first item before you is a bond release before MGM spring field. So MGM spring field is requesting the release of a, of the performance bond that's being held for the commitment made by MGM spring field to construct 54 market rate housing units as part of their gaming license. Since we have several new commissioners on board, since we've last dealt with this, I put together a kind of a chronology of this whole thing. And if you've read through that, you'll see that an awful lot of stuff has transpired since the start of this project. I won't go into that full history of this, but I did want to touch on just a few things before the commission renders a decision on this. So throughout the design and permitting of MGM, a bunch of changes took place that were reviewed and approved by the commission. But ultimately what the requirement here was, was that MGM would develop 54 market rate housing units within a half a mile of the MGM site. So they started working on finding a location for that. And they had a couple of sites that they were working on. But in the meantime, the city of spring field had requested that MGM participate in the redevelopment of the 31 Elm Street property, which is of course right next door to the MGM site. And everybody was agreeable to that. So MGM negotiated with the city for, not for MGM to develop the property, but for them to contribute money towards that development. And that value was $16 million. Now there were various delays with the MGM project and the project opened without the completion of the housing units and the wall burgers building. And because these were incomplete, the commission required the posting of a performance bond at that time in the amount of $25 million. When wall burgers was finished, the bond was reduced down to $16 million, which is that magic number of how much money MGM had to contribute to the 31 Elm Street project. So in early 2020, things started really starting to come together on this project on the 31 Elm Street project. You know, this project is exceptionally complex. There are multiple parties that are involved with it. There's several different developers. There's mass housing. There's the whole, the city of Springfield MGM, all of these folks are all involved in this. So a number of agreements were written up at that time, which needed to be executed. But one of the things that the commission needed to do was in order for those agreements to move forward, the commission needed to confirm that that $16 million payment would satisfy the housing required. So just before the pandemic hit, we had a meeting out in Springfield and a number of motions were taken by the commission that essentially said MGM no longer has to provide 54 units of housing, but they do have to provide $16 million to mass housing. The commission did also require that that bond be maintained until such time as those payments were made. And again, due to the pandemic and other financial factors, some of those dates pushed out further and further and further. But in the end, on May 20 of this year, MGM made the $16 million payment to mass housing, which satisfies the housing requirement is established in those February 27 2020 motions. So based on that, you know, MGM has met their commitment by making that payment and therefore they can be released from this bond. So if you agree with the release of the bond, we request a vote to authorize that release. And I've also included in your packet a draft letter from Executive Director Wells to Gus Kim at MGM, you know, allowing the release. So with that, I will open it up for any questions from the commission. Any questions? Just appreciation. I don't have a question. Just a comment to Joe and his team and the people at MGM. I know it was a lot of work went into complying with that requirement and figuring out how to get that project off the ground. It's a good partnership. So it's, it's too bad Bruce Stevens isn't here to see it because we'd have very much appreciated this big step forward on this so it's good to see. And happy birthday to Bruce Stevens. I saw that on social media. Thank you, Joe. I thought that the history was really important for our new commissioners. It has been quite a journey, but in with so many partners, right Joe. Yes, and you know I should mention that the project is under construction now so it's not just that the payment is made it's actually moving forward. And you know it looks like we're really going to get these units and it's a it's a really transformational project for the city of Springfield and I think it's great for MGM and for us and for everyone. And I think when our schedules allow, there could be a permissible to work for us to go on. Joe as a group and I know that Commissioner O'Brien and I have the benefit of seeing it in the early stages and it will be really exciting to see it at this stage and then of course complete and it's completed but very exciting for Springfield. So you need a vote for us. Yes. Okay, I move that the Commission find that blue tarp redevelopment has satisfied its initial RFA to construction related obligations and is accordingly released from its obligation to maintain a deposit bond in accordance with section 10 a of chapter 23. I can. Any questions or edits on this. All right. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Richard. Hi. Hi. Hi. Five zero. Thanks. Great work. All right. So the next item up for your consideration is the on core quarterly report. We have Jackie crumb and Juliana Catenza reedy with us from on core to make that presentation. So Jackie, I'll turn it over to you. Well, thank you, Joe. And I guess I should say good morning again too. Thank you for having us here this morning. And we will go through this, I think a bit as quickly as we can because I know we also have guests here from the city for the second part of the agenda. So Juliana, do you want to kick us off? Sure, I'm just going to share my screen. Everyone able to see that. Great. So good morning, chair, Madam chair, commissioners, thank you for your attention this morning to our third quarter report. As usual, we will begin with a brief overview of our gaming revenue taxes and lottery sales. So as you can see during Q3, our gross gaming revenue for table games was about $81 million. So it was about $103 million for a total of $184 million with about $46 million and $46 million in state taxes collected. Here's a year over year comparison. And the Q3 results are highlighted here in yellow. Moving on to our lottery sales during Q3 our total lottery sales were about $879,000, which is a 13% increase over the same quarter of 2021. And here's the year over year comparison there. Moving on to workforce now. So at the end of Q3 we had a total of 3479 employees, 55% of those employees fell into a minority category, 2% were veterans, 46% were women. Of those 88% were residents of our hosts and surrounding communities and 91% were residents of Massachusetts as a whole. Can we pause on that? Sure. We have questions on these statistics. That's because it might be hard to go back. Any questions for Juliana? Can you just give us a couple, about a minute or so to just take a look at these, please Madam Chair. Sure. Just digest them. Michelle Hill. thoughts. I'm looking at the women. And I see that we continue to be below the goals that have been set, but I also remember in the last update that we got that there was probably going to be an increase in that number because more opportunities were going to be open in some of the businesses that had to have been closed during COVID. Is that an accurate statement? And or can we talk about that a little bit? Well, actually, we have gone up a one percentage point from previous quarters. So we're at 46% instead of 45%. We're continuing to make that effort. All of our teams have been, we talk about it, our director level meetings, all of our teams have been instructed as much as possible to reach out to try to, if there are two equal candidates obviously to select the women candidates. That's something that we're consciously working on and trying to increase. Jackie, can I ask a question about that and the women and also the minority representation and manager and above? Sure. You're very close to the women's stat. Yeah. Juliana, do you want to flip to the next slide? I think that might, yeah. Yeah. And then the minority that was about 10% off. I'm just wondering if you guys could speak to what you do and are doing to try to keep those numbers up. Sure. Again, it's a, in every, we hold a weekly meeting where we go through each job that's available for promotion and who the candidates are for that job. It's something that's at the forefront of everything we do. You'll see that it's a relatively small number of employees that we have in each of these categories. So the additional subtraction of two or three employees actually makes a percentage change. We did have some women who left the company for various reasons. Some wanted to move back to other states or whatever it is. And that actually dropped us a little bit. So it's something that we are focused on, but it is going to take time for us to make that direction. I'm just wondering, I know DPC has a program sort of where they almost tried to teach the opportunity, you know, with. And so I don't know if you have anything or contemplating anything like that. We do. And, you know, I'll give an example, our public areas department where we call our PAD department. We have a number of women in that department, which is quite unusual to have in that department that we're giving them some more management opportunities with the idea that hopefully they can move into a management position. Great. Other questions. I was wondering if we could go back to the revenue page because we kind of went through that one pretty quickly. Again, just a little opportunity to just take a quick gander. That's okay. I didn't mean to interrupt your cadence, but it's probably helpful. Rather than going all the way back. Sure. Question commissioner Hill. No, thank you, Madam chair. No questions now. Okay. Then we'll go right ahead then to if there are no further questions on the employment and supervisor. Juliana you want to pick it up. Sure. So moving on to our operating spend so our total discretionary spend for q3 was $21,587,000 that's that old number at the bottom of that 9% was spent on minority business enterprises 3% with veterans and business enterprises and then 15% with women's business enterprises those are the percentage marks that are shown right there. In here we have that same number broken down by locality. So as you can see more than half of our discretionary spend was spent within Massachusetts, and that includes more than $2.5 million in Boston and $1.8 million in Everett. Can I ask a question about the stats and you've got the annual on the first column and then ideally you'd see you know what 25% in q3 as a percentage and the highest is 12%. And the percentages are provided for the local spend I think just for just for analysis purposes the goal is based on that dollar figure. Got it. Okay. Yeah, sorry. I missed your question. Do you mind just gonna I was just looking at the the annual goals are in the first column for local spend. And then they have percentages. But they're saying they're going off of a 25% as opposed to the percentage of I guess my question is if you're trying to reach 20,000 20 million in Boston over the year. Ideally you'd have a 25% each quarter right. Um, my. 50% around the holidays or something and then it drops off I'm just curious as to why the numbers are where they are in that second q3 percentage column. So those annual goals were goals that were put into the surrounding community agreements when those were negotiated.  So, you know, we keep track of these things. And, you know, and I think it's something that that encore tries tries to do but it's, it's not always fully in their control on being able to spend money in a certain community. So these are in the actual agreements or is this something that can be revisited in terms of should it be reassessed. Yeah, these are in the surrounding community agreements themselves. They're not even negotiated between encore and the communities not right. We did not say that these are what the numbers should be. And it is also not a venue to renegotiate right these are sort of in these documents static. Right. That's right. And I think, you know, our procurement team is focused on this. So they're constantly going out and looking for businesses in these areas. We haven't been able to find some of the, some of our needs just don't exist.  So that's something that we were able to take advantage of but some of these other communities are more residential and don't have the manufacturers or the services in located within the those communities. I'm clear on on how we come up with these numbers because commissioners are asking great questions. Discretionary spend amount is the 21.6 million. And then I see it's about 5.9 for diverse and then 55%, which is great 119. I'm assuming that there's overlap. That's correct. So the discretionary spend is essentially the things that we know that we can't get in Massachusetts stop machines of it, for example. So what we're looking at is the leftover budget that we have and how that is utilized. So, you know, 55%. I don't know what your height, what the highest has been at our Jackie, I didn't do that comparison that that seems very healthy. My point is that with respect to the minority, we're going to have some overlap and the two, I'm presuming that that's correct. So, right. There will be some is your question are there some minority owned businesses within the local communities. Absolutely. