We appreciate the hospitality of Mass Mutual, and thank you very much. I'm going to get started. It is a pleasure to not have to do our virtual roll call. To be here in person is a real treat. Today is November 2nd. I will know it is my husband's birthday. And it is, we are opening Mass Justice Gaming Commission's public meeting number 485. With that call to order, commissioners, I'm going to turn to Commissioner Maynard for our minutes, February 23rd and February 27th. But Commissioner Maynard, if you'll just allow me to pause for one second. I do want to acknowledge our member of the Springfield community and a member of our GPAC, Paul Pignelli, who's here. And at a certain point, I'll invite you to make comments. If you would like, and I do know you have an 11 o'clock commitment, and perhaps you'll even explain to us what you're doing. Okay, thank you so much. Commissioner Maynard. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the minutes from the February 23rd, 2023, and the February 27th, 2023 public meetings that are included in the commissioner's packet, subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. Any edits or questions about the minutes? Did everyone have a chance to review them? Okay. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes, 5-0. Thanks. Well done to our legal group and Commissioner Maynard. Thank you. Now we'll turn to our administrative update, and we have our interim executive director, Grossman. And of course, he's also our general counsel. Good morning, Todd. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners, and to all the members of our team and everybody watching us online. We do have one matter for you this morning, and I'd like to invite up Dr. Alex Ledpawn, our director of racing, who will offer an update as to the recent SIR Stakes event over at Claynard Drinks course. Good morning, everyone. It was another successful SIR Stakes season at Plain Ridge this year. I wanna thank the commissioners for coming out for it. We had very full fields this year. Several of almost half were full nine horse fields, which is wonderful. And the others had multiple, we're very close to being full fields. Over 20 drivers participated in those races. Over 30 trainers were involved. So it's a good distribution now. It's not centered on just a few people. There's a wide variety of owners, trainers, drivers, all benefiting from this program. The purse money, as you all know, was 150,000 for each race, which is wonderful. These horses had already raced in two or three legs earlier to qualify to get into the finals. In addition to the purse money they won, the horses got a very nice blanket from the standard brand owners of Massachusetts. And also they provided carrots for the winning horses. So it was a nice touch there. Three of the horses were two-time Sire Stakes champions. They won their two-year-old season and their three-year-old season. One was a dual state winner. They won the Sire Stakes in New York and they won in Massachusetts, which it shows the program also is, these horses are not just racing in the Sire Stake races. They're full-time members of the Plain Ridge horse population. And they also race in other states. So it's a really good quality of horses now. And that wraps up my report. Just wanted to give you a quick report on that. Thank you, Dr. Leipan. Commissions, do you have questions? Just a comment that I got to ride in the back of the truck. And it was one of the most fun experiences I've had in this position. So thank you for setting that up. Oh, sure. Thank you. Yeah, I think Commissioner Maynard, we have to now just have Commissioner Hill do it because it is a highlight. It's wonderful to see the horse racing. We got to see some of them. So thank you on Christmas last Thursday. So thank you. I just can't remember now, each day. No further questions. We'll turn to the legislative update. Commissioner Hill. Yeah, Madam Chair, at this time, we don't have a report. We're turning now to our sports wagering division and Andrew Steppen, who is our casino regulatory manager, as well as the interim sports wagering operation manager. Good morning, Andrew. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. And it's nice to see you again in-person. This is great. I only have one update for your review today. It is a, I'll begin on page 21 of your packet. It is a house rules update from our operator, Fanatics. They are requesting minor changes to their general betting rules, some changes which include additional markets to their basketball rules and some slight clarification to their tennis rules. The general betting rules update, as is customers will always be notified within the bet slip if any odds for their selection change against their favor. However, Fanatic Sportsbook may now automatically accept odds changes that occur in the customer's favor. For the basketball rules, they have added rules for second half markets as well as new rules for their FIBA markets all approved within the catalog already. You can see that in the red line document within your packet, they've broken up the first and second half markets with the second half being its own market and all rules. Same with the FIBA, they've also added FIBA matches which they will now begin to offer. Lastly, Fanatics is adding slight clarification to their tennis rules if a match does not finish due to a walkover, retirement or disqualification. A walkover in tennis most commonly occurs when a player is injured or ill pre-match and the opponent is automatically advanced to the next round or declared the winner or as a retirement or disqualification may happen during a match and the opponent wins or advances. And as Fanatics is a newer operator in the sports wagering realm, they're always working to expand their markets. For example, now offering wagering on the FIBA matches has to reason for these updates. And I've had some time now to compare some house rules between our operators and these changes are in line with our other operators. Nothing stands out as strange or unusual. So after a full review, the sports wagering division has no reservations about moving forward with approving these changes. And to note, we may have Daniel Mulhall, Fanatics senior manager of new markets on the meeting attending virtually if there are any specific questions for them. Commissioner's questions for Andrew. Commissioner Hill. Madam chair, I move that the commission approve the updates to Fanatics. Those rules as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Excellent report and thank you for the thorough red line. Commissioner Albright. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Thank you very much. Thank you, commissioner. I'd like to just pause at this time, Derek to allow Paul Picnelli to come forward. We appreciate your leadership in Springfield and your work on the GPAC. So we'd like to welcome your remarks this morning. Thank you. Good morning, Madam chair. My name is Paul Picnelli for the record. I'm MGM's representative on the GPAC committee. I've been serving for over five years now and it's been a pleasure to assist your committee here as a member of the GPAC. To give you a little bit of highlight for my background, I'm a third generation business owner here in the city of Springfield. My grandfather immigrated here from Italy, started our family business 90 years ago and we're happy to say that our home offices are still here in Springfield. Our family's business is Peter Pan Bus Line. It's the largest privately owned bus company in the United States. And we've employed literally thousands of people here in the city of Springfield for approximately 90 years now. So we're happy to say that. So my involvement with MGM is varied. I started the project here in July, I'm sorry, June 1st, 2011. That was the day that we had a major tornado that came down through the city of Springfield and devastated literally hundreds and hundreds of acres in downtown Springfield. And MGM sits on 14 acres and the heart of the tornado damage is where MGM actually exists. So a billion dollars later and MGM has opened their casino five years ago. And one of the most important things that everybody from the city of Springfield wanna do was to build outside the 14 acres of MGM. And I'm happy to report that next month, directly across the street from us is what is called 31 Elm Street. It's 72 apartments that will be opened up by the end of December. And MGM was instrumental in getting that done with the $16 million investment that had been made. In addition to that, MGM has been involved in all types of events in the city of Springfield. Next week we are hosting the Bright Nights Ball which is the largest fundraiser of the year in our city. And it's for Spirit of Springfield which does all the community events. We're the host of the world's largest pancake breakfast we do the fireworks. We are also identified as the city of Bright Nights which is a lighting display here in Forest Park in our downtown. It's been identified by many organizations throughout the country as one of the best lighting displays in the entire country. So this is the major fundraiser. It's hosted at MGM next week. And then two weeks from now MGM is hosting what is called the Mayflower Marathon. Which is the largest fundraising event of the year for the city of Springfield. That handles all the homeless shelters and the food for pantries all across the New England area. So we couldn't be happier to have that hosted here at MGM. We almost lost it at a different site. But it's great. It's in good hands at MGM. And the next month MGM is also hosting the largest fundraising event of the year with the Toys for Tots at the fundraising right at the casino. So as I said earlier I've been involved in the project since 2011. And it's been a pleasure to work with MGM on all aspects of their construction whether it be the actual physical design that dates back into about early years of 2012. And I take people on a tour of MGM many times. And I think that they're shocked at how well MGM integrated their casino in our city. Things that people don't even recognize from as you enter the very first thing you see is a 25-foot modern sculpture that pays homage to this tornado in the city of Springfield. It's to the way that the coffee tables that have been made from the actual wood that was on the site that where Dr. Seuss actually lived is in there. To the chandeliers that were made about Dr. Seuss. And they're in the actual suites in the hotel. They're actually in some of the chandeliers that exist throughout the casino. And then to the stained glass work that exists in the MGM. Some of the stained glass depicts the evolution of labor throughout the entire history of Springfield 375 years. The other is that actually the first stained glass was electrified in the state of Massachusetts. That actual stained glass exists on the second floor of the casino. And I can go on and on and on and I'm really passionate about the subject matter, but I do give a 25 cent tour or anybody would like to see that. But most importantly, I've been to many casinos and I often say that MGM casino was really personalized for the city of Springfield. And I come here often with my grandchildren. I have a seven year old, a 12 year old and a 14 year old. We come here to go to the movie theaters. We come here to the Particle and the Thunderbirds event. I actually celebrated my birthday last two weeks ago with my grandchildren bowling at TAP. So it's not just a casino, it's really integrated for all of our city and I couldn't be happier to be part of it. And MGM continues to invest into the casino. It's not just their one-time investment early in the year they opened up their sports book. Very impressive. I think it's a 50 foot screen that they had and there was a $4 million investment. So this wasn't just putting up some TVs and into the TAP Sports Lounge. It was really integrated well within the inside the casino. So we couldn't be happier to have MGM be in Springfield. They support many events, as I said earlier, but it's been a pleasure to, again, work with MGM and to sit on your subcommittee of the G-PAC. Can I have any questions and happy to answer them? Mr. Smith, questions for Paul. How long does your tour take? Oh, well, I can go on and on and on. And it's little, and other things like, the name of the restaurant is called Chandler Steakhouse. It's because it was part of the Chandler hotel that's set on the site, right? And one of our US presidents stayed there, right? You can talk about the Knox Bar, which is in part of the actual, one of the bars inside the casino. And you can see all the memorabilia there from Indian motorcycles, right? That were manufactured here in the city of Springfield to the Armory, which is where I'm going to in the next, you know, a few minutes. And I'd like to also explain why I'm going there. But the Armory was commissioned by George Washington to get built here. And that Armory exists today and it's now in houses of War Comedy Club, which is part of MGM. And also they have the free concert Fridays on weekends throughout the