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. I think we're all set. Perfect. So moving on to compliance. Here are the numbers for my is on minors on the gaming floor during Q3. We continue to train and retrain all of our relevant teams on the importance of preventing minors on the gaming floor. And I think that's been working as you can see here, we only had one minor intercepted gaming and one consumed consuming alcohol during Q3. And then the average time of minor on the gaming floor has been reduced. So that's just another thing that shows that the team effort we really have is to preventing and then removing minors on the gaming floor. And then I also just like to note that the all of the minors in the gaming floor that were under 18 or small children with parents and a stroller or carried and they were on the gaming floor for like less than a minute they were just promptly redirected. And just on this, I just met with our, we have a fairly new ish head of training and security, and he comes with a great wealth of a great background and he's actually expanded the training quite substantially added an entire day on to training and one of the key focus points is identifying keeping keeping awake keeping alerts. You know not getting into that repetitive nature and it's been really effective for the team. Did someone address the, the one that was on there for over an hour with the circumstances were in that case. Yeah that that person had a fake ID that's how they got onto the gaming floor. And then I think they were apprehended when they tried to. It may have been a cocktail server or somebody noticed them and asked to receive the ID again. Did it go through the very dark or Yes, I think so. It was a real ID. Yes, someone had barred. That's what I mean for a fake ID for the most part I think is we're talking really about someone using the valid ID of another person that looks like them a sibling or whatever so it's a legitimate ID. Just not there. Any other questions on this. Perfect. I'm going to turn it over to Jackie. Thank you. So we continue with our TRU patron donation and as you can see that continues to be a nice host of income for nonprofits. The next one. I'm excited we launched play my way in September. And I just wanted to thank both directed and a Linden's team as well as long and his team from game sense. They were absolutely instrumental in helping us pull this off in a really successful manner we were very pleased with the roll out I was concerned. It was a big, it was a big upgrade for us so our employees have been trained. We've seen a ton of enrollees. We, we did a match on the on the gift card with the gaming commission so thank you for that during, I think we, we did that all the way through October is that right Juliana. Yes, and yeah so very successful launch. There's a video if any of you are interested there's a video that we use for training purposes and we are playing back up house for almost the entire month during the launch. So we continue to track our volunteer hours. One of the most exciting events that we had in the third quarter was what we call feed the funnel, and we packed 83,000 meals in one day. It was so successful and our team members enjoyed it so much that we are bringing it back in a few weeks and we now have a goal and sort of 83,000 we want to pack 300,000 meals in three days. We are taking. We have a very friendly challenge with our property in Las Vegas to see who can do the most. And we'll let you know. We also collected donations, which we donated to beacon Academy which is was established to close the opportunity gap that that exists particularly for students of color. It's a 10 year program, very cool program where students essentially take it a year before they start high school, where they go over everything to prepare them for high school and then it's a 10 year program where they tracked and help through the college decisions and even their career opportunities. So our first nonprofit nonprofit leadership retreat we were very fortunate that we were able to hold it at Camp Harbor view and we actually took our boat boat and a whole bunch of nonprofit leaders came and joined us and it was a really informative and productive leadership retreat. This is probably my favorite and we offered a English as a second language course for team members it was completely voluntary. We had great participation and the first group successfully graduated in September. And it was so successful that we're relaunching it and making sure that anyone of our team members who wants to go through it will have the opportunity to participate. And Commissioner Brian will be pleased with this one. We went and visited the childcare facility. We were fortunate enough Catherine representative Catherine Clark and representative Barbara were also there to look at the facility. It's an extraordinary place. The design of the classrooms you can see in the picture to the left, the green sort of at the top is a tree coming out into the classrooms. Unfortunately they are having a really really difficult time hiring aids and teachers. So they're yeah they're at about 16. They have a they they have a much higher capacity but right now they only have 16 students. So they full classrooms that are just completely empty. And so representative Clark was drawing attention to that and trying to help them with their hiring efforts.  Absolutely. Yes, that they need. Yes, we haven't. We haven't had anyone express that as an issue or barrier into work. We're when we change schedules it's something that we're very conscious about so that we don't lose. We got to keep our women numbers up so we're very conscious about that those changes. Oh, it looks it's nice I like the lighting. It's fantastic. And they have the cutest little students they have a climbing wall for the toddlers. And it was really cute to see to see how excited they were to have visitors. That's great. That is it. Other questions. I'll set and cartel and report nothing else, come. So I want to make sure I haven't missed a hand. Let's just get it. Good morning, Jackie, and Juliana, I just wanted to say to you kudos on your employee volunteer initiatives. Great participation. And what a way to serve the community. So, so nice work there. and mentioned the program that PPC has in place relative to promotional opportunities from within. It'd be great to, you know, hear from you during a future presentation. Anything that you might be able to offer on-core might be able to offer to kind of augment the existing PAD program. I think you talked about it. I don't think you called it a program, but, you know, just to kind of recruit some additional women internally and people of color into those management and supervisor positions. And lastly, I want to give a shout out to the Harborview campus. It's beautiful grounds with fantastic views. My two children participated in those programs over the summer for a number of years. And so just a blast from the past. What a way to kind of reminisce. So thank you for your presentation. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. And you're right. It is an absolutely beautiful campus and it just serves such a critical purpose. We are also big donors to Camp Harborview. So we were actually fortunate enough to get them to open up and accept some students from Everett. So it's been a really wonderful partnership. Excellent. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Then I think we're all set on the quarterly report, but then we'll go on now to the next item on the agenda. Jim, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. So before you today is a proposal for the development of property on the east side of Broadway directly across the street from Encore, which as currently proposed, would include gaming, namely poker. So I thought I would spend just a few minutes up front here and give a little bit of background of what has transpired before and sort of what process we want to use to review this project. So in order to move this project forward, the commission needs to do several things. The first thing, which is the subject of this meeting today is the commission needs to determine whether or not gaming can actually be permitted on the property across the street and under what conditions that might take place. So in answering this question, this doesn't approve or deny the project itself. It just, it simply states that whether or not gaming can be allowed on that property. So if the answer to that first question is yes, we recommend that the commission follow the process that was used for the earlier east of Broadway development proposal, which would include a public hearing to get public input on the project. And then the commission would have a public meeting or meetings as necessary to evaluate and deliberate on the proposed project. Now, if we get to that point and the commission were to eventually approve the project, this presumably would necessitate an amendment to the gaming license and the imposition of certain conditions on the project. And just as an aside, Encore has submitted a notice of project change to MEPA on this project, so which is fine. I mean, these can certainly work in parallel processes. They're not, one does not particularly rely on the other. So just to make you aware that that is happening. And I think they sent all of you commissioners a link to that to that notice project change. But so just going back to the earlier project. So earlier this year Encore submitted plans for the east of Broadway development that did not include a gaming component. So ultimately, the commission agreed that the project should not be considered part of the gaming establishment. But it did place several conditions on the development. And the copy of that earlier decision was included in your packet. As currently proposed, the development now includes a poker room and a sports book. And you know, the inclusion of the poker room by necessity would require that the commission regulate this operation as part of the gaming establishment. So now when that earlier proposal came in front of the commission, one of the things that we, one of the issues that we raised at that time was whether or not the citywide referendum that was conducted in 2013 would be sufficient to cover this additional property. Because the commission determined that the proposal that that earlier proposal was not part of the gaming establishment, that question never needed to be answered. But because this new proposal would need to be part of the gaming establishment to operate, this question now does need to be answered. So essentially, again, the purpose of this meeting is to determine if Encore is legally allowed to cite gaming, not to develop itself, but gaming on the development, on that property that is adjacent to the one that was identified in the original referendum. So for today's, what I'm proposing for today's meeting is the following is that first we'll hear from Encore with essentially a high level presentation of the project as it currently stands. I think we want to know where things are, but we won't get into the really all the nitty gritty details of the project. That will happen at a later date if we get to that point. Next, we will hear from Todd Grossman with respect to 23K section 15, which talks about the referendum issue and what are the issues around that. Then after we will hear from Encore from Mintz Levin, who prepared a memo that was in your packet on Encore's position on this issue. And we also have some representatives from the City of Everett here, and we've asked them to be here to also discuss that issue of the referendum, but also to let us know what their general level of support is for the project. And then finally, we will have questions and answers from the Commission, but I'm sure there will be questions and answers throughout as we go. And also just the one last thing is I forwarded to you this morning, there was a letter of support from Mayor DeMaria from Everett that just came in late yesterday. So I guess if there are no questions from the Commission on process and so on, I'll turn it over to Jack, but any questions from the Commission before we do that? Okay. All right, Jackie. Let me see if I can share my screen. If there are documents that you're referencing, if you could indicate the page in the packet, that would be really helpful. Sure. So this is just a brief overview of the project, just to remind everyone where we are. Let's see if I can. This is not in our packet, correct? No, I don't believe so. So go ahead, Jack. No, this presentation is not in the packet. I did include in your packet the design plans that were submitted to us back in July, I believe. So obviously, you can see our property and the location of the proposed site is directly across the street from Broadway. The existing conditions, it is currently a surface-level parking lot. And this is the proposed expansion. So the proposed expansion would be the portion highlighted in blue, so you can see the pedestrian bridge coming in from Encore, from the existing facility. Moving over, this would be a covered walkway temperature-controlled with moving people, movers, to get people across the street and to the other side of the street. That's just a rendering of what we're looking at. So what you can see at the very top would be what they call a day club operating on the roof level. This is the proposed use. So we would have food and beverage as well as sports betting, night club, day club, comedy club, a poker room theater, 979 seats, the pedestrian bridge that we discussed, and then the garage as well. So on the first floor, just to orient you, the bridge would come in on the second floor. So the first floor you'd have to go downstairs if you came across from Encore would be the comedy club in the theater on the one side and then food and beverage, the sports betting on the other side. And then as you can see the bridge coming in on the second level, you would have the poker room to the left as you come off the bridge or the theater would be below and then the night club would be to the right. And the third floor would just be the day club, which would be open air and utilized according to seasonality. So we're anticipating about 4,000 construction jobs, 800 permanent jobs. We have been in discussions with the city. The city's had a long-term plan for putting in dedicated bus lanes on Broadway. So this project would enable them to do so. Obviously the pedestrian safety and traffic flow would both be improved as a result of the pedestrian bridge. We continue to be a member of the Lower Mystic Transportation Management Association, which is really working on ways to get people out of cars, incentivize them to take, to use bicycles and public transportation. And then in terms of the conditions, obviously we would make it have the look and feel that you see when you arrive at Encore. Not quite the same design, but from a visual perspective that landscaping rather than the surface lots, you'd now have some landscaping there. We will be pursuing lead gold certification, which is what we pursued at Uncle Boston Harbor, and we're fortunate enough to receive platinum. We will have renewable energy, zero-net energy building during operations, high-performance building envelope, all electric heating and cooling, electric vehicle charging, LED lighting, stormwater management, and environmental remediation of the existing sites. Just from a permitting perspective, this lays out what we anticipate that we would have to. Obviously we need to to receive permission from the Commission in terms of expanding the gaming establishment. As Joe referred to earlier, we have filed our notice of project change, so that's pending an out for public comment as well. There are some local permits that we'd also need from the City of Everett, including site plan approval, roadway improvements, and a specific repair license. So that's just the overview. Do you have any questions? I have a couple of clarifying questions. Last time we talked, one of the big issues that came up from many of us on the Commission had to do with public safety concerns regarding the bridge and the entrances of the bridge into the casinos, the garage area. But now from what you just showed us, I also have a couple of other questions. I see that a nightclub would be proposed for this building. Are you proposing moving the current nightclub to the other side of the street, or would there be two nightclubs now? No, we would propose to move the current nightclub, expand their footprint a little bit, give them some more room. Hopefully that will enable them to continue to attract prime talent. It's no secret that