entire summer. So I can take you on a really long tour and I think you'd be impressed. I can tell you about the history of some of the artwork that exists there as well. And one of them was purchased 151 years ago and it depicts the Springfield Masons that were there, 151 Masons or pardon me, or in the picture. So you'd find it interesting. I find it very interesting. You may find it somewhat interesting and you may even give me a 25% tip after the 25% door. But so I'm leaving here and I'm going. It's a very good tour. Yeah, I think I had the pleasure of having Madam Chair on the tour with me. So I'm leaving here. There is a dedication at War in the Armory and we're highlighting a booklet that's being prepared by the spirit of Springfield, which highlights the 9-11 Memorial that we have in the city of Springfield. And it's important to note that actual piece of one of the buildings, the skyscrapers here in Manhattan were here, but it also has a very beautiful sculpture that shows all of the first responders who passed away on that day. Just last two months ago, Pete Davidson was here at the Mass Mitchell Center and his father passed away at 9-11. So it was a nice to have him here and MGM in the spirit of Springfield gave him a plaque and actually some photographs of his father's name that appears here in the city of Springfield. So it's very heartfelt that we have this in the city and there's a dedication here at 11 o'clock. So I appreciate you adjusting your schedule so I can attend that event. Well, we thank you for your commitment and also for giving us a good piece of the history. But I would say in your free time, Paul, the commissioners would probably love to have your tour because it is very important to be registered to the history. Yeah. Thank you. Pleasure. And thank you for your work on the Chief Act. Thank you. Next on our agenda, we have our finance report from Derek Lennon. He's our Chief Financial Administration Officer along accompanied by John Scully. And Doug is joining me. Oh, you do happen. I couldn't see the second, the third chair. So good morning, gentlemen. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. I narrowly avoided shipping the table over while sitting down here. I saw that. Might as well call it out, right? Exactly. And you're very able to speak into the microphone. Okay. Thank you, Derek. I'm joined by Douglas O'Donnell and John Scully and we're here to provide you a quarter one FY24 budget update. Our materials begin, I'm pretty sure on page 30 of your packet. Just to remind you, you all approved an FY24 budget of 55.78 million for gaming, racing, community mitigation, sports wagering and the research and responsible gaming regulatory functions of the commission. In this quarterly update, we're recommending decreasing the racing oversight trust fund spending projections by 824.8 a thousand to align with recurring revenues. We are recommending moving 690.8 thousand of that amount to the gaming control fund and the remaining at 134,000 to the sports wagering control fund. Jumping right into the big matter, the racing matter. The initial FY23 racing budget relied on 2.93 million in commissions, assessments and fees from racing. As we began reviewing spending and revenue for FY23, we noticed that revenue was far below the 25% mark for the year. This prompted us to do a review of our initial projections. The table on page two of the memorandum, page 31 of your packet, shows that historically racing revenues have been gradually declining with the exception of FY20 and FY21, which saw ADW handles increase because it was a form of betting from home. In addition, some of the large decreases in revenue in FY17 are the result of a legislative change that reduced the amount that the commission got to keep out of each simulcasts wage for Greyhounds. In FY24, we're projecting decreased revenues again, mainly based on the elimination of Greyhound simulcasting in Massachusetts, which also cuts down the number of days that Wonderland Park will be open. The next step we did was look at spending in the fund. What we found was over the years have been adjustments to both support staff costs to racing where we've added some on there. We funded the MSP troopers assigned to the GEU that handle racing. And what allowed that to happen was the elimination of section 18D of chapter 58 of the general laws, which required the racing commission to repay the general fund for the costs associated with payments to municipalities hosting race tracks. So what we have is a situation here of declining revenues, increased costs, and we're faced with two options. One, reduce our regulatory view or to do this measure in between, which is shifting some money to other sources. So where are we recommending to shift these costs? The first one is shifting the troopers, which used to be paid out of gaming, but work on racing matters back to gaming. They don't work 100% on racing. They do a lot of reviews for the licensing division for employee and vendor licensing. So this, well, we would love to fund them out of the racing division. They work aligned with gaming. So we find this to be an acceptable proposal. The second thing we're doing is reducing our cost allocation. This year we're reducing the allocated costs of the support staff from 6.5% of our salaries down to 3%. With, so out of that 3.5%, we're recommending that 2% of it go back to racing and 1.5 and to gaming and 1%, 1.5% go to sports wagering. Once again, we'd love to have the true cost allocation plans stand true, but what's reducing, the only other thing we could do is cut our racing oversight costs. And I don't think, but with the integrity, the fairness, the safety of both the jockeys, the support staff and the horses, I don't think we wanna reduce down our regulatory. By making those adjustments that were mentioned in the packet and we just went over to high level, we will be able to reduce our anticipated spending in the racing oversight trust fund to 2.1 million, which is much closer to the recurring revenues. We still have about $150,000 of work to do, but we think we can do that by reducing actual expenditures throughout the next three quarters of the year. So we'll keep an eye on this, we'll keep coming back to you, but we've done the majority of the work here and we're anticipating that through either attrition or not being able to fill all ships on the racing side of seasonal staff, not having as much blood gas testing as we may anticipate at the beginning of the year, we can make up that 150,000. I can pause here if you wanna ask any questions regarding the racing or I can move on to the gaming control fund and sport to a joint control fund. Madam chair. So during our two by twos, we were bringing up the fact that what you're proposing would get us through, I don't wanna call it a mask, it's not a mask by any stretch, but give us a two year window before we would really have to make either cuts or do something different. Do you still believe that's the case that by doing what we may do today, being proposed today, get it through the next couple of years until we can address this more? So we have one other lever and that's what gets us through the next two years. We have that additional 3% of allocated staff that we could shift back off to gaming and sports wagering. And that would get us another year or two. But after that, with the declining revenue stream increased costs, both on blood gas testing, the cost for that inflation, salaries and raises were at a point where we would actually have to look at cutting our regulatory oversight. I think I'll just say this for the commission's edification. Commissioner Mater and I recently went to Saratoga and we were seeing time and time again in the presentations of the revenue decline, not just here, but across the United States. And I think what we're seeing here may just be the tip of the iceberg in terms of a declining revenue. So it is a huge red flags going up for me anyways, as one commissioner and something that I think we're gonna have to keep an eye on. Certainly this fiscal year, but certainly in the next two or three as well. Yes, and this is something we were tracking. I mean, if you look at the history in the memo, we started tracking this in 15, 16, 17, where you had us having to go to the A&F and Ways and Means asking us to not have to repay the general fund any longer when the cut of 2.5%. The Greyhound commissions were cut from 2.5% down to 3.8 of a percent. We were actually looking at it in 14 and 15 when we still had a full racing season at Suffolk. But Suffolk, using their full racing season actually decreased our costs. It only decreased our commissions by about 45,000 and it decreased our costs by close to 400,000. So that actually gave us some more breathing room on the spending and declining revenue side. Not a good thing for the industry seeing the racing going away, but it did buy us some time on these decisions we have to make. So, look at the chart on page two, there's not much room to make changes here. So you've got the commissions, which come in at 3.8 of a percent of the handle either from Simulcast, or I think it's three quarters of a percent from live on track racing. Live on track racing is not that much as far as the handles go. Then you've got the assessment, which has been set at 750,000 for the decade I've been here. And for what I understand, it was set at that well before then too. You have the fees and fines, which is small money. You see the cost for the back of house people as well as for the jockeys, the trainers, that's rather minimal revenue side. So, and it's coming from the people who are also seeing a decreasing revenue scale. So it leaves us with the question of where can we generate some additional revenue? And we've been tossing around ideas, maybe the Race West Development Fund is a balanced sitting in there. We could ask to have the legislature open that up. We can't just do it on our own, because as you all know, and we've dealt with this one, the racing communities come to us. The statute's very clear, where that 100% of that revenue goes, it doesn't leave much room for any interpretation. So it would take a legislative fix to tap into that funding. So it's otherwise we would have to go and ask the race community, as well as the operators who are funding these races to take more out of their pocket to fund us when they have a declining revenue stream. So to follow up the briefing that Commissioner Skinner and I had, we talked about those other options that are out there that would really require potential legislative intervention. And we had talked about bringing up to the body of five the idea of getting this on under review. And I mean, I know it's honest in terms of legislative updates. There's a, you know, kicking it down the can has caused us to look at this, but I do think a deeper dive in what else legislatively might be something we would look at or request is something that needs to get on the agenda. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner. So the subcommittee on legislative affairs, we actually had a meeting yesterday and this very topic came up. I was not listening. I was listening. And we think we have a couple of ideas when we come before the full board with the latter to the legislature, I can almost assure you that this is going to be an issue that we're going to talk about. I'm just going to clarify. It's our working group that's going to be doing that. And the, I think that probably we're all aligned thinking that the legislature has historically shown a commitment to this community, the horse racing community. All of the players are so important from the farmers, to the trainers, to the veterinarians. If there's a trend here, and I think if we bring that to the legislature's attention, they can perhaps think about some solutions with us. It's a trend that I think was hard to detect, Derrick, because COVID skewed results. And so now it's coming back into place. And we're seeing that perhaps the revenues are going to go down, but we certainly know that the costs have gone up and that also it's a COVID factor. So I just want to know my appreciation for your detection of this at this early stage and some corrective measures that we can take. And then we'll see what we can do with the legislature and other stakeholders. Yeah. And the only thing that I would add is, Dr. Leibann is sitting in the back and all of us have been down to Plainville and the costs are necessary costs. And so it was part of this conversation, I think to the extent that that's part of our messaging is they're doing a fantastic job with very little. And my hats off to Dr. Leibann that she continues to do that, but I do think that's part of why we go back to the legislature with him. Yeah, and that was one of the first things we looked at. We sat down with Dr. Leibann to say, is there anything we can cut here? And it really isn't unless we want to start cutting, we're talking about this in one of the two by two nitrile gloves go from the powder to the non-powder, but it's just laying here. That's what you're, that's the