we've had some issues in terms of the way the nightclubs designed and the exit of people leaving the nightclubs, so we're hoping that this new design would be better suited for that purpose. And I think as a similar question, I think I saw on the proposal that you put forward, that you would be able to do sports bedding across the street. Does that mean you're moving your sports bedding pilot across the street as well, or would you be able to do it in both locations under this proposal? We would keep the sports bar that we currently have at Uncle Boston Harbor and at additional facilities. One of the things that obviously since we first proposed to you now is sports bedding was approved. And when we were looking at our sports bar, we have about 300 seats, which we don't think is going to be enough. So with your proposal, it will be a similar setup to what's across the street now, or in the current building? Yes. And can you speak to the public safety piece of the bridge in a garage that we had brought up before? So we will have much like the entrances right now to Uncle Boston Harbor. We will have security guards at each entrance. One of the things about the bridge is you can use the bridge simply to cross Broadway. So you can come up from the sidewalk, cross Broadway and go down on the sidewalk. For that purpose, that would not be restricted entrance. So we would have to have restricted entry on both ends. As you come off the pedestrian bridge and go into one of the other facilities, you would be asked for identification. And then in terms of the garage, we would have that controlled by our security team as well. I think my other questions, Madam Chair, are going to have to do more with the legal piece of this discussion more than the proposal that's before. So thank you. Yeah, I think the commissioners do know a lot of folks will help us on the legal piece. Do we have any other questions for the plan? Commissioner Hill, I'm surprised you didn't ask about the theater. I presume that the theater seats are on accordance with our earlier discussions around Iowa, right? That is correct. So I have a question for you, Jackie. And maybe I spaced out for a moment and you answered it when you answered Commissioner Hill, but what's the plan for the vacated memoir space? No set plan yet. We may turn that into additional gaming space, but it really hasn't been established. So in terms of the petition, it doesn't want to expand gaming area. That's not incorporated into anything right now. No, it's not. Does the bridge impact the bridge design? I can't really make sense of the sorry, the design. Does it impact memoir space more directly than earlier? It does. So we moved the bridge slightly and it makes the pathway a little bit shorter as well, but instead of coming in in that space between on deck and memoir, it would now come in where memoir is. That would allow both our employees to use it as well as guests. Because one of the concerns we had was our employees entered through back of house. So we need to make sure that they had that access as well. So as long as that space will be eliminated in any case? That's right. Michelle, Brian, does that help answer your question too? Okay. Any other questions? So right now we saw the gaming commission, Nipah, and what was the third regulatory? NWRA. And then the city of Everett. Okay, if there's no further questions, go ahead, Brad. Madam Chair? Yes. Just as a follow-up to the iLev question that you did bring up, now that it has been brought up again. Can someone explain, because I think there's three of us on the commission now that are relatively new in regards to the iLev agreement with a new theater put into place under this proposal, does that now open up a new discussion with the folks that you have an agreement with the iLev? How does that work at this point? So it would not open that discussion because the theater is under the thousand seat. So the discussion opens when it's between 1,000 and 3,500 seats. But we have been in discussions with the various theater groups in the area. Can you elaborate a little bit more about that at this point or no? Sure. I won't put words into their mouth, but I think they're comfortable with our proposal as is. So a further discussion needs to take place, I think. Madam Chair, on that issue. But we'll get to that. I guess I'll just follow up. The earlier plan, if I recall, allowed for flexibility, and that it could almost be, as I imagine I might be wrong, a convention type space. Are these going to be set theater seats now? These will be set theater seats. So no more expansion. No more exhibit power. We wondered about the crowd control on that. Okay, so it would be a limited number without the possibility of dining around it where seats could be added in or anything like that. So it would be how many seats do you expect? 979. And the remaining areas are what we were proposing for sort of that flex area is now taken out by the gaming areas. Is it still going to have that same restriction that we put on, which is you can't get in the gaming area to look down? Yes, you wouldn't be able to. It's a theater, standalone theater. And Commissioner Hill, just to the point of the I11 and the other theaters and so around there, once we get past this first piece, we intend to have a public hearing where all of those folks will be invited, the surrounding communities, the host community and all of those folks who are expressed interest in this before will be invited to that meeting to provide public input. So I'm glad you mentioned the surrounding communities because I had a question similar to Commissioner Hill's in that would there be an opportunity for the surrounding communities to weigh in on this proposal and potentially reopen the mitigation agreements for further negotiation? I wasn't sure if I should ask that now or just a little bit later in the presentation when we get to the legal portion of it. So thanks for mentioning. Yeah, and I think all of those things are topics for discussion. I don't think they're topics for discussion today. I think we need again, we have to get sort of through this legal hurdle first and then we'll then we'll have to establish all of those, there are many things that we need to talk about diversity on the construction and all of these and again, whether I think Jackie said they're going to do lead certification, but you know, it goes back to all of our original requirements for the main facility that we would have to look at for this as well. So to that point, Joe, we've gotten through on our agenda, subsection C, I and little one and little two. I and so either further questions for Jackie. I do have one. Okay, thank you. Is there anything in what we've submitted or what you were showing us earlier that shows what the boundaries are of what back in 2013 was known as the Monsanto chemical site? So that would overlay what you've shown us. Yeah, the land that we were talking about was not part of the Monsanto chemical site. However, the the gateway parcel across from us where the Costco and Target is and everything that actually was part of the Monsanto site. And is there any way I've seen I can be able to do it today, but is there any way that you could provide that to us in terms of showing an overlay of that site and how it's into kind of what's here and what's proposed? Absolutely. Thank you for the questions on Jackie on her presentation because think what I'm understanding is we have a threshold issue that we've got to get to and that starts with the legal presentation. So our own counsel, right? Yes, I think this would be the time to turn it over to Todd and to understand his evaluation of 23K and what all of that means. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks, Joe, Madam Chair, commissioners and all who are joining us here today. So as has been already discussed, the specific issue before you for consideration is whether the commission has the legal authority to allow gaming at the prospective development across the street. Not specifically, of course, whether the facility can be built at all. That was already reviewed and the commission, of course, said that it essentially could be because it was not going to be considered part of the gaming establishment. It's just because the plan has changed to include gaming that this threshold question has arisen. To answer that question, we have to look at a number of sources. The first, of course, is chapter 23K and there are a few provisions that we'll have to take a look at and we'll walk through those momentarily. Relatedly, it'll be important to look at the host community agreement as well. It was executed between what is now the licensee, Windmass LLC, and the city of Everett. I also just wanted to note that attorney Meena Macarius from the firm Anderson Krieger has joined us and he has, will he be able to answer some questions about some of these principles that we'll be discussing as well. So I'll start by reviewing the governing law and at the outset, it's important to recognize that unfortunately, the law is silent when it comes to expansion of gaming operations beyond the footprint of the existing gaming establishment. You'll recall, of course, that the commission has established a four-part test to determine whether certain non-gaming areas are to be considered part of the gaming establishment, but that test will not wholly answer this immediate question. And similarly, it's important to clarify that the commission is not being asked, as we've discussed, whether it will actually approve gaming at the property across the street today, but solely whether it can issue such approval if it were so inclined. So with that, we can jump right in. And I would note that the two documents that I'll be talking about are on pages 99 and 100 of the commissioner's packet page. The page numbers are a little difficult to read in the packet, the version I have anyway, but page 99 is a question of the ballot question. And I'll come back to that momentarily. And page 100 is just an excerpt from chapter 23K section 15. This is paragraph 13 in particular. And that's where I'd like to start. This is the section of law, section 15, paragraph 13, that you may recall required a favorable vote in the host community on a ballot question in order for an applicant to be eligible to receive a gaming license in the first place. In the case of Wynn, such a vote was conducted on June 22, 2013, and the results were, of course, favorable. The question is, what precisely did the electorate approve of that day? The answer to the broader question before you may turn on how you answer this narrower question under the law. And there are a few pieces of subsection 13 that we should take a careful look at. And so I'm not sure if it'd be helpful if I share the screen so I can point this out, or if everyone is just looking at the statute. But given its length, if there's no objection, I'll just put it up so you can see where I'm referencing specifically. There are three parts that I'd like to look at. So here we go. Page 100 of the commission's packet. The first thing, and this is not in here, is that the kind of the introductory language in section 15 says, no applicant shall be eligible to receive a gaming license unless the applicant meets the following criteria and clearly states as part of an application that the applicant shall. And then it goes into a series of requirements. And the one we're looking at is number 13. Todd, it's really small so that if anybody is relying on it, you can't really read it to the public. So this is, yeah, absolutely. So this is subsection 13. And it says that essentially the applicant shall have received a certified in binding vote on a ballot question at an election in the host community in favor of such a license. Now, of course, I added the highlights there just to direct your eyes to that part. So again, recalling that the question is what did the electorate vote on? There are a couple of things to look at. The first is that the statute on its face says that the applicant had to have received a certified in binding vote on the ballot question in favor of such a license. The interceding area here gets into some of the process involved, but I'd like to just move down here if I may. Then it says provided further that at such election the question submitted to the voters shall be worded as follows and it actually sets out right in the law what the question had to say. And you'll note here that it's referred to a specific description of the site. And that's where we get into oops, going the wrong way. Here we go. So this is the ballot question. It was based on the statute and you can see that the question here was shall the city of Everett permit the operation of a gaming establishment licensed by the Massachusetts gaming commission to be located at property located on horizon way off lower Broadway and Everett, formerly known as the Monsanto chemical site. And then there are a series of additional pieces of information that are required in the statute and we can have a look at those as well. But I would like to just kind of get back to the statute here. So the the important piece that we just wanted to flag for everyone is that the ballot question itself references the specific parcel that Commissioner Brian was just asking about. And that was the precise question before the electorate on that day. It also the law also goes on to say though, right after it as you can see, provided further that if the majority of the votes cast in a host community and answer to the ballot question is in the affirmative, the host community shall be taken to have voted in favor of the applicant's license. So in effect in an effort to distill this part of the issue then the analysis turns on whether you interpret this subsection 13 to mean that the voters approve of wins license generally, or you view the inclusion of the specific parcel on the ballot as an indication that the favorable vote approved that specific parcel, meaning the former Monsanto chemical site on horizon way. Let me take this down. Okay. And I think there's general agreement that the location across the street is not part of the month former Monsanto chemical site. So there are those two competing, if you will, provisions or three competing provisions of section 13. Once the commission answers that question, the answer to whether gaming can be allowed across the street will flow relatively naturally. That being said, in order to answer that question, it may also be helpful to consider some of the language in the host community agreement. Clearly, the host community agreement was a part of the calculus and it's liberally referenced throughout section 13. And we can talk a little bit about that, but if you take a look at section 13, you'll see that the execution of the host community agreement was a trigger for certain activity under this particular ballot question that the host community agreement had to be summarized and that information had to be included on the ballot itself as it was. And overall, certainly the host community agreement was an important part of this whole process. So can I ask you to the other part that says that the agreement itself is supposed to be posted on the municipal website within seven days and up through certification? I'm assuming that was done, but can you just clarify that for the record? Yes. I don't have the materials right in front of me, but I'm nearly a hundred percent confident that that was checked and looked at. Perhaps even by myself at the time. So yeah, I think I don't think that's an issue. I know I just wanted that on the record. Oh, absolutely. I believe section 13 was completely satisfied at the time. That was something that was looked at very carefully. So I don't believe there are any procedural issues with compliance with this section. But the question now before us, of course, is what does it actually mean? And so that's kind of the issue. The thought was, and I don't want to put Mr. Starr on the spot here, but I know that he presented some information to the commission about the licensee's views of the host community agreement. And I know we didn't have a chance to introduce Mr. Starr, but Attorney Tony Starr from the law firm, Mins 11, represents when I let him introduce himself, of course. But with the commission's indulgence, I'd ask him perhaps to talk a little bit about his interpretation of the host community agreement and walk the commission through that. And then we can certainly follow up, answer any questions and clarify any points if that sounds okay. Good morning, Mr. Starr. Good morning. Thanks, Todd, for that lovely on-the-spot setup. Appreciate it. Good morning, commissioners and commission staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning about my client, WinMA LLC's request to revise its gaming established boundary to include a gaming area in the east of Broadway development in Everett. And thank you to the MGC staff for including the Mint's letter of September 13th to Chief Delaney in today's meeting packet. Like Attorney Grossman, I think there's several questions before the commission today to ponder in connection with this request. So I have three that I've tried to break it down. The first question is, does the commission have the authority to revise Win's gaming establishment boundary? I answer that question in the affirmative. The commission has brought authority under Chapter 23K and the regulations promulgated there under. Like Attorney Grossman, I agree that Chapter 23K is silent on the commission's express authority to revise a licensed gaming establishment boundary once that boundary has been established. But we think there's several sections of Chapter 23K that evidence the legislature's intent to give the commission this authority. I would point the commission to 23K, Section 1, subsection 10, which provides that the power and authority granted to the commission shall be construed as broadly as necessary for the implementation, administration and enforcement of 23K. Also 23K, Section 4, subsection 15, states in pertinent part that the power and authority granted to the commission shall be construed as broadly as necessary. Strike that, sorry. I was in for Section 15. The commission shall have all powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate its purposes, including but not limited to the power to. And again, this is under Section 4, subsection 15. Condition a license for any cause that the commission deems reasonable. Lastly, of course, in 23K, Section 21, subsection C, that provides a commission may include any reasonable additional requirements to the licensed conditions. I think when you read these statutory sections together, it provides the authority with the commission with the discretion to revise a licensee's gaming establishment boundary once that's been set. Of course, in the regulations in the commission's regulations at 205 CMR 102.06, there is a language in there which provides that matters, not specifically provided for in 205 CMR regarding the licensing of a gaming establishment or the operation of a gaming establishment shall be determined by the commission or where applicable by commission staff in a manner consistent with the principles set forth in Chapter 23K, Section 1. And lastly, I would refer the commission to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision in the Revere versus the Massachusetts Gaming Commission case, which noted that the legislature vested a tremendous amount of discretion in the commission. I think in a sense, the commission has really already decided this first question in the affirmative by the action you took in March of 2022 summarized in the memo of 2022. And by that, I mean, when we came before you at that time, the commission considered whether the then proposed project should be considered part of Encore's existing gaming establishment and then subject to the commission's regulatory oversight. And as Attorney Grossman and Chief Delaney mentioned, the commission applied the well established four factor test and determined that the first three parts of the test were met but concluded it did not have a regulatory interest and instead could address certain specific concerns through license conditions rather than modifying the existing gambling establishment boundary. So in effect, I think what the commission determined in last spring was it had authority to modify the existing gaming establishment boundary if it chose to but it declined to do so under the fourth factor of the analysis instead of deciding to address it through license conditions. And in your memo of May 12, the commission and staff wrote that that the courts have twice examined the four part analysis as well as the discretion of the commission to make determinations relative to the composition of a gaming establishment. Specifically, it was recently recognized that the application of the analysis in determining the boundary of a proposed gaming establishment in 2014 and I quote has a certain practical logic and must be afforded extreme deference by the court that was in the city of Revere versus MGC case at the business litigation session this past February. So we believe it's clear that the statute does authorize the commission to determine the boundary of a gaming establishment and thus revise it as appropriate as facts develop in the commission's discretion. So that's the first question. The second question which I think Attorney Grossman raised very clearly was did the June 22, 2013 election in Everett pursuant to 23k section 15 subsection 13 approve the license to win or did it approve both the license and the host community agreement? And we think that the election approved the license generally and the content of the host community agreement. And here's how we get to that conclusion. And I think that Attorney Grossman mentioned that it's page 99 of your packet that has a copy of the ballot. So if the commissioners had that in front of them, I would direct you to the paragraph immediately below the question that Attorney Grossman read and I'll read it. The question asked voters to consider approval or denial of the operation of a gaming establishment in the city of Everett under 23k authorizes the Massachusetts gaming established the gaming commission to award a limited number of licenses to operate gaming establishments subject to the commission's approval as well as other prerequisites and then importantly it reads those prerequisites include approval by the voters at a ballot question election in the municipality where the establishment would be located as well as a host community agreement between said municipality and the gaming license applicant and of course as Attorney Grossman pointed out the ballot included a fair and concise summary of the provisions in the host community agreement. I understand 86 percent of the voters approve the ballot measure. My understanding as Attorney Grossman mentioned was that all requirements of section 13 were complied with including making the host community available to the public in various locations which I understand to have included the Everett public library Everett City Hall and online and I'm sure when the attorney for Everett Mr. Silverstein speaks today and I'm all that and I think that there's a section of 23k section 15 subsection 13 which Attorney Grossman didn't highlight but which I think is also important to this consideration and I think that would be page 100 of your packet and it's in the copy that is in your packet. I would draw your attention to the second and third line and indeed the very first provided language says provided however that a request for an election shall take place after the signing of an agreement between the host community and the applicant and we think that that's important language because it makes clear that an applicant may not ask for a vote until the host community agreement has been signed thus making clear the legislature's intent that the host community agreement was very much part of the vote and in the ballot and the consideration of the public so we think that that second question gets answered in the affirmative and then of course the third question is does the April 19th 2013 host community agreement which we believe was incorporated into the vote does that host community agreement between the city of Everett and when MA LLC contemplate the expansion of the Encore project as outlined in the mince letter of September 13th and described in more detail by Jackie in her PowerPoint presentation this morning and we answer that question again in the affirmative yes the host community agreement between when MA and the city of Everett does specifically contemplate that when may undertake substantial new construction on property other than the current Encore Boston Harbor site and and here's here's how we get to that conclusion if you would it be helpful if we turn to the host community agreement itself yes i'll give you a couple of page references and uh is can someone help me identify what page in the packet it is 39 39 there's a beginning of it thank you madam chair i i apologize i should have noted that i was working with a standalone coffee so i apologize yeah so um if you're if you've got the host community agreement open um i would direct your attention to a couple of provisions which i think are are helpful to the consideration that the commission is embarked on today the very first recital um in the on page one of the agreement states when directly or through an affiliate has or will acquire land and options to acquire land in the city in and around the area depicted in exhibit a and exhibit a is the last page of the of the host community agreement and it it shows you know multiple other sites not just the site where the current ebh is is located um so the the recital says in and around the area which i think right away tells the reader that there may be um opportunities beyond just what's uh in exhibit a and then with more specificity if you turn to page four of the host community agreement um there's section one which deals with the impact fee payment to everett and then section two which deals with the pilot payment and both of those have language which anticipates a chain a project change and new construction and it's the same language repeated in both if you if you're looking at the impact fee payment uh section one and you go down about 14 in lines you'll see there's a sentence that starts on the left hand side it's down one two three four five six seven eight nine yeah the 15th line down and and i'll read portions of it the parties recognize that the project may change and the proposed impact fee with annual increases will apply notwithstanding such changes including any increase to the project site and building area however if total square footage of the project building area not including parking areas exceeds the 1,750,000 square feet and the party shall renegotiate the impact fee and good faith it goes on to say the area cap shall apply to new construction on the project site after wind has commenced operations provided however if after wind commences operations which is where we are now wind undertakes any substantial new construction on property which is not a part of the project site as of the date when commences operation then the party shall renegotiate the impact fee or negotiate a separate impact fee in good faith based on the actual impacts resulting from such substantial new construction on such new property and that those same seven or eight lines appear also at the end of section two regarding the pilot payment the east of broadway development which jackie described this morning is being developed on and i quote property which is not a part of the project site as of the date when commenced operations and therefore it meets the definition of new property under the host community agreement when in the city of everett obviously have choices under the host community agreement to address this new property they can either renegotiate the pilot or negotiate a separate real estate tax arrangement and they can renegotiate the impact fee it's all built in to the host community agreement so in some um our position is there's no need um to have a a new vote uh or anything like that because the host community agreement itself which was brought forward in 2013 specifically incorporated into the ballot vote speaks directly to where we are today new construction on new property away from the current site so i think there's a path for everett and the and win to deal with this proposed development under the host community agreement and from a legal perspective i believe the host community agreement was embedded and made part of that ballot question and therefore um has been approved and there would be no need for a new a new vote thank you thank you mr star questions before we turn to mr macarius and and mr grossman for mr star if you want to hold your questions so we hear both that's okay commissioner skinner i think you might have gone first did you go first or commissioner brian it doesn't matter i've just heard of commissioner brian um attorney star i just can you tell me whether or not the actual text of the host community agreement was available at any of the election sites on the day of the election um i'm sorry commissioner brian i would not be able to answer that question um i can try and find that out for you or um attorney silverstein may be able to address it or jackie may know i i don't know i'm sorry commissioner brian um i do know that the as part of the rfa too um the city did a mailing to every household in the community that included the host community agreement as part of that um so that that's that letter that was sent out that included the r the uh the host community agreement was copied in our our any submission on the rfa too could you get a copy of that to us yes i can that would be helpful thank you i just sent that to um mr star yesterday i will forward it to all of you and just a comment madam chair um i as one of the the four that was here in the spring i think this is a live issue i do not think that this is something that was disposed of by our decision in march so to mr star's earlier point that we by our actions we had disposed of this correct that what you're saying commissioner brian yes that i don't agree with that i think that that's fair because we were presented with a