type of stuff we're talking about here. It's such a, she does an amazing job, Dr. Leibann, with the money that she has, right? So, let me show you. Madam chair, I agree. And that was one of our first questions was, is this good with Dr. Leibann? I'm sure we all had it. They say, show me your budget and we'll see your values, right? And so we're doing the best we can with our budget and our values, which is that we support this community and we support Dr. Leibann and her team. And until something can happen in a different budget, somewhere else that's not under our control, I think you're doing the best that you can and I commend you for it. Thank you. Mr. Schu. And everything's already been said. I'll just add that you have our attention. I think you know that we're gonna be paying close attention to this issue as we move forward as, you know, we already have some resources put towards figuring it out. And I joined the chair and my fellow commissioners in thanking you and your team for all of the work that you're doing to address the issue. And as far as the actual proposal, in terms of the budget reallocation, I think it's the appropriate stop gap and so I really support it. Thank you. That was a top part of the presentation. Moving on to the gaming control fund, we're recommending increasing our spending projections by 742,000 there. As mentioned earlier, we're shifting an additional 2% of allocated salaries to this appropriation. This would result in an increase of 246.7,000 once you add in fringe to the salaries. We're also shifting to 388.4K in GPU costs. And we're increasing spending and revenue projections by 54,000 for the independent monitor costs that were incurred in the first quarter of FY24. Just as a reminder, that's revenue neutral because once the costs are incurred, Encore Boston Harbor refunds us directly for those costs. Even with these additional costs, we're recommending decreasing the assessment on gaming operators by the full 1.412 million, which is the excess revenue that we had brought in from FY23 and this FY23. And this would drop the assessment from 33.65 million down to 32.23 million. And the way we're doing that is because there's still vacancies in the GEU on the gaming enforcement side, as well as with having an interim executive director and interim IEP director. We've had some lags in filling vacant positions. So we budgeted 350,000 for turnover savings. We've already actually seen 400,000 this year in turnover savings, both through vacancies as well as lag in filling positions. So we feel very strongly that we will not have to increase the assessment throughout the year and we can manage these shifts in costs through reductions and delays in hiring. That's something there, Maryl. Sure.  There we go. I noticed that Commissioner O'Brien's is really sensitive and mine's not. Which is ironic, because I'm usually a little talker. So Derek and I talked about it during FY23. This is not sustainable, right? It looks good on the balance sheet. It seems good, but it's not sustainable to the existing staff, right? To actually have to sit and wait this out. So I'm glad we had the money, but at the same time, I support having a fully staffed MGC and I hope that next year we don't have that problem. Yeah, it's a double edge. So definitely we talked about this. It's great for us when we find ourselves on this situation that we have the extra money, but all those positions that we desperately needed, including some that we added on at the casino level, deputy position for each of the managers of the casino, you know, the deputy director for the executive director. I know Todd's probably a little easier right now if you had a deputy sitting there too. So those are big positions, right? Decent salaries and we're missing higher dates with those as we get transitioned through. So not to mention IT's still struggling getting the right resumes in and the right people to fit the positions. You have turnover in the gaming agent division. They're doing great impact on them quickly.  They're working at getting those filled, the IED enforcement council's office has openings that they're feeling. So it's a lot, right? It was an aggressive hiring schedule for a fully staffed agency. Now that we're in the interim mode, we're seeing some turnover and delays, which like I said, it's a double-edged. So it gave me a sigh of relief when I'm looking at this. I'm sure it gives the operators a sigh of relief that they're not having any of their assessment taken back and any of their access revenue from FY23 taken back. But it's a lot of work for the people who are in those divisions that there are vacancies. Any other questions or comments for the finance team? Go on to the sports wagering control fund. So in the sports wagering control fund, as you recall, you were very lenient and nice to us to authorize up to an additional 750,000 in funding for us to make necessary spending changes, hires, and then come back and report to you. Please select, you know, that we've committed 431,000 of that 750,000 with the hiring of four regulatory or the posting of four regulatory compliance managers. And we have made offers to those four and we are hopeful to see them soon. And then we have also extended our contract with GLI for an additional nine months.  We still have to work on what the plan for the additional amount will be. And I know Bruce and Crystal and Andrew are taking a good look at that, but they're also trying to be judicious and what they're spending that extra money on. So when we come back to you, it's for a true priority and we're not coming back to you saying we need more than the 750,000. We're also shifting the 1.5% of allocated staff that fringe costs. And that brings us up to the $126,000 change that you see in the memo. On the revenue side of the sports wagering control fund, we are keeping an eye on the vendor and employee licensing. Last year we saw huge numbers there, over a million dollars in revenue. This year we had dropped our projections down to 700,000 through the first quarter. We've only seen about 50,000 of that. However, we think that's just a lag in getting the billings out. So we will be on top of that. We'll be working with the licensing team and we'll have better estimates for you at the second and third quarterly updates. We're recommending decreasing the assessment from 8.16 million down to 5.77 million, which is a full 2.38 million that we saw in excess revenue from FY23. And then there is one thing we wanna keep on your radar. There's a collaboration we're working on with the attorney general's office where they come to us seeking funding for enforcement and civil actions around sports wagering. We do not have a bright clear-lined delineation of where our role would cut in and their role would cut in. We're working on that, working very closely to make sure there are no duplication of efforts to make sure that there's no duplication in spending. We see a lot of value in this collaboration just like we do in the 23K collaboration. So I wanted to let you know that that request is out there but we're working on the language.  And I should just note that the attorney general's office understands that they would come in front of us as well with respect to the email you took, explain it. So I appreciate the implication from the finance and then we'd have the implications all around. And then there have been some conversation more on the 23K side in terms of we've had some communications with the AG's office without the grant opportunities that we have through community mitigation and the law enforcement and public safety part of it. Not quite the clear-line 23N23K, but that's another avenue that I know Joe's team is also talking to them about. Yeah, that's pretty clear that public safety one of those there is called out for that fund. So it seems like a good use of it and it's already taxed all is that the casinos are paying. So in conclusion, we're requesting the gaming control fund spending. We're requesting increasing the gaming control fund spending projections by 742,000, increasing revenue projections for that fund by 51,000, decreasing the FY20 to a gaming control assessment by the FY23 surplus of 1.41 million. We request that we decrease the racing oversight trust fund spending projections by 820, approximately 825,000 to align with recurring revenues. And we're requesting that we increase the sportsway during control fund spending projections by 125,000 and decrease the assessment by the 2.38 million, which represents the FY23 surplus in the gaming control fund. And that was quite a run-on sentence. And that's our full project. That's our full presentation. It's an efficient sentence. Can I just always have to say that, you know, I get to sit here and do the analysis, but all the work is done by Doug, John, the team, the revenue team, the accounting team, and all the managers. I mean, sitting down with Bruce and his team, sitting with Alex and Chad on the discussion around this, it's just, it makes our life a lot easier to have managers that know their budgets inside and out and can work on a collaborative effort to make these changes. So any questions on the sportsway during peace or the conclusion? No, the only thing that I had brought up in the two by two is that in addition to staffing that might be coming down, I know, and I flag crystal in particular who is doing Yeoman's work on tracking some of the advertising to see how we can continue to regulate that. And then there are potential third party vendors or platforms that might be another cost when you're looking at sportsway drink and aside from personnel. And we did review that. So John went back to talk to Crystal about that and John gave us a good summary on, it was expensive. It is very expensive. The first one she got, it was very expensive. And then we would actually have to make but she's not going to stop that too. So not only would it be that $300,000 costs to us, but it's $300,000 to all the licensees. She used the same platform. So she is looking at, she's looking at other options. Right, right. Not a better option, a more cost-feasible option because that was, I mean, if she could have that she would love to have that. Yeah. But it was very expensive and it would have been balanced rather quickly if they're 750. Yeah. I would say though that I think I'm speaking for myself but I'm guessing my fellow commissioners join me is with respect to sports, wagering in the division right now, giving them all the tools they need to ensure the integrity, to ensure the efficiencies of the processes whether they're through consultants, vendors or additional employees. I think we understand that that's critical to our operations. You probably join me because you're in Hill. We wanna make sure that they have the tools and the assets they need. And I look at our interim executive director. I know that you're following that closely. Yes, Todd has been very in the weeds on this update. So he has been helpful in getting us to the right statutes for racing to take a look at so that we know where we had the levers to pull whether past the test does this even make sense? So that was actually excellent to have Todd in on this. Anything else, commissioners? Christian Hill, commissioners getting all set. All right, and you're all set. So I think we need a vote because of that. Yeah, I just wanna make sure you are all set in terms of your presentation.  The only other thing I would just- I think John wanted to talk. You're gonna hold the mic. John and God, thank you. We know all that you're thinking and we appreciate. You took the time to give us the two by two because it was complex. And we always appreciate that briefing. I just wanna also note you indicated earlier in your presentation that with respect to our regulatory role in horse racing, we don't want to do any compromising because it's so important for the integrity of the race, the safety of the athletes. And that is of course the horses and the drivers. And to Dr. Lightman and her team, we are so lucky to have the professionalism of their team. And you pointed out during the two by two, of course also the quality of the races are so high right now. And we wanna maintain that accreditation. So we'll look for a long-term solution there but we appreciate the short-term solution as Commissioner Skinner pointed out. So with that, Commissioner Skinner, do you wanna make the motion? Hi, Madam Chair, I move that the commission revise the FY24 budget as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Any questions or comments? All right. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. And Commissioner Bidner. Aye. I vote yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. Watch that table there. All right, one minute. Okay. Now we are turning back to Dr. Lightman in the racing division. And I know that she's going to be joined by Arne and Charlie, the second director, Todd Grossman. And perhaps more so in his role as general counsel today. We also have, should there be any questions, outstanding questions, commissioners, Paul Umbrello, Executive Director of the New England Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc., and Mindy Coleman, Council of course, to Jackie Skilling are available. Should you have any questions? As you know, we've had a very productive session before where we had many stakeholders be able to provide their input. And then we gave Dr. Lightman a little bit of a few assignments to follow up on some questions. So thank you, Dr. Lightman. And just a note, Trudy has done an excellent job again of bookmarking our extensive packets. So I just want to make sure I can turn to that. So all the documents that you added are all bookmarked nicely. So thank you, Trudy. And we're back. Thanks, Dr. Lightman. Good morning. So as you all know, in August, we put out a request for public comments on this issue and we received numerous comments and they were included in the packet for the September 9th meeting we had that we started this discussion. So we're coming back now with some more information that the commissioners requested. And today, after assessing all the information, the commission has enough information, they should decide how much shall be paid for this year and for last year for the Thoroughbred Sportsmen's organization to the Thoroughbred Jockeys organization and how much shall be paid this year and last year to the Standard Red Horsemen's organization and the Standard Red Drivers organization at the Horse Racing Facility for Health Insurance, Life Insurance or other benefits to active and disabled Thoroughbred Jockeys or Standard Red Drivers under the rules and eligibility requirements of that organization. That's to paraphrase section 60 of the Race Horse Development Fund. The information that you've received previously is extensive and covers several different statutes. And I tried to distill it into some bullet points that might be helpful. As we've discussed in the past, it's unfortunate that money given to one group would also take the money from another group and that the need is greater than the funds available. I think that's important to recognize. The Horsemen's Association of New England provides retirement savings plans and other benefits to all of its members, which includes drivers. There is no separate Standard Red Drivers organization for the commission to determine how much to give them to. The New England Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, the Thoroughbred Group provides benefits for trainers such as old age assistance, life insurance. Jockeys are not members of this association. The Thoroughbred Industry and the Standard Red Industry are set up basically at a national level. This isn't just something unique to Massachusetts. There are separate Jockeys organizations. And then just in 2021, in accordance to chapter 23K, section 60, C3, the commission directed the HBPA to pay $1,000 for each disabled Jockey to the Jockeys Guild, fair total of 4,000 and directed the Horsemen's Association to pay zero that year for such purposes for the drivers since they were already members of that organization. The HBPA did pay the money to the Guild and the Guild did disperse the money to the four disabled Jockeys. In your packet, there is a spreadsheet from Fallon Brough, Executive Director of the HBPA. It's hard to come up with an actual number and compare things, but this might help a little bit. Under the old age assistance, and these are amounts up to August of this year. They get out just under 300,000 to 85 trainers. That comes out to about 3,500 for each trainer. If you look at the pension plans, the old age assistance plan qualifications some of the people qualified for more than that, some of them qualified for less than that. So that's an average. Then on the bone avalanche, they gave out, and again, this is just through August, they gave out a little over 38,000 to 33 people, which was just a little bit over 1,000 each. And in life insurance coverage, they had spent 14,000, which covered a total of 153 trainers and spouses. Again, that's about a $94 benefit. And this is kind of a simplification, but it does give some indication as to what members of the HBPA are receiving. If you look in the packet in the information that Mindy Coleman for the docket guilt gave on her page two of her documents, she put down the amount of money that was given out each year through the 128A money that goes to jockeys. And again, there's no similar benefit for drivers under 128A. As you'll see in that document, it usually was around 2,000 for each jockey. And again, that included active, retired and permanently disabled. When you get into 2021, you'll see the amount increased to 4,300. That was because at that point, it was determined there really wasn't a way this subject downs being closed to say that there were any active jockeys in New England or in Massachusetts. So that money wasn't given out to them anymore. It was given to a smaller subset of jockeys. So with a smaller number of jockeys, they got an increased amount for each one of them. I'll turn it over to Todd now. Thanks, Dr. Leipmann, well done. I thought it might be helpful just to walk through the statues to help calibrate the thinking and the decision making. And we can start with the Racehorse Development Fund itself, which of course has founded section 60 of chapter 23K. I know you're all familiar with it. So I wouldn't plan on going through the entire thing unless that would be helpful, but just to kind of focus the discussion, you'll recall there are three buckets, of course, that fall into the Racehorse Development Fund. We're talking about the third bucket, which is the 4% of funds that are generally set aside for health and welfare type benefits. And of course, the benefits flow to both standard breads and thoroughb. And that's a good place to start here. There are a few questions that emerge under the statute. Dr. Leipmann already read it, so I won't read it again, but it's section six, little three is where we're focusing. And there's one line towards the end that she referenced and it says that of that amount that comes from the fund, that the commission shall determine how much shall be paid annually by the horseman's organization to the thoroughbred jockeys and standard bred organization, standard bred drivers organization at the horse racing facility for health insurance, life insurance or other benefits to active and disabled thoroughbred jockeys or standard bred drivers under the rules and eligibility requirements of that organization. So as we start to unpack what that says, there are a couple of decision points that are important to hit before we get to the ultimate decision. So of course, as I mentioned, this applies to thoroughbred and standard breads. Important to recall that on the standard bred side, the drivers are covered generally under the harness horseman's association of New England, the HHA&E, which means that the 4% benefits flow to them already naturally through the 4% distribution that they receive. The same is not true on the thoroughbred side of the equation. The jockeys are not covered under the NEHBPA, the New England Horseman Benevolent and Protective Association. So the NEHBPA gets the 4%, but of those funds, the jockeys typically are not covered. And you've heard a little bit from Bob McHugh and Alice Tisbert on this point on September 9th. So you have an understanding of some of the benefits that flow to the drivers on that side of the house. If you find this all to be the case that the standard bred drivers were already covered, the focus of your review here today would largely be on the thoroughbred side and how much if any money should go to the jockeys. You do have to however make a decision on the standard bred side, whether any money should, in addition to the 4% go directly to the drivers. The second point that I just wanted to make is that the statute provides that the funds that the commission directs, if any, go from the NEHBPA and or the standard bred organization to the thoroughbred jockeys organization. So the funds are not paid directly to jockeys. They have to flow through an organization. That's what the statute provides. So the commission will have to identify which organization that will be. As a practical matter, there is only one and that is the jockeys guild, which I know you're all familiar with. And the commission has recognized the jockeys guild previously under this section as Dr. Lightbound mentioned, but also under chapter 128A, when that $65,000 distribution was made under that area of the law. It's important to remember that that's different, that 120 chapter 128A distribution is different from the one we're talking about here today. But for all intents and purposes, the jockeys guild is the organization that typically administers those funds. Once the organization is determined, the commission should recognize that the actual jockeys are eligible for benefits is determined by statute, by the rules and eligibility requirements of that organization, of the jockeys guild itself if you were to recognize the jockeys guild. And those rules are included in the packet, I believe, for your consideration. And there have been four individuals, I think you've heard about, who have been identified as qualifying as being disabled thoroughbred jockeys under the statute. So that's the universe of individuals who are essentially eligible for funding on the thoroughbred side of this equation. The next consideration gets into the actual determination of the amount of funds to be directed to the jockeys and or the drivers. And the statute says that those funds are for health insurance, life insurance, or other benefits. In order to make this determination, it's important and useful to have a holistic understanding as to the use of the funds by the NHBPA. And that's why all of those materials have been provided as we requested and they're available for your review and discussion and the relative need and determining the relative need and to the extent that that can be determined. So that's the reason all of those materials are before us and have been included in the packet. So that's the overview of the statute and some of the considerations that I would suggest flow into this decision making process. We've obviously heard from all of the stakeholders and Dr. Lightbound certainly hit a lot of the highlights of the facts. But with that, Madam Chair and commissioners, I'll pause, happy to address any questions and move forward. So before we walk through the actions that we need to take today, commissioners, do you have questions for Dr. Lightbound or Councilor Grossman? And of course, we also have both Councilor Cohn and Councilmember Lolland-Bannon-Cohn. Any questions? Any questions? All right, so Councilor Grossman explained to us that under 60 C3, there's an indicator concerning the standard rent or Gershman's Association of Malinga in their role. I think that we probably want to take formal, you would like us to break down formal action as to the allocations of funds and whether any funds would go to them today. And under the statute, it's not contemplated that they would receive funding because they get that funding from the 4% correct. That's right. So obviously, correct me if I have this wrong, but the drivers are part of that organization. So they're already covered under the 4%. So in the last time we did this, essentially, the decision was that $0 would flow under this specific sentence of the statute to the organization. And you'd like us to take formal action on that. Commissioners, are there questions around that particular component of this analysis? Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I would move that under Mass General Law Chapter 23K, Section 60 C3, $0 shall be paid to the Harmless Enforcement Association of New England for the reasons discussed here today. Second. Thanks. No edits, no questions. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Mr. Skinner? Aye. And Commissioner Maynard? Aye. I vote yes. Then I understand that we do need to formally recognize the entity to represent the jockeys. Do I have a motion on that, commissioners? Madam Chair, I move that the jockeys killed to be recognized as a thoroughbred jockey organization referred to in General Law Chapter 23K, Section 60 C3. Second. Okay, any questions or edits? All right, Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Dr. Lightbaum, with respect to the allocation, you know, I and Commissioner O'Brien went through this exercise back in 2021 to determine the allocation and it was difficult one in terms of for you to acknowledge the past, what we did then, do you have a recommendation going forward today? Of my recommendation would be that we do the same thing. We do a thousand dollars for each one and that we do it for last year and for this year since we weren't able to get to this topic last year. I think it's appropriate to basically do a retroactive payment for last year and then do this year's payment as well. Okay, questions for Dr. Lightbaum around this piece? Not for Dr. Lightbaum for attorney Grossman and there's nothing that prohibits us right from doing retroactive on the 2022, correct? No, I don't think I haven't found anything I would prohibit that. Okay. Any questions? No questions? I have a comment. Yes, Chair, please. So Dr. Lightbaum, I appreciate your recommendation. There's a lot to this and it was somewhat difficult to try to get my head wrapped around it but what I did focus on was what the commission did back in 2021 and since then, obviously I was a part of the discussion but since then with the discussion that I've been had over the past several weeks, I didn't really learn anything that would permit me to make a different, come to a different conclusion than what this commission arrived at in 2021. So it might seem to them to be sort of the easy way out but for me, it really did center on was there an argument that was being made that would enable me to support something greater than what was awarded for 2021 and I just didn't hear that this time around and so I just wanted to get that on the record. So your recommendation is a helpful one for me anyway. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner O'Brien. I'm happy to move with that. Commissioner Maynard, you're all set. I'm good. All right, well, again, we appreciate Dr. Lightbaum's input and again, all the input that we received. I invite Commissioner Skinner's framing and appreciate that because I think we have done a lot of good listening on this subject matter, so thank you. With that, do I have a motion? I certainly, Madam Chair, I move that under general laws chapter 23K, section 60, C3, the following amounts shall be awarded through the jockeys' guild, two jockeys who are eligible under the requirements of the guild, $1,000 per qualifying jockey for 2022 and the same $1,000 per qualifying jockey for 2023. Second. Set. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes, 5-0. Thank you. Excellent presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, it's 11-15. Are we okay to continue or would you like a short break? I'm just going to grab coffee. A short break then? Yeah. All right, so it's 11-15. We'll take a 10-minute break. And again, we appreciate those. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Oh, right. I didn't hear anything wrong. I'm just going to. I'm just going to turn them on first. Maybe it's not turned on. I hear it. Okay. I'll start again. Every word was precious. So. Again, that's the convening of the masters. It's gaining commission where they're hearing the. and convening of the Massachusetts Gaining Commission. We're delighted to be here in Springfield in person. And we are reconvening product meeting number 485 on November 2nd. So we are turning now to our research and responsible gaming division. And if I look at our agenda summary, and I'm delighted to recognize Mark VanderLinden, our director of research and responsible gaming and his division's research manager, Dr. Fonnie Andrews. It's nice to have you here in person. Great. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, commissioners. It's great to be back in person. We are going to talk with you today a presentation on the summary and recommendations from the FY23 research agenda. This is kind of a new project for us. We haven't ever pulled all of the research in any given fiscal year together. And in one standalone report like this, we've done it in terms of the MGC annual report, but never in this sort of standalone document. So we hope you like it. And we certainly welcome any feedback that you may have. Mark, may I interrupt? Just because I know you have a special guest that I'm sure you'll probably be turning to, is Teresa Glenn, who is our problem manager in Springfield's Health Department. And we appreciate you being here. We also appreciate your colleague, the commissioner who's on GPAT. And we're delighted that we have Springfield's Public Health Department cell involved in our work. So thank you. Yes, thank you. The Springfield Health Department is currently has a couple of projects through the Community Mitigation Fund right now that Teresa Glenn is spearheading. So certainly an important partner. And Helen Calton Harris, Commissioner Helen Calton Harris is also a really important in the gaming policy advisory committee, but also just in the work that is being done in Springfield to mitigate gambling related harms. So thank you, Teresa. Next slide, please. So just before we dive into all the different reports that we've delivered in FY23, just a brief overview of the what and why. And so our gaming research agenda is roughly 10 years old right now. I think it was 2014 when the first report was published. So not quite 10 years. And in that time, we released over 60 reports. In fact, I think it's probably well over 60 reports at this point. I think that we need to go back through our website and do an accounting of that. And they cover everything from the epidemiology of problem gambling and health, social and economic impacts across the state to reduce gambling, harm, safer gambling strategies, practices, and policies. And you'll see in the FY23 research agenda, we cover many of these different categories that are around the mass gaming logo, including sports wagering, social impacts, economic impacts, community engaged research, and a study on public safety. I would like to note that all of this is on massgaming.com. And if you want to discover all of the research that is specific to Springfield and the surrounding communities, you can sort it through a search engine that's on that part of the website. So we have a number of studies that have been done very specific to Springfield. And we hope that our listeners, viewers, take advantage of that. Next slide, please. Thank you. So let's just take a brief look at Chapter 23K, Section 71 and Chapter 23N, Section 23, the Expanded Gaming Act and the Sports Waging Act. So the Expanded Gaming Act is very broad in describing what exactly research should be done and carried out in Massachusetts to explore the effects of casino gambling in the state. And much like on the left side, you'll see that it's intended to cover the social and economic effects. It's intended to cover neuroscience, psychology, sociology, epidemiology, and etiology. Chapter 23N, the annual research agenda largely reflects 23K. But there are a few differences in here, including not limited to an assessment whether problem sports wagering is comorbid with problem gambling. An assessment as to whether individuals participating in sports wagering are different than those participating in other forms of gambling or gaming. An assessment of the impact of sports wagering on youth under the age of 25. An assessment on the impacts of sports wagering on college athletes and professional sports and the costs of implementing this chapter. This is an annual research agenda. And we've been at this for 10 years. And while we've covered a lot of ground, there's still a lot more ground to cover. And I think that's the beauty of the way that the legislature set this up. It's an annual research agenda. And no other state has the advantage of an annual research agenda. And so this is a lot to cover. And it takes a long time to cover it. And it's the role of the commission to say, okay, where are we right now? What is bubbling to the surface that is really important for us to tackle? What issues do we want to examine? Recognizing that there are other issues that will rise to the surface that are included in these two chapters that we will include as time goes on through our annual research agenda. Next slide, please. Also in 23K, the commission and the committee shall annually make scientific-based recommendations that reflect the results of research, the House and Senate committees on ways and means, the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, the Joint Committee on Mental Health and Substance Use, and Joint Committees on Public Health. The commission shall consider any such recommendations, research and findings, and all decisions related to enhancing responsible gaming in mitigating problem gambling. Now, largely, we've communicated this through our annual research agenda, and the commission may wish to consider using this type of standalone report as an easier-to-read, easier-to-access document to be delivered to the legislature as we move forward, rather than having this be included in our annual report. Chapter 23N doesn't go that far, but it states that the sports wagering research should be posted on the MGC website. Next slide, please. So as you probably know, the MGC, we've been working with an agency called GRIO. It's an independent knowledge translation and exchange organization to synthesize key findings and recommendations from the FY23 research agenda. We've been working with them on a broader overall... I'm sorry, to develop a broader strategy on knowledge mobilization. How can we do a better job of taking the research, the findings, the recommendations, and making sure it's delivered to the right people? I mean, this is expressed through the knowledge briefs, the one-page research snapshots that accompany every research report at this point. You'll see we've spoken about the research conference that will be on May 14th, 2024, another way in which we can do that. This is also another way in which we hope to further mobilize the research and its findings moving forward. So there were six studies that were published in FY23 and grouped into three distinct categories, engagement, research, social and economic impact, and casino impact on public safety and surrounding communities. There are a lot of recommendations and findings from each of these reports. So Dr. Andrews and I sat down with these reports and we prioritized them and sort of whittled them down using the following criteria. Recommendations that pertain to the commission and key stakeholders, the degree to which recommendations were common across studies. This was a really important one for us to say, we have six studies and some of them have overlap. And so to what degree are we seeing findings from study A also reflected in study B? And if that's the case, the power of that finding and the recommendations that would come from that are even more powerful to us. We wanted to highlight that. And then finally, we wanted to highlight recommendations which could be timely and implemented within the next fiscal year. I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Andrews to cover the six studies, the findings and those recommendations. Actually, we're going to cover the studies and really just focus on the recommendations. So. All right. Thank you. And I just wanted to start off by saying that among the many things I love about this work, this is one of my favorite things, which is when the research actually generates recommendations to maximize economic benefit and minimize gambling related harm. So just wanted to start off with that. The first category that I'm going to be covering is the community engaged research. Next slide please. And these are the two studies that came out related to the community engaged research in FY23. And community engaged research is when the community develops a research question. So whatever applicant for this funding needs to work with the community to develop a community driven research question and engage the community in the process of the research, developing findings and developing recommendations. So these two studies, the first one is views and perspectives of Springfield Hispanic residents towards the MGM Casino, their homes, community and neighborhoods. And the second one is community perspectives on our core Boston Harbor Casino. Next slide please. So I'm just going to give a brief overview of the studies to kind of orient you to the studies before diving into the recommendations that came from the studies. So both of these studies broadly explored the impacts of casinos on various aspects of community life, including housing, crime, social circumstances, day-to-day quality of life and problem gambling. And consolidating findings and themes from these studies provides a holistic understanding of the multifaceted effects of casinos on local communities. So the findings from these reports highlight both positive and negative perceptions, emphasizing the importance of context-specific actions and community engagement in policymaking and resource allocation. Next slide please. So the recommendations from these studies, and you'll notice numbers and parentheses after each recommendation. And the numbers and parentheses refer to the specific study that the recommendation came from. So each of the studies are numbered and in the packet. And the first recommendation was that emerged from these studies was listen to community voices. So policy makers should engage in extensive community outreach and consultation to understand diverse perspectives on legalized gambling and incorporate community input into decision-making. The second recommendation was increase funding for resources that build community, such as education, leisure, and public safety. And particularly in locations where community members view conditions to have deteriorated