different proposal is that fair mr brian yes the proposal was not for gaming correct well and just to to put a finer point on that um where the commission found that that would not be part of the gaming establishment we didn't need to address the question as to whether the election included that or not because it just wasn't part of the gaming operation so it didn't really matter but now it does matter and we have not squarely addressed what we think the effect of that vote was that day and that is really the question before you now um can i just please return to commissioner brian i think that's exhausted your questions i have one question or comment from commissioner skitter mr christian thank you madam chair attorney star could we go back to exhibit a of the hca for a minute my question is is the proposed new site depicted in that plan it is not um the proposed well the uh to be uh very very specific uh the pedestrian bridge uh would would fall on this plan but um the the the build things and structures that jackie showed on the powerpoint commissioner skinner are as you look at the drawing they would be to the right of the um the law of the of the street of of broadway street broadway street is i think the the long street i this this uh uh this particular exhibit i can't tell from the my copy whether um it has the name of the street on it but it's my understanding that that's broadway running top sort of north to south on the drawing from the bottom to the top and then the uh buildings would be to the right of it on the third of the page that has uh is blank does that answer your question commissioner skinner it does yes thank you could just get a can i just follow up with your question because i don't know if that will be helpful to you or not but i had that same question and then i went back to that first recital that uh is on page i think it's 38 or 39 of our of our packet and it says when directly or through an affiliate has or will acquire land and options to acquire land in the city in it and around the area depicted in exhibit a an exhibit a is described or defined as the project site so i'm presuming as we went through the project site is the original project and so your point mr star was but it's in and around the area it would be my point um that it's um you know obviously quite proximate to the site it's just across the street uh it's just across broadway from the site so i i think it's it's a a reasonable interpretation of in and around the area to include a parcel that's directly across the street so i don't know why did i have that exact analysis going on in my head commissioner skin and what is exhibit a exactly all right um i have a follow up to that also and we're going back to that language you just cited uh madam chair in the first page of the host community agreement uh attorney star am i correct that they didn't win the applicant at that moment didn't have um fee simple in that land yet right didn't they have a purchase to buy but they didn't actually own it at that point or is that had they already completed the purchase at that point in in the where the where the current encore boston harbour is located yes it you it was an option it was an option to buy right um yes commissioner brian uh win ma closed on the property uh the last week of december of 2014 um as you know the license was initially awarded in september of 2014 and then we had the referendum vote the first week of november of 2014 and then the closing took place on the property so it was under option at that time in the in 2013 it was under the original option agreement okay thank you and commissioner brian i i apologize i want to your earlier um comment about the live question i want to make sure that i wasn't um you didn't hear me to say that the ultimate question before you today was determined in the spring i didn't intend that at all what i was only talking about at that point was the question about whether or not um the commission has the discretion um to adjust um a gaming establishment boundary not the particulars of this this matter at all just um my my view is that based on the statute and on on the analysis you've done on multiple occasions before including this past spring you've evidenced at least in my mind um an understanding that you have that ability if you chose to modify a gaming establishment boundary that's as far as i was going i was not at all suggesting that the the ultimate question which chief delaney and attorney gross man have posed today was addressed at all the spring i and and if i misspoke i apologize for that that was not my intention right thank you for the clarification very helpful very helpful thank you okay so at this point should we turn to mr grossman and mr carryus and then we can go back to mr star thank you so just to put a finer point on that of course the commission has amended the boundaries of gaming establishments over the years the distinction i think largely here between those instances in here is that those were contiguous or pertinent if you will to the actual boundary of the existing gaming establishment so it didn't raise this question under uh 15 13 as to what the voters had actually voted on at the time and that's why this instance is a little bit different from those i think i don't think there's any question as mr star articulated that the commission does have very broad discretion and does have discretion to expand the boundary of a gaming establishment the question here is whether you can do it across the street from the existing parcel and that's kind of the distinction between the issues or the requests we've reviewed in the past and the present request so that those run through i think all of the materials that are relevant to the calculus here and let me just pause for a minute and mr carryus is there anything you thought would be helpful to add before we continue on i'll be very brief i think attorney grossman has already given you the sort of lay of the land on 15 13 and what the issues are there in our reading of the materials that mr star and the encore team provided um i think the the issue that remains uh is whether the i do think there are good arguments that the host community agreement contemplated future development and contemplated um a potential expansion and provided for opportunities uh for the city to perhaps negotiate a new pilot it's or expand the pilot etc however uh i i think an argument could also be made that that doesn't fully answer the question of whether voters need to weigh in again um and that really turns more on the language of 15 13 than it does on the hca in other words the hca may set up some of the safeguards and sort of agreements between the city and encore for what needs to happen before an expansion uh but it may not answer all of the questions just as i think you know and i think as encore would recognize just as there may be additional permitting mepa compliance etc that they're going through um that's not just but and that sort of throws us back into the uh statutory analysis that todd was talking about so i would say that commission's focus should really be first and foremost on on that statutory analysis as opposed to necessarily just the agreement so i have a question i think it was one that we raised earlier about this effort city solicitors feel about this so madam chair we do have several folks here from the from the the city representing the city of everett if you wanted to hear from them at this point well it certainly seems to be from my perspective been kind of in their lane but i'm all ears here from my fellow commissioners do you want to hear from the city now or do you have further questions at this juncture for our team because i i we've heard what seems to be a little bit of competing legal analysis madam chair i think what would help me answer that is to have a better understanding of what where where we go from from here so after today what what are the next steps in terms of decision making in terms of you know a public hearing etc well i think the public hearing piece and i don't want to say that um is if we could just bifurcate the issue around how the the city feels and we feel and the stakeholders feel about the actual proposal and concentrate but i think we're being asked is to make a determination that's a legal analysis about whether or not the referendum permits it and i'm thinking it's really interesting that the mass justice gaming commission make that determination but i can be convinced that that's that that's for us to decide versus and i see we have folks from from ever to help um commissioner hill you've been in this the city lane the town lane before you've been a legislative what what would you like to hear first and commissioner skinner i didn't mean to put um your question off because i think that's where we are right now and then if we went if we depending on that threshold issue if we were to decide now if they can't do it and i think we wouldn't ever entertain us again unless it became a non-gaming yeah and i guess my question is more specifically when would the commission decide that threshold questions certainly i mean because there's not a vote we acknowledge that it's not happening today but just looking to get an understanding of what our process is going to be yeah well i think you know what what we would want to do is you know after we get all of the input today i think the commissioners can sort of sift through that and and and think about it and see if there's anything if there's any additional information we need or so on but i think we would want to vote on this threshold question first before we moved ahead with the remainder of the process because once i mean look if the answer is no can i ask what the vote would be that we would be taking what would the motion be the actual question yes i i think you would it would be something along the lines of the fact that well first if i may i will answer that question of course but let me answer the other question you raised at least in my estimation there is no question that it is up to the gaming commission to interpret what section 15 13 means not the city or not anyone else but it's interesting to hear what other people have to say about it we have to have received a certified and binding vote on a valid question we wouldn't want and and then it proceeds from when we want to have some difference to the city and interpreting that i i see you could i think a court would look to it's not like we have to do it on our own in isolation i would say the city's input it would be valuable to a determination that we make as a body and i did not mean to suggest that we don't want to hear from the representatives from everyone who are on today i absolutely think we should be hearing from them i just want to get an understanding of how we move forward after i appreciate that and i i don't think anybody interpreted as that but i think your question was a really fair one and there's this threshold legal question that we're just being presented to us and ultimately um jose imagining a vote and i'm imagining okay but how do we make that determination and i hear i'm saying because it's in a you know the gaming commission 23k that it's it's ours to decide and i guess i'm saying okay so it's ours to decide how that decision making process is also important condition scanner you know i think you're in agreement with me how do we make that decision how do we come up with that determination which remainder i uh agree with commission scanner and you madam chair that any decision you know if we do have the authority to make this decision and to interpret our own statutes and so forth it's very important to me that the directly elected officials from this community some of which are still in place today as they were in 2013 um get me their opinion on how they're viewing this and and that would weigh in and factor into the way that i make any decisions going forward michelle from land so the the further explanation they're expounding on that though is this is not simply an everett question we have licensees who are given gaming licenses in a number of municipalities so to the extent that we want to hear from municipal officials on their interpretation now maybe the analysis goes into the hca the answer to whether that's a yes you can do it or no you can't do it is very licensee specific but to the extent we're seeking input i would want input from you know all the municipalities that could be potentially impacted by that and then in theory we have regency you can't get everybody but we do have you know two other licensees um and if we make a determination specific to our authority that impacts them i want to make sure they've had the opportunity to give us their feedback as well okay so that's helpful commissioner have i you had asked earlier if i wanted to hear from the everett officials my answer is yes i i actually would like to hear their opinion on this um as that will also help me moving forward but i appreciate what commissioner o'brien just said as well excellent okay so if we have some representation today um so madam chair i believe we have the mayor's chief of staff here as well as the assistant city solicitor as well as attorney silverstein i think who's outside counsel for for the city of nether and my apologies i will ask that you identify your position and introduce yourselves it's a little tricky with the virtual platform so i appreciate that mr vane good morning madam chair and through you to the commissioners and the commission staff i'm erin devaney i serve as mayor d maria's chief of staff um and the mayor sends his sincere apologies that he was not able to participate today as previously has been discussed he has submitted a letter of support to the commission for this proposed expansion and that support is based upon the fact that the first development that win has done within the city of everett has accomplished what the mayor had hoped it would accomplish it cleaned up a heavily polluted chemical site and turned it into a multi-billion dollar destination for the city that had employment opportunities um for everett residents um those employment efforts continue as recently as last week when on core reached out to the mayor to reengage on new and different ways that we can recruit members of the everett community to to fill vacancies at the casino that's critically important for the mayor's community because everett is a community that has many socioeconomically disadvantaged residents and giving them meaningful employment opportunities that does not require extensive travel is a benefit to our community with respect to the proposed development it is consistent with the 2013 lower broadway district master plan that was undertaken which was an effort by the city to create a strategic vision for taking very old outdated industrial sites and transitioning them into 21st century growth opportunities that strategic planning effort for the city um which attorney latanze who's our planning and economic development director for the city can speak to included amendments that were done that resulted in a lower broadway district urban renewal plan and that plan did include a vision for using the parcels of land which miss crumb's presentation showed currently is underutilized um basically this proposal has the opportunity to bring in better and higher uses for our community which will help in turn generate revenue for the citizens of everett and allow the mayor and our city council to find ways that we can mitigate the impacts of taxes and what it costs to run a city to find new ways that that we can provide support and services to to our residents um to answer a point and just to confirm for the record um the city did send a mailer um in june of 2013 to all residents it included a a letter explaining the process and the procedure um by the mayor and it did include a full copy of the host community agreement so i did want to confirm on behalf of the city that that mailing was undertaken and that information was included um and basically um attorney silverscene who is outside council from blackman babersky havery and silverscene he advised the city um when the hca was being developed and he would be able to speak to you on behalf of the the mayor and the city's perspective that we do believe that those steps that were taken in 2013 um do not require an additional ballot question um he has shared that opinion with the mayor the mayor appreciates that opinion and while the mayor respects that the decision and the authority that resides in the commission ultimately from the city's perspective we are in support of the proposed project it is consistent with planning and development efforts excuse me that the mayor has undertaken um and attorney silverscene can advise on the basis of our legal opinion why we feel the referendum that took place in 2013 would allow for this additional expansion um on the opposite side of broadway i would be happy to answer any questions um that the commission has um with respect to the mayor's position on this project mr silverscene thank you on this debony thank you so much uh chair jared stein members of the commission i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of city uh as miss debony indicated i have been special counsel for the city since the earliest days of its consideration of this project um and have advised it and assisted with all matters having to do with um the casino project uh and the election and i'll say as as a municipal attorney for uh going on 28 years um election law and matters having to do with elections is an issue that comes up from time to time and i i would lead with the central proposition of election law which is that um anyone interpreting a question having to do with an election should look to make sure that the will of the voters is is um furthered and to avoid uh the potential for voter confusion and so that's sort of the uh the precept that i will be bringing to bear while i give you my thoughts on this question so i think it's important to start with um the language of the statute itself um and uh as has been discussed the the statute um chapter 23 k section 1315 notes in a number of places that the host community agreement has to have been executed prior to calling for the vote that a copy of the host community agreement has to be posted on the municipal website and to answer the question yes it was um and in this case as miss debony indicated it was also mailed to every household in the city uh in that if um there's a negative vote and there has to be a new um host community agreement and the process starts all over again so i think implicit in the statute is a is an acknowledgement that the voters are not voting simply on a project or on the notion uh the ambiguous notion that there might be a casino in the city or even in a specific location they're really looking at what will this project do for the city and in order to answer that question they're required to be given the opportunity to review the host community agreement in tota uh which they were uh and i won't reiterate what's been said but clearly in the first recital and in sections of 1b1 and 1b2 of the host community agreement there was an explicit acknowledgement that the um that win might construct a gaming establishment at some point post up post open and beyond the quote unquote project site um and i i want to note that when though we are across the street we're not uh as attorney grossman indicated on adjacent property but we are across the street we're in the same lower broadway urban renewal district and so i think it's important to look at what the voters understood and what the purpose the underlying purpose of the statute which i don't want to cross into attorney grossman's province here but i would say that the commission certainly has the ability to interpret the statute in a way that would accomplish the underlying purposes of the statute and the underlying purposes of the 86 plus percent of ever had voters who supported this project which is economic development redevelopment of this blighted area um as it was required to be determined in order for this entire area including the new east of broadway project site to be included in an urban renewal plan and to generate revenue both for the state and for the city and allowing this project to proceed will accomplish all of those purposes um it will continue to accomplish all of those purposes um so when the voters uh approved this project by over 86 percent they had knowledge of the hca they had access to the hca and they would have understood that the purpose of this project was to clean up contaminated land redevelop underutilized land along lower broadways and bring in revenue to the city and all of those accomplishes will be all of those purposes will be accomplished by this project uh and i think it's important to note this isn't an entirely new site i think it would be a different question if we were talking about a site in Everett square or some other location in the city uh i don't think uh under the objective person standard that uh a normally reasonable person would think that a voter would vote in favor of a casino project on the west side of broadway but not on the east side of broadway they wanted this area that's part of the lower broadway master plan in district uh and the urban renewal district to be redeveloped for the vision of that lower broadway master plan to be accomplished for more revenue and more jobs to come into the city and all of that will certainly be accomplished by this project so those are the reasons that it's my view and the city's view and the mayor's view that uh no new ballot question uh would be required here because any any of the voters um who voted on this project originally certainly could have understood that the project would expand based on the hca uh and would have supported that expectation thank you mr silveston questions for him or miss one dubbany i have a question for attorney silveston madam chair um you touched on this just now as you were wrapping up but what is the standard of the facts of these case of this issue in front of us that you think would determine what an objective voter believed to be the outside boundaries of an expansion uh based on that ballot question i i guess it sort of falls in that i'll know it when i see a category um uh but i know what it's not uh so you know i i don't know that i could reduce this to its extreme but i know it's not land directly across the street and directly connected by a pedestrian bridge that the pedestrian bridge by the way has been contemplated from day one and discussed from day one in the permitting of this project um it's been asked for by city officials from the beginning uh so uh and the lower broadway master plan shows this entire area as sort of an economic uh an entertainment uh district and this is all in furtherance of that i guess if i had to answer your question definitively i would say if there were land that were not shown for this type of redevelopment on the lower broadway master plan then i i would think that would be a much harder argument to make and and i will note that leading up to the vote there were i don't know how many but at least three or four extremely well attended public information sessions public forums um many held at the Connolly Center in in Everett in which this project was discussed specifically in the context of the lower broadway master plan and so i i think using that planning tool and perhaps using for instance the standards of the state zoning act chapter 48 section 11 that looks at um a butters uh land abutting um or abutting to abutting or quote directly across the street from a project site um is a standard that you could apply here and specifically allow this project so can i ask and i'm not asking you to disclose any privileged conversations obviously but do you have any insight into why as the valid question was framed it did not use the phrasing lower broadway master plan area and instead said monsanto chemical site yeah um you know i think the hope was to use a colloquial reference that everyone in Everett understood and one of the great benefits of this project was that it was cleaning up this site that was infamous um and so i think it was really focused on that i don't think at the time the focus was on um you know defining as broadly as possible the potential future expansion of the project but that was specifically content contemplated in the hca um and i think that that would have been probably more difficult for for a lot of people some of whom may not have attended those information sessions to to understand what the lower broadway master plan area was so are you saying that the monsanto chemical site term of art at that time in 2013 would have included everything across the street no certainly not i i don't want to mislead the commission in that regard i think the idea was to use a general reference to a property that everyone everyone in the city knows generally where that is um they might not know the bounds of it but they know it's a a long lower broadway um and and so i think that was sort of the idea um coupled with the fact that everyone had the opportunity everyone received a copy of the hca and would see that it references land uh in and around a specific plan that showed you know a lot of that area uh and does show not the full lots but the land across the street as well you know the beginning of that land across the street thank you commissioner bryan if i could just add into that you know at that time all of those properties across the street were fully developed yeah there was a freight liner facility there there was a metal place i can't remember their name and yeah houses i didn't know if there was a colloquialism that in in the area you know you get in an area and it includes there's like an overlay i didn't know if that phraseology that he was talking about overlaid the businesses that were across the street already at the time of the vote in 2013 because i just could imagine if they included those properties that were not that were owned by other people and fully developed that they might have been somewhat surprised that their property was proposed as part of a casino other questions um madam chair yes mr silversing thank you for joining us today i appreciate this this helpful insight um i'm a simple guy and i like to ask simple questions if you brought up what what the voter understood and you and mr bryan just went back and forth if i brought the the average voter who voted either in the majority or the minority to the site in 2013 and i showed them where casino operations were going on right now today um and then turned them around and said do you expect that piece of property would you expect that piece of property if gaming occurred on there would that be a part of your vote um is the answer yes to that so i think commissioner that the answer if you framed it in that way the answer may or may not be yes i don't know but i think if you said to them do you know where the monsanto chemical site is they'd say yeah it's down lower broadway it's down the line is the term that was always used it's down the line well do you know which specific property no but i know it's down that general area um i don't i cannot imagine you know given that you know what what a voter voting in favor of this project was getting was redevelopment of underutilized and blighted land revenue to the city jobs in the development of a world-class facility in the city i have absolutely no reason to believe that the voter cared that it was on one side of wire okay that's helpful mr carers other questions mr carers and mr brexford oh sorry mr hit the commissioner hill sorry just bear with me one moment madam chair i have many pages of information i've been writing down and just as you know i will forget if i don't write something down um mr silveston i think i heard you say and i just want clarification it was from a question that my colleague commissioner bryan asked when the question on the ballot which mentioned monsanto chemical site i think i heard you say that you did not believe that that included across the street as part of the thinking of the voters did i hear you correctly on that yes i think that's fair thank you for that clarification thank you madam chair so to build on that this is what i'm hearing and i want to ask mr mccarries and mr grossman how do i reconcile um the language in in section 15 subsection 13 certainly does reference the question and it references the land with the description of the site how do i reconcile that with what looks like an immediate proviso at the top that the vote must be taken after the signing of an agreement between the host community and the applicant and the leading recital explains that the property anticipates um but the the development could be i gotta go back because then um i want to get the right language because i think it's pertinent commissioner hill this question we can't forget that recital with pages the um this is not necessarily that easy sorry guys um sub the first section the first recital that mr star started with when directly or through an affiliate has or will acquire land and options that's been determined that they did have the option to acquire land in the city in and around the area depicted in exhibit a how is it that the voters who we know we have to assume they were informed w6ba 1982 um that they read what was in front of them and that they had that agreement and they were probably pretty pleased with it because the terms were pretty good right to your point mr star how do we not give some weight to that recital mr mccarries how do we not get some weight do we just focus on the description of the land and not give the community agreement any weight at all i feel like that's what your position is mr mccarry madam chair i'm not sure i i i just want to be clear i know i understand your question i wouldn't i just would uh just say i i'm trying to give you what i think that the arguments might be have not necessarily say my position is one or the is or the other what i was referring to is the hca uses in an so just to get to the specifics of that language the hca uses the phrase land in the city in and around the area depicted as exhibit a and a parentheses the project site it then when it goes to i think uh commissioner brian i believe asked the questions about what