since the casino's opening. The third recommendation is to invest in community development. So allocate funds for affordable housing programs, small business support, education, and recreation facilities to enhance the well-being of the surrounding communities. The next one is prioritizing infrastructure improvements. So enhancing public infrastructure and traffic management to address transportation challenges resulting from casino developments, including improving local infrastructure beyond the immediate casino grounds. The next one is provide educational materials and resources for people who experience or are at risk of gambling related harms. So the second two recommendations deal with addressing problem gambling. And the educational materials could include sharing pamphlets, hosting visible sign-in, providing resources for loved ones of people who experience problem gambling. And the last one also deals with addressing problem gambling, which is implement targeted, culturally and linguistically appropriate support services for individuals and families affected by problem gambling, including mental health counseling and education. So these were the recommendations that emerged from these two studies when we worked with Grillo and kind of went through the recommendations. Okay. All right. Next slide, please. Oh, yes. Next slide, please. All right. So the next category is social and economic impact. And there were three studies that came out in this area related to social and economic impact in FY23. And this, the first one was legalized sports betting in the United States and potential impacts in Massachusetts. And that was from the Sigma research team. And this report came out, I think in September 2022. So it was prepared before the legalization of sports wagering in the state. The next one is the new employee survey at Encore Boston Harbor. And the last one is the patron and license plate survey report at Encore Boston Harbor. And I'll, next slide, please. I'll provide an overview of each of these studies. So the first study examined the status of legalized sports betting in the United States, analyzing legislative models, revenues generated, and social outcomes observed in states and international jurisdictions where sports betting is legal. It aimed to provide policy recommendations for Massachusetts to optimize economic and social benefits while minimizing harm from sports betting. The second study, the new employee survey at Encore Boston Harbor focused on assessing new employees' experiences and satisfaction working at the casino. By gathering unique workforce-related data, the report helps policymakers and workforce development providers better understand the casino industry's labor dynamics. And the last report, patron and license plate survey report on Encore Boston Harbor 2022 compared surveys of patrons from Plain Ridge Park Casino, MGM Springfield, and Encore Boston Harbor to gain insights into the demographics and characteristics of casino visitors. Next slide, please. So the recommendations that arose from social and economic studies from FY23, the first set of recommendations are those specific to sports wagering. So the first recommendation is to prioritize integrity, so to ensure fairness and integrity, allocate resources to regular auditing of commercial offerings. The next one is fund harm mitigation, so support ongoing harm mitigation and continuous improvement efforts, including prevention, treatment, and research specifically related to sports betting. The next one involves data sharing and analysis and this is to inform evidence-based policies. Operators should share player data with the gaming commission and researchers to assess impacts and identify emerging issues. The next one is to implement safer gambling initiatives. So encouraging safer gambling can be achieved through mandating features such as deposit, loss, time, and betting limits. Opt out self-banning and alerts for potential problem gambling patterns. And the last one that pertains to sports wagering is safer gambling promotion. And this involves policy makers may consider restricting advertising and athlete or celebrity endorsements to mitigate potential excessive gambling, especially among young people. Next slide. And these sets of recommendations involve workforce development and also recommendations that result from the patron and license plate survey as well. So the first set of recommendations involving workforce development, there are two recommendations here. And the first one is fostering partnerships between casinos and local communities can expand stable and flexible job opportunities focusing on providing full-time positions and comprehensive benefits to enhance career prospects. And the second one is inclusive hiring practices. So the casino industry should promote diversity hiring goals and practices to ensure equitable access to full-time employment opportunities across different demographic segments. And the next set of recommendations involves data from the patron and license plate survey. So these recommendations speak to the need for targeted safer gambling education. So tailoring safer gambling education to address distinct demographic profiles of patrons emphasizing risk management and responsible spending. Continuous monitoring and data collection. So continuously monitoring gambling revenue sources can help assess state spending recapture and ensure the sustainability of casino revenue contributions to the local economy. As well as collecting data on patron behavior spending patterns and safer gambling strategies to inform evidence-based policies and interventions. And the last one involves collaboration for safer gambling. So collaboration on casinos, public health authorities and community organizations can facilitate comprehensive strategies for safer gambling practices and consumer protection. So those were the recommendations that arose from the social and economic reports. And then next slide, please. And this is the last report that came out during FY23, which involves public safety. So this one was assessing the influence of gambling on public safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. And this is analyzing the influence of Encore Boston Harbor on its surrounding community. Next slide, please. And this report was dealt into the impact of the Encore Boston Harbor Casino on crime rates and public safety in its vicinity and surrounding regions during and after the COVID-19 closures. So through an examination of crime patterns and comparisons with other areas, this shed light on the factors influencing crime trends and provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between the casino's presence and crime in the region. Next slide, please. So the three recommendations that emerged from this study, two of them involved continued data collection and deeper analysis. And one involves collaboration among agencies. So one recommendation involves conducting further microanalysis using a tool like risk-terrain modeling to study risk and to assist agencies in developing crime prevention and problem-oriented policing projects to improve their effectiveness of practice. And also continued monitoring assessment. So future research should attempt to assess causal factors and correlates related to crime and proximity to the casino. An additional focus should include patterns of crime in the state, the region, and within comparable hotspots to monitor crime. And also a particular focus on sports betting and the unique risks that may be posed by certain types of establishments. And the last recommendation involves collaboration among agencies. So public safety agencies in the region could pool resources, collaborate on innovative problem-oriented policing solutions and look to create regional task forces to target the most prevalent crime and individuals committing prolific amounts of crime. Regional agencies should consider tapping into mitigation funds that the Gaming Commission offers specifically to address crime related to the casino. And a regional crime analysis consortium should be considered that meets regularly to share intelligence, review patterns and trends, and collectively conduct problem-oriented policing projects. And I was actually just talking to Justice Resource Associates yesterday about these recommendations. And one thing that he was talking about was the potential, not just collaborating within one area, but also agencies collaborating across the state to discuss shared insights into the types of casino-involved crime. Even though the three regions may be very different from each other and pose different considerations. And I think that's it for the recommendations. Thank you. And to go back to sort of who are the key stakeholders that something like this should go towards, the Gaming Policy Advisory Committee, certainly. You, the Gaming Commissioners, definitely. The subcommittees, the Public Safety Subcommittee, the Community Mitigation Subcommittee, the Addiction Services Subcommittee, the Department of Public Health. The list is really quite broad, and I won't pretend like I know who all of the potential stakeholders are for this. But I think that the Commission has this incredible resource in this research agenda. We are so fortunate. There's no other state in the country that has this. And with this comes this sort of like, we need to really do a good job of making sure that we're looking at how we can maximize this. I was having a discussion with Dr. Michael Wall, one of our researchers, and he's a consultant in another way. And he pointed out to me a few days ago just how fortunate we are that how close the research is to the policy. And so, and that is unique, that there are researchers who their goal is academic publication. Our goal is to really make a difference. How do we, as I said earlier and it states in the statute, how do we really maximize the benefits of sports wagering, of casino gambling, and how do we use this data, leverage it in order to inform our mitigation strategy as well, including responsible gaming. Thank you. Very nice. Commissioner's questions. Questions? I have, I'll start the conversation. I'm very much appreciated how this was rolled out. I know that it's so important that the research that we do doesn't sit on bookshelves and that is Dr. Andrew's job to help us make sure that it gets translated not into only knowledge, but into purposes of our discussion policy. And so my question was going to be, Mark, who should this go to now? And I'd have a first recommendation. You alluded to it earlier. Where is the intersectionality around where there's recommendations that are cross-study? And I kind of picked up on that when I reviewed the materials last night. I think if you could get that list in addition to these wonderful recommendations that there's also a list of that cross, that would be really helpful. And then I would say if you could compile the list for us as to who this should go to, I think it should also go to the legislature and it should go to our appointing officials. I think that they would find this, you know, their policymakers in many ways and they may be able to think about ways to help implement. I don't know if you're thinking about who else could see this. You started with your list. I was thinking, Madam Chair, the subcommittees that they just referenced. To me, this is one of the, we have a public safety subcommittee meeting coming up and we're finishing the agenda. And so I think maybe an effective way is bringing this up in those settings. I have notes in terms of public safety, in terms of agencies, in terms of cross-pollination and sharing of information. So like the Fusion Center, like the AG's office, things like that. So if the subcommittees and their respective areas of expertise have this conversation, I think that's going to help create the agency list. So the public safety subcommittee, the addictive services that you've had. Correct. And certainly community mitigation as well. So that's an obvious statutory structure. Other ideas for who would be interested in these recommendations. I see a couple of our key stakeholders here in the audience. It's very exciting to see it kind of come into that next step. What do we do with the research? And the one I saw that stood out to me because it was such a powerful presentation a couple of years ago on Asian Cares, is how the Asian community is looking for alternative recreation. And that came through in these recommendations. And that's something that it will take certainly resources beyond our lane to help on Fusion Center. Any other comments? Excellent presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, we will pick it up and it doesn't, obviously it doesn't stop here. We will follow up on those recommendations and make sure we connect with each of you. Yeah, and how we can help. So maybe this could be a follow-up as an administrative update on, okay, what's the next steps for pushing this out. Madam Chair, if I could just ask a question of our public safety subcommittee chair. Do we reach out to folks, and I'm talking