is the project site that in and around i think has two plausible readings one is in and around that area that is the areas that are actually shown on exhibit a that comprise the project site include the areas quote in and around them or they include other areas that might be adjacent to it so that is this that is the part that's um a bit ambiguous in the hca itself um that's one why did they include the word options sorry why is the word options included well as as i believe you heard earlier at the time um even the main casino site that's currently the site of of on core boston harbour was under an option agreement it was not owned by on core i'm not sure why the why it was plural not uh again i'm but it i guess i wonder do you think the voters would they anticipate based on and i don't know what the i don't know what the discussions were did they did they anticipate expansion i think they could have anticipated expansion if you're looking at the hca but i i think this is where the legal question is is tough essentially what what the voters ultimately voted on is a license described in reference to that site once the reason this is ultimately up to the commission to to decide is i would view this as what is the scope of the license on which they voted is it a license that has some uh elasticity as to the the site um or is it bounded to a very narrow site and the that that's that's a legal question that i think you could see both sides of um it how how far is that expansion of the license um from there and if can i jump in for a second i i agree with that and by the way i i i don't take issue with anything mr silvestine or mr star said for for that matter as mr mccary said we're just trying to lay out all of the arguments but let me madam chair if i may try to answer one of the questions you raised previous at which i think we'll answer this question too and i think commissioner o'brien kind of tapped into it but with really the question is why did the statute include language that required a description of the site and the ballot question what does that mean the the statute itself of course says in two places that the vote um is uh to figure out whether the electorate votes in favor of the applicant's license and one way you could go about it as far as what a motion might look like for example would be uh to conclude that section 15 paragraph 13 uh stands for the proposition that the voters simply voted in favor of the license and that in doing so they implicitly were taking into account the principles in the host community agreement the proposed location um of the site which is why there was a description of the site so the voters could have a sense as to where the casino would be located but ultimately the vote uh by the electorate was simply in favor of the license or not and the particulars of course would be left to the commission to determine by way of the license and conditions and the binding agreement between the licensee and the city um can i pause on that that's an important point just pause when the commission issued the license to take into consideration the hca absolutely so the license includes the hca terms yes by um yes by reference there's a bunch of other conditions absolutely and the surrounding community agreements for that matter i was just going to say i don't see how it cannot include the hca the the granting of the license yes that is a condition absolutely um so the alternative would be for the commission to conclude that 15 13 says uh because by virtue of the fact that a specific uh description of the site is included uh that that is the sole location upon which a gaming establishment may be cited that's of course a more narrow read of the statute it does not really take into account all of the discussion about the host community agreement what that talked about what certainly the the city's desire was it doesn't necessarily completely get into what the voters may have thought they were voting for but one could read the ballot question i think legitimately to mean that the voter would have thought that they were just voting on a casino located at the former monsanto chemical site period so i think that's why we've raised this issue is just to attempt to navigate those two things and i think if i had to distill the question it would be one or the other is do you think that the the voters just voted on whether in favor of the license being awarded or did they vote on a specific site and i think you could make the case in either direction and you might find there's more support to in one corner or another but i think that's really the question before you appreciate it i was just gonna i think Todd summed it up very nicely that's certainly the question that i am struggling with i mean we have the hca negotiated between the city and and win ma and they had a meeting of the minds they are interpreting their terms in such a way that permits this expansion so i have less of a question around what those parties intended but more of a question around what the voters actually approved so that's that's what it's going to hint on for me madam chair if i may offer some some context and and we certainly appreciate the deference that the commissioners are showing to the community and that's that's always been part of what the mayor has wanted which is what is in the best interest of this community and to the questions that the commissioners have very insightfully raised what would a resident in 2013 anticipated would be the result of their referendum the mayor has always presented the initial development or of the current encore site as being a catalyst for further development in the lower Broadway area in its entirety he saw it as an important linchpin to be able to not only clean up one parcel but the other parcels that were very similar in characteristics and use at the time in 2013 that has been his strategic vision and how he has presented ideas and opportunities for residents to consider for lower Broadway which would be having destinations the entertainment locations that would provide offerings not only for residents but for residents residents of Everett for residents all across the commonwealth it would be increased access to to the waterfront it would give residents opportunities to have businesses and restaurants that they could go to in case they didn't want to leave their home community so from from the perspective of how the mayor has presented his vision since the the initial encore opportunities were presented to him he has seen it that when you come over the bridge into Everett the goal and the vision was always to transform those parcels of land with the type of opportunities that this proposal would bring to the community so I just wanted to offer that to you because while the as attorney Silverstein has indicated referencing with common vernacular was important to help residents understand more clearly where in the city because depending upon where and Everett you live it might be the line it might be lower Broadway it was the most common community term for that area but in all of the work the mayor has done to share his vision with the community it has always been about those efforts in 2013 being the beginning to enable this type of future development other questions well in terms of next yes mr star absolutely joining thank you commissioner I wanted to respond I thought commissioner skinner asked a very good question when she said what did the voters approve and commissioner skinner as you contemplate that I would I would like to take you back to one of the sentences that I mentioned in the ballot in that first full paragraph the second line reads those prerequisites include approval by the voters at a ballot question election in the municipality where the establishment would be located as well as a host community agreement between said municipality and the gaming license applicant I think it's a reasonable interpretation of that sentence to say that that that answers the question you asked what did they approve well they approved the the the location for the establishment and and I read the as well as in the to mean the conjunctive and the host community agreement and and I think that it's I think it's clear as you also said the host community agreement certainly reflects a meeting of the minds between the applicant on the one hand and and the city represented by its executive branch that there was this possibility for future development beyond the project site two places specifically says new construction new property and indeed a voter could very well have been quite pleased by reading that and seeing the opportunity and seeing that the executive branch even anticipated that this might occur and provided a financial vehicle to protect protect the city or allow the city to improve its position in the event of this development thank you very helpful so going back again to that ballot and it was the official ballot with that language those peer include approval by the voters that ballot question I'm sure as we don't we're not waiting on taking about today what would you like to do for next steps Joe if you wanted to make some suggestions yeah what I thought maybe we could do is sort of I guess we don't really have to technically continue this hearing but just to but to you know pick a time certain in the in the future to bring this back to the commission so you've had some chance to absorb all this information and think about it and and and you know we can have some more internal discussions and so on and and you know but I do think ultimately we need a vote of some sort to put to put this issue to rest before we can really move on with the actual approval of the larger so in order to deliver what Joe's looking for which is ultimately some kind of a vote would we need further information from anyone else do we want further advice do we want written opinions do we want to hear from anyone else or are we kind of in a position right now where we would make a decision commissioner Brian so for me I would like to see what the actual boundaries of the Monsanto site I'd like to see that overlay from what we're talking about um I am curious to know about the other municipalities that could potentially be in this situation what their perspectives are I don't necessarily want open season on comments but it is it is a conundrum in terms of trying to whether this is a bright line or whether we are supposed to be interpreting voter intent and that's sort of a separate question for me that's come out of this conversation that wasn't really fully briefed so I would like to get a little bit of what the case law is if you're in a position of dividing voter intent because I can foresee part of this analysis that would if you get past the initial question of does the statute give us the authority then we may be in an avenue like that and I have heard a lot of the stuff I've taken notes I've you know tried to do my best to write down some of that but I would like to see a little more information on what the case law is about trying to interpret voter intent. I think what commissioner Brian said is is very well put very well framed I would also like to see that follow-up as well as just take some time to fully digest what we've heard here today you know just dig into it a little bit more with with you know the benefit now of hearing from the city directly and the city's outside council as well as our own legal team. Commissioner Cal. The information we received today is great but I always as you as I've said many times over the past year it takes me a little bit of time to digest everything that has been put in front of me so I just need a little bit more time to digest the information and I think commissioner Brian has asked for a couple of things that would be helpful to all of us but I also think that we can do this in pretty quick fashion you know within a within a few weeks I think we should be able to come to some consensus and conclusion on this but certainly need some more information before we move forward. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. I I agree with everything everyone else has said I you know I'm the type of person we sit down at a restaurant I know what I want to eat before I look at the menu but if there are people with me that need to look at the menu and I'm sure I'll learn more as we hear more I'm definitely not going to rush anyone on a decision this is monumental. Mr. Deveney have there been any have you been receiving any opposition or any input from or any support or anything from the town citizens are they residents are they aware of this issue getting any kind of a buzz around this issue in commission agenda doesn't necessarily rise to everyone's level of the import but I wondered if this matter has come before you and any of the city's agenda items anything like that. Thank you Madam Chair. This particular issue and the decision that the commission needs to make has not been a been a topic of conversation. The community however is aware of the opportunity for this development. That process started last year as part of the actually in late 2020 it started because of the work that the city needed to do to do the lower Broadway urban renewal plan so those conversations took place in public meetings with our planning board and our city council as well and those conversations and public meetings spoke about the the type of development that that we've spoken about by and by and large in looking at this proposal which Wynn has has presented their their vision obviously their plans are still evolving because they need approvals. There have been community meetings in which their plans for the development of of East Broadway have been presented to the community but the I can't tell you that there's been any opposition to the proposal to move gaming operations across the street. It's been focusing on the other details of the project the hotels the other amenities entertainment value that wouldn't be limited to just people who might be visiting the existing gaming location they could simply choose to be across the street and and as has already been discussed. I don't think you would find a resident of Everett who would object to the proposed pedestrian bridge or anything that could be perceived as alleviating trafficking congestion on lower Broadway and so there have been discussions about what we've talked about which is the plan to add the extension of the bus rapid trains at lanes and to be able to help residents in this community who have nothing to do with the recreational and entertainment values on lower Broadway they would just like to see the benefit that that additional development would bring from their everyday commute and transportation perspective so so we the mayor has not received any opposition or focused from residents on the decision that is before this commission but there have been plenty of opportunities to this point for the developers to share what their future development would look like and how we would have better uses in place on that parcel than we currently have today. Thank you very much. Mr. Substain do you want to add anything before we close? Thank you chair. No the only thing I would add to