about when you're looking at people working together, do you reach out to like the mass police chiefs or the subcommittee chiefs? They are a participating member on the public safety subcommittee. So we have a pretty wide representation on that subcommittee, but then we have also, yeah, someone from the DA's association is on there. So it's a pretty effective cross-section in terms of getting the word out. Sometimes getting everybody there in the same day is a little challenging, but then, you know, following up and making sure anybody who couldn't make it is aware of it. But Diego Looney's been on it for a while and is very participatory, active and, you know, involved. So it's been very effective in that regard. And then we've had some other conversations. I know Lily and I were just talking about sort of things that go off from that community mitigation fund ideas with different agencies that are also on that subcommittee. So, excellent. And that's what I was thinking. I was looking at the recommendations and I saw a lot of it set in that lane, you know, especially at the beginning. And so I think just broadening it out and to the chair's point, I think making sure that the municipalities, right, the locals get ahold of this in a way, and you're going to, I think that's key here. But again, you know, most people will make use of resources when they know they exist, right? And so making sure that they exist is the most important thing. I want to say this too. You talk about the policy on the shelf versus policy and implementation, right? And I'm a big believer that people are policy. And so I just want to recognize that the fact that you are here and doing the work that you're doing is really what's pushing this forward, right? We can have studies all day long, but if people aren't here holding us accountable, holding the commission accountable to make sure that the work's being done, I mean, it wouldn't get done. So, thank you. Thank you. I love the enthusiasm. Dr. Bonnie's always happy. If I'm ever down, I go into the office and that smile. The MGC treasure. All right. So I think that the follow-up is really let us help get this out. You know, the policy makers in Massachusetts do love to make data driven policy. So the fact that we have this available let's help them do that. So thank you. I know I'll forget, the Mass Municipal Association is another great association that would love this. I'm sure I'll take a couple more. Right. So maybe if we have the presentation, we'll have our own list and we can add it too. That's good. Thank you. Great. Now we're going to just go a little bit out of order because MGM screen that has requested a little bit of a later entry. And so we'll start with Chief Delaney, Millie Wallace joining him. And I guess we should start with item 10B, right? I think it's a discussion of the modifications to the CMA. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. So just a week ago today, we had a public hearing on our draft community mitigation fund guidelines and also on the fiscal year 2025 municipal block grant formula. All of the commissioners were in attendance at that meeting. And since then we've received some additional written comments, which pretty much reflected what was in the public comment that we received that day in your packet is a memo that did a brief summary on those items that, that could potentially affect either of those documents. And so really at this point, we are asking the commission if, if you want us to make any changes to the guidelines or the formula based on the comments that were received. Sure, should we have Chief Delaney walk through the bulleted points on his memo just to remind ourselves of the issues that were raised? Does that feel like the right to do you mind doing that? Sure. Thank you so much. So the first comment that we received, we were asked to raise the $50,000 cap on administrative expenses as you recall, we're allowing 7.5% of the fund to be used for administrative expenses with a cap of 50,000. So that, and we also did receive one written comment that also reflected that. I think that would actually ask us to increase it to 10%. We did get a request from Springfield. Oh, so do one at a time. And then you indicated the implication that took already head commission help. Joe, is there any information or data on what other block grants would give for administrative expenses is 7.5% the going rate or how do we come up with that number? So we actually a couple of years ago when we started allowing some administrative expenses on the workforce grants, we did an evaluation of that. And we found that most of them were sort of five to 10%. So we split it down the middle and said seven and a half. That was really the basis of it. Now we have heard that the federal community development block grant. I've heard different amounts of between 15 and 20% of that is allowed, but those are typically, you know, they end up hiring staff for those kinds of things. It's, you know, in those communities that receive those grants there, they're pretty substantial. And during the testimony, did we not hear from one person who had requested this that they wanted to increase it for just that reason to see if they could hire somebody to come in and help them with this? And by increase, let's say we increase it to 10%, let's say money wise, we can afford it. Well, I mean, it's coming out of their grant. It's a portion of their grant that is being expended on that. So it wouldn't affect the money in the program. It wouldn't mean that somewhat less money would be going out on projects than would be, you know, obviously money goes to administrative expenses and not to projects. So a little bit more would go out that way. Do you want to elaborate on that last sentence lifting the cap but only after? Well, right. Yeah. Right now, 7.5%. If you took a grant of $667,000 would equal 50,000 in grants at 7.5%. So at the cap, yeah. So anything over the mat would be subject to the cap. And if we lifted that, so it would only affect the smaller grants, it wouldn't affect. It's only the larger ones. Mr. Hill, I also remember the mayor making that point. I cannot remember exactly what her recommendation was off the top of my head. She just wanted us to lift the $50,000 cap. Did she have a number in mind? No. She was thinking no cap on it, just 7.5% of the total grant amount. And I think that was Medford and I think their proposed grant amount is in the $800,000 or $900,000 somewhere around there. So her concern wasn't some extra percentage of us to cap. Yeah. Do we have a waiver for the cap? We have a waiver for anything. I mean, if someone requests a waiver from any requirement in the guidelines, the commission can consider that and take that into account. If it made something just impossible to implement, they could come back to us. Sure. Madam Chair, so any changes that we made today, including a little one like this, has to go back out for public hearing, not public hearing but public comment. Is that accurate? Something like that, probably not. I mean, I don't think that anybody would, it benefits the communities. So I mean, I guess, you know, theoretically you could put it out to public comment, but I don't think it really have any material impact. I'm trying to make sure that if we make any changes today, that we are still going to be hitting the holes that we need to meet to make this happen for this fiscal year. Yep. I am not inclined to support lifting the $50,000 cap. But I don't know how my other commissioners feel about that. But I just want to make sure that any changes we do make today, if we do, that we're not going to hurt your goal of writing this out. Can I just turn to Councillor Grossman. Do we have that concern? Just full transparency. Very public process on this. I'm just looking at the check the regulation. Otherwise, I wouldn't generally have that concern. And just been with what Joe just mentioned, but we're doing a regulation governing. Okay. The community mitigation guidelines. So I'm just going to. Okay. Thank you. We'll turn back. All right. We'll take him one at a time. Any commissioner, he'll state his position right now status quo. Yeah, I agree, particularly because of the waiver and that was my memory. So you just confirmed that if they have a sizable grant where that 50 K becomes problematic, then they can. Yeah. You know, and that's something that obviously we will touch on in our training sessions that we do. You know, if, if, if that were a consideration. I mean, I am sympathetic to, to the comment. Right. And I understand that. As I said earlier, people are policy, right? So part of this. Project getting done can include. Personnel costs, right? Another cost. That said, I think as commit as commissioner Hill pointing out, commissioner O'Brien, there is an ability to, to waive it if it needs to be waived.  Circumstance, you know, she could explain. You know, America can explain why they, they need an additional funding for personnel or so forth. So I would not change it just because I do not want to hold up this program any longer. Right. Getting this out the door. So. Thank you. I agree. I think it's the waiver process that's going to make the difference here for a lot of these communities. And that's true for a number of the couple of. Highlighted comments here that we've been. Considering. That waiver is, is it's going to. Day, I think. I agree with my fellow pushers. You project your voice very well. Yeah. Good. Okay. So I'll set with that one. All right. Yes. I think we're all set to go on. Okay. So the second one was, was a request from spring field to, to revisit the distribution formula, grant distribution formula, so that spring field receives a larger share of the available funds. They were suggesting that a minimum of 50% of the funds they believe should go to spring field. One of the things here is that any changes that we made to the distribution formula at this point would result that. So there were 11 communities in the western region. If we made it increased to one, we would have to make subsequent decreases to the others. And I think it would only be fair if we did make any modifications. To the formula that that would certainly need to be open to additional public comment. Cause. You know, the, those communities came in saying we want to think this is the amount of money that we're going to get. And if we were to reduce that, I'm sure that they might have some, some comments regarding that. Madam chair. Yes. I don't want to see any changes made to the distribution formula. One, because I know we will not make our goal with that as the case. But with that said, this is something that we're trying out for the first time. We're going to have this in place for a year. And if we need to make changes to it, we can make those changes next year. And as you just. Let us remind it. They can come back if they need more money, they can come back and we can wave the amount and we can add to it. And we did put in a specific provisions for this very Kate, not particularly for Springfield, but for a case where a community has needs in excess of what their allocation is that they can come back for a way. I think the, and I applaud the work that you and your department has done on this formula. A lot of hard work went into it. And I think it's a good formula as presented. If we need to make changes, let's see how it goes for a year. And we can come back and we can revisit it at any time actually, but certainly let's see how it goes for a year. So I wouldn't want to see the distribution formula changed today. I appreciate the comments as well. But I think the hard work that's gone into designing this formula and the. What you use to get to those numbers was a lot of hard work. And I want to see what that hard work gives us for the next year. So I would be against changing it today. She's, she's getting. Yeah. Joe, to commissioner Hills point, you've made it clear right from the beginning. When you were orchestrating the reconfiguration of this grant that we will allow ourselves time to refine the guidelines over the next couple of years as we see how the program has been received. So I share commissioner Hills sentiment in that. We've built ourselves in sort of a cushion through that labor process or for communities to have a cushion. So to speak through that labor process. I'm also sympathetic to the arguments that have been made, particularly in the case of Revere, which we'll get to next. And, and you know, really I'm counting on that, that waiver process to sort of supplement what the allocation is for, for Revere and Springfield and others who find, who may find that, you know, they, they have not gotten a fair allocation. My question is when we're talking about the waiver process, I mean, so the allocation in the formula first, the funding for FY 25. Is it captured completely in what you've allocated through the formula? Yes. And so the waiver process, we really be relying on any access funds that have not been utilized. In other words, if we, if there's not a, an application that has been received from a community, that's the funding that we're talking about being available through the waiver process. Is that correct? That's correct. And there were some unspent funds from previous years. We, we under expended some funds in previous years. And right now we're saying that those are going for the, for the regional grants, but it would also be available for, for this, certainly in this first year. It's a decision that then the commission would have to make saying, do we want to, you know, if someone comes in with a waiver, they would be considered on a case by case basis. And the commission would need to vote whether or not to grant that waiver as they do, as they do now on any waiver request. Well, thank you. So that's a key distinction for me because I, I am pleased to know that the workforce, the regional funds that we had set aside may also be available through the waiver process. Should the commission decide to grant one? Yes. Michelle Maynard. Michelle Bryant. No, I agree. And then the same mind. Yeah, no, I do want to know just for the record, because this set with me. For a little while. I think that a great representation of this commission's willingness to actually implement these processes is the $1.5 million or so for the garage. Right. It came up before us. It wasn't originally included. We took a vote and we put, put our money away. Our mouth is, I mean, we, I wish that we could, we had the ability to print money at the MGC, but we don't, right? And we often have to make hard decisions. And you see it with Dr. Lightbound's team and other, other teams. And, you know, this is one of those places where we have to make hard decisions. And I think about every city in the world, every city in the world, I think about every city that hosts the casino, but I think about the surrounding communities. And so did the legislature and so did the governor when, when they signed the bill. So I think that the relief valve as Joe and I have been calling it is what makes me comfortable because I know that if a project worth funding comes to these doors, that this commission is going to look at it and actually implement it. Yeah. And I think, you know, one of the things that we've always talked about is, you know, relooking at the formula on an annual basis, just like we do the guidelines. I mean, we issue new guidelines every single year. So I think that is, that is part of this whole process. And look, this is the first year of this thing. I'm not going to pretend that we're going to get through an entire year without a couple of hiccups on this. It's, it's a new program. And, you know, we're trying to account for every eventuality that we can think of, but, you know, we don't know exactly what will happen once this thing rolls out. So that's why we have waiver, the waiver process and why we've done, you know, what we've done throughout the whole history of this program. I'm glad we have an engineer to help us figure it out. I knew I come in handy eventually. I just want to note that I appreciate Tim Sheehan's comments. I appreciate it when he made them at our meeting. I had been advocating for the formula early on to be changed in order to reflect what I think are truly the impacts of Springfield as the host of MGM Springfield. That doesn't mean that I'm not empathetic to the other communities and the, and the impact of an expansion on the formula to favor Springfield. I am, but I truly do feel that when the decision was made to have MGM Springfield be here, it was to revitalize the city, to activate the city in a way that will ultimately very much impact favorably the communities surrounding the area. And so I am, I'm, it was, it was very important. I thought to make that determination. I think it came in transportation construction around the, the garage. I think community mitigation fund was designed to do those types of projects to, to activate the city streets, to activate the downtown. We're going to see, we're going to be touring the project that brings housing to Springfield just so much positive development here. And I'm so pleased that your work is, is impacting Springfield favorably. But that said, I'm also hearing you say that it's a one year test. We'll see about the formula and how it works. So I appreciate everyone's comments on that. I think I don't want to disrupt the timetable. And we do have the waiver process. I think we probably all agree that. If you start seeing too many requests for waivers, then we need to pivot, right? Because you don't want that. That's exactly the point. Yeah. But I like that it's an opportunity to give the relief to the community. And I think that we should, should any community have a, a project that they just need more funding for. They need some relief from our guidelines. So again, I, I am empathetic to achieve development officer. She has a request into Springfield's request, but I think well right now the proposals is, is the right one. So thank you. Okay. Ready to move on to the next item. So a couple of things, Revere asked that they receive an additional $200,000. Being a community, a surrounding community to Everett. And also that we consider the traffic on route one as, as part of the impact in Revere. Let me deal with the second part first. In our initial calculation that we did. Well, the draft early draft, we included the traffic that was on route one, but we, we had stated that we were not going to include traffic that goes on to a limited access highway. That being an interstate route one other, you know, limited access highways. And so we recalculated that in our final version. And, you know, that is entirely consistent with the way that we, we did it elsewhere. I just, I just made a mistake that first time going through. So we corrected that. Unfortunately that was a, caused a reduced amount of money to go to, to Revere because of that. But what we did was completely consistent with, with what we did elsewhere in, in the state in all of the regions. With respect to the $200,000 in the region, a surrounding designated surrounding communities received an additional $200,000 over the base amount. Revere is not a designated surrounding community. They are going all the way back to when Mohegan son was proposed in Revere. They did not petition to be a surrounding community, nor were they designated to be won by the commission. Therefore again, out of a matter of consistency, we said only those communities that were designated surrounding communities would get the additional $200,000. Now with that said, if things had been different and you know, Mohegan son had not proposed anything at Suffolk Downs. And they petitioned to be a surrounding community. I would say with a very, very high degree of certainty, they would have been designated one. I mean, every other community that touches a host community was designated as a surrounding community with the exception of Revere. So, you know, that, that's what the, I guess what the status of that is, and it's really, I think up to the commission to decide whether or not that money should be given to them, given sort of that background. And it's, it's, I don't have a recommendation. It's, you know, this is kind of a legal. So I have a question on this and you just said it, which is when I heard that, my question was twofold one, assuming no expansion across the street by EVH, would we have the authority to go back at this point? If someone petitioned to be a surrounding, I don't believe so, right? So one shot deal as far as I understood at the very beginning, to get a license, you had to negotiate all of your hosts and surrounding community. So here's my question though, EVH is going across the street and a majority of this commission has voted that they could expand gaming across the street, redraws the lines. My question, and I'm looking at Todd, I'm not putting you on the spot. I'm not necessarily looking for an answer today though. To me, it's an open question, whether given the expansion and impacts that may grow as a result of that expansion, they have to go back and renegotiate. Their hosts and surrounding community agreements. Is that in fact an opportunity for revered to come in and petition to say, in light of the change in circumstance or not? And I don't know what the answer to that is, but to me, empathetic and understanding the historical reasons why the, you know, at that time did not petition, looking at fundamental fairness and actual impacts and what the purpose of the community mitigation fund grants are. I'm curious as to whether the change, the substantial change in circumstance is coming. In regards to EVH merits a deeper dive into that question. Not for this year.  But as commissioner Skinner said, and everyone else that we're going to be looking at this as we go to me, that's an open question. I had the same question. Joe and I talked about that specifically yesterday, except I did not raise the potential expansion question. In connection with, with, with, with, with revere. One of the things that I'm wondering is you, because I'm in agreement with you commissioner Brian, just that, you know, there has to be some new information, if you will, that would allow revere to come in to, to make its case that it should be surrounding community. And, you know, I don't know what, I don't know what I don't remember. I should say sort of the conditions this commission placed on, on core relative to the project. So if that is still an open question, you know, perhaps we revisit that to, to, to see if there's some way. But my understanding as was already indicated is that that was sort of a one time deal. And there's no, no real legal way for this commission to reopen that question in the context of the statute. But again, wondering if there's an avenue in the expansion project that on core is currently contemplating. Revere could go to the legislature too. You know, we do have a set of regulations, but it only regards reopening existing mitigation agreements. You know, so there's no, there's no provision in that for creating a new surrounding community or anything of that nature. I mean, I guess the answer is, the question, the answer is yes. There's nothing stopping them from doing that. Right. However, the, it is a proper designation. So it's a sort of a statutory structure. I think you've raised a really good point. And I think commissioner, Brian's raised a good question for our legal team to look at. You know, should they're, that the expansion question is still on. I mean, I guess the answer is yes. There's nothing stopping them from doing that. Right. However, that it is a proper designation. So it's a sort of a statutory structure. I think that the expansion question is still open, but should there be that? Is there any way for us to view our statute? On the other hand, I also think there's opportunity for revere to approach the legislature on this to help us in, in our statutory construction, but I think we all have empathy. Right. Absolutely. But I guess I think just focusing on the question that's before us is do we want to give them 200,000 as being they would otherwise be considered a surrounding. Have this moment. But bringing it home, right? I didn't need to cut off. And you feel this, I feel, I feel that the, you know, we should not make any changes in response to the, to the, to the request. Only because it's my understanding that, you know, we increase, you know, the share to revere that then is a reduction across the board. Somehow, is that correct? You could do that. There is, there is sufficient money in region A that we could probably increase that without having to reallocate. But then that would require putting this out again. Well, again, yes, I mean, you know, there's no requirement that we put these things out to public comment. I mean, obviously if there was something that was affecting many communities in a region, we'd want to hear from them. I don't, the only, the only effect this has is on revere itself. They're the only community that is in this particular circumstance. So, you know, we could put it out for public comment and kind of proceed at our own peril, I guess, and then to hear if there was any negative comment. I mean, we wouldn't have to have a public hearing or anything. We could, we could just open it up for written public comment. That would delay. You know, it might, I mean, I doubt it. I mean, if we put it out for public comment tomorrow and said, you have two weeks, we've got the couple of weeks, we could finish our guidelines and so on, sort of under the presumption that we wouldn't hear something, you know, negative, I guess, or. Chris, do we feel like we have a little bit of a plan to get some legal work done? Yeah, I'm not inclined to do it for this go round. Keep it cleaner. That would be my take. But I mean, I think we're all the same.  I don't think the questions you're in front of us for right now are going to give us a solve, but I think we're all voicing the same empathy and concern on this. Yeah. Sorry, go ahead. I was just going to say that was going to be my point. You know, understand what, you know, today, legally, we have on