Mr. Ebony just said is that the project for quite a while there have been a number of public hearings scheduled and and held and continued and there's been very little public participation other than initially when a larger entertainment venue was proposed there were that there was opposition voiced not from residents of the city but from representatives of nearby entertainment venues who the commission also heard from around the same time. Was there ever a suggestion that the expansion back in 2013 that the expansion would not include expansion of gaming? Well yes at the time the proposal did not include expansion of gaming across the street you know I guess from the standpoint of 2013 back at the oh oh I'm sorry was it ever I understand you know the environment the environmental impact and the economic impact of revitalizing that area was it ever as we think about and and I'd have to look at the HCA in its entirety because I'm thinking of this question now with respect to the options and I say plural that included in and around exhibit A project site which I think it's pretty clear that it includes or maybe H plus the street maybe a little bit over was it ever limited to gaming being really restricted to just project site? That was not ever explicitly discussed you know and I think what was discussed a lot was there were some people who generally had views of gaming being welcomed in the city as opposed to was gaming something the city should welcome as a driver of economic development in this area there was discussion of redevelopment of the area within the lower Broadway master plan generally but there was certainly never a suggestion that I ever heard and I attended all those meetings that anyone said well I'm fine with people playing poker on the Monsanto site but I wouldn't want to see it across the street. We're expanded. Right. Okay thank you. Any other questions that you might have? So I'm sorry Madam Chair one other thing I thought of and Joe maybe you have this already I can't remember the actual mailing that went out to all the residents with the HCA attached if anybody could show us that that would be helpful I think. I just emailed that to all of you. Great thank you Joe. Yeah. To answer your question Commissioner Ryan it was attached. Yes. To that communication. Yeah and I think that Mr. Silverstein did say that it was in terms of the concise summary is that a ballot the concise so there was there an additional summary of this reference I'm sorry I'm now forgetting which where I saw that wording maybe it was in section 13 subsection 13. I know on the ballot question there had to be a concise summary of the host community agreement which pretty much just outlined you know sort of what the dollar payments were to the community and so on but that's that's in there as well that's in that letter. Excellent. Thank you Joe. Mr. Karius. I'm sorry to interrupt but I think given the conversation and potentially the request that may be coming our way after I just wanted to clarify one issue related to the question you asked me before and make sure I understand on course position correctly. We just we've discussed sort of two terms that were in the HCA. There is a property in and around the and that is then captured in the parenthetical as the project site and then there is property identified as new property and I while I do agree that the HCA contemplates some expansion I had understood Mr. Starr and Mr. Silverstein as saying that the current property is the new property. I did not understand them as suggesting that project site as defined in the HCA to include the current site and that's I just want to make sure about that that what the term new property is what the city of Everett and Encore believe it captures the property that they would now be using under this proposal. See I'm saying it's in and around that exhibit. Well I that's kind of what I'm asking because you're asking yeah okay yeah because when I went because candidly Madam Chair I do not the project site is defined with parenthetical around it to include property in and around on which it has options. I was unable to tell you why it was a plural for options but what I what there's also this term new property and I had understood that to be the later acquired property that may be for this project. So that's I just want to get Encore in wins position. I'm not I'm not taking you know just yeah I'm hearing you say the reason why I'm kind of comfortable in my broader is because it's a recital you know and that that man directed during a billion has a low acquire man and options to acquire man in the city and around the area depicted in exhibit a projects. Sorry if I could just add in there I think you know at the time that all this was done you know the Monsanto chemical site was not the only property that this was built on. If you recall there was a there was a mobile station that was acquired there was a Dunkin Donuts site that was acquired there was the old car wash I think that was out front that those are all separate properties from the Monsanto chemical property and that I think may be why the word options is in there because I think they were working on options on all of those properties and not to mention they had to get by the sliver of land from the MBTA and so on and so forth. So what about the land across the street that we're now talking about? Well you know I'm not sure exactly when the acquisition of that started I mean I they were actively purchasing that property when I started working for the commission which was in 2016 but I don't I don't know if they I don't know what their intent was back in 2013 for the properties across the street. I'm going to go back to Mr. Macarius but I thought I heard that they did have that option at the time of the issue magnificent mishear that. I don't think for all of them they didn't I know there was at least one they didn't. You mean of the multiple sites across the street. I'm talking about the cross the street yeah yeah. Okay Mr. Macarius I want to defend it too. No I sorry I finished my question but the reason I ask it is because I do think there's a distinction and and again I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth I just want to understand from Mr. Starr and Mr. Silverstein because there's two defined terms that we're talking about in the HCA itself. There's the project site and the new property and the in and around is used from just a contract drafting standpoint to within the definition of the project site new properties defined later in the agreement and I just want to if I don't I'm sorry to put both I respect what they've said very much I just want to understand if I heard them correctly that they were referring to this particular proposal as on quote unquote new property as defined in the HCA. From wind's perspective the answer to your last question is is that this is this is land which we would consider to be in and around the area depicted in exhibit A. I mean I don't I read the project site to be the area where the Encore Boston Harbor was located and then in and around it is the are the various lots that surround it and I would include across the street new new property I think comes up later which is when the development goes beyond the project site and in this case on property that was in and around the project site. Is that clarify or confuse for your question? It answers my question which is just what you think it is it's not not say I agree or disagree but okay that's yeah that's that's always asking thank you yeah and chair if I could jump in quickly you know I know that when when we were discussing this when we're negotiating the host community agreement talking about the project wind was actively looking at assembling land all throughout this area they hadn't done so yet and so you'll see in that recital that we've been talking about it says has or will acquire and we didn't know when did it know when they would be able to acquire different properties along lower Broadway and so from my perspective and I think from the city's perspective the project site was going to be whatever could be assembled and developed as part of the initial project for purposes of the HCA that could have included the land across the street had that been accomplished prior to filing for the the phase two application you know I don't I don't think people thought that was likely to happen but I'll give you just an anecdote there was a conversation I remember very clearly where Mr. Wynn at the time said well maybe we can get that tank farm and put a golf course there obviously that didn't happen but now it looks like the tank farm may be up for sale so I think at the time I think the answer to Mr. Macarius's question is is specific to a point in time at the time the project site could have included that if prior to filing the phase two application they had assembled that land now we're talking about this as quote-unquote new property because that didn't happen that's my view of it. I actually have a follow-up I just want to make sure I am clear as clear as I can at this hour of the day having having gone you know now a couple hours talking about this so attorney star did you say the the new property that's referenced in the paragraph that discusses annual community impact fee payment to Everett is outside of the area that is referred to as the project site plan the project site. Yes Commissioner Skinner because when you're in that section remember there's a temporal aspect to it it says however if after Wynn commences operations Wynn undertakes any substantial new construction on property which is not a part of the project site as of the date when commenced operations so when Wynn commenced operations in September sorry in June of 2019 and Jackie can correct me if I'm mistaken on this the parcel that we're talking about across the street was not part of the project site so by the time you get to these two sections of the agreement Commissioner Skinner I think what the parties to the agreement we're trying to do is appreciating that there was a possibility a good possibility that at some point in the future Wynn may look to expand and increase its operations they use the the benchmark of when you open the operations if there's new construction after that that that away from the project site as determined at the time that it operated which of course to Commissioner the chair's point clear as mud because we're talking about June of 2013 in June of 2019 a mere six years apart but that's what we have I get it I just want to make sure I'm getting it right and I appreciate Nina's you know point of clarification there so thank you and I'm so sorry chair if I could just jump in with one more point which is that if you look at section one b1 and one b2 of the host community agreement we've been focused on what's that just one second we want to get there of course on page this is page 38 I think or four it's covered over it's just packet page 48 maybe 42 actually 42 all right so we've been talking about the reference to new property but if you look just a line or two up it says the area cap shall apply to new construction on the project site sorry I lost my oh I'm sorry no further up it says the parties recognize that the project may change and the proposed impact fee with annual increases will apply notwithstanding such changes including any increase to the project site so there was and this is sort of going to my point there was a recognition at the time that the the definition of the project site may change this is sort of pre-opening and then post-opening there may be this new property so I just thought that would help to clarify things other questions well I want to thank everyone for participating today on behalf of all my fellow commissioners it's very helpful we will have to figure out appropriate next steps I'm hearing people let me say if you'd like it sooner the later we have all kinds of time on our calendar so it shouldn't be a problem Joe um but um we we uh we know this is a priority and I think we have to really of course we do have our work in public so this is a challenge you know to the public we are not going to be speaking to each other about this this question and we are going to exercise caution in terms of you know always complying with the open meeting law I think my um challenge is really for the agenda Joe is to figure out what what we do between now and then to get the information that's been requested here um I think maybe what we could do is um you know we just had an agenda-setting meeting and it did appear that a couple of the upcoming meetings uh there may be some space on there uh I think should certainly work with Crystal to try to identify a good spot and work with Jackie to see what works for for the encore folks um but but yeah I mean obviously we need to get um I think we need to get that plan that shows that that uh Commissioner O'Brien had requested um you know and and so we'll need a little bit of time I think it's still to just to digest everything that we've heard today and so on I also welcome any kind of legal analysis that could be memorialized when we just um uh you know to pay for for us uh you did so um Attorney Starr uh in light of today's discussion it might be helpful to get you know further clarification I welcome it um for us to have it in advance um it is a it is odd that we get our legal advice in public and share it um I I didn't write the public record saw on the open meeting law but I've rewritten it a few times in my head that is how we get our our legal advice but uh to the extent uh things are reduced to writing that's very very helpful and I think Madam Chair if you if you uh I don't know if you've had an opportunity to read the Mayor's letter I think there is some legal interpretation in there as well uh on on the city's position I think on on um you know that the the need for a referendum or not and I did get a chance to read it I think I'm coming to actually last night Joe um I am quick yeah I am Mr. Silverstein uh you've been um part of today's discussion again if you wish to augment we welcome that uh you know again to help us get clarity commissioners help me out is there anything that you can think of that we're going to want the next time we convene this is our opportunity yet to ask and to have Joe start lining that up with Todd Mr. Maynard are you all set I'm all set and I appreciate I appreciate the the town for coming in and explaining some stuff to us Mr. Hill are you all set any okay Mr. Skinner anything in particular that you'd like or do you feel like you're all set okay Mr. O'Brien anything that you can think of all set all right then um I thank everyone for the very meaningful discussion uh thank you for addressing all of our questions sometimes I candid questions and on the spot we appreciate everyone's attention and we um appreciate um Uncle Boston Harbor for coming in today and and sharing the quarterly report and then this proposal so thank you and I guess I just need a motion to adjourn move to adjourn second any questions or concerns about adjourning all right Commissioner O'Brien hi Commissioner Hill hi Commissioner Skinner hi Mr. Maynard hi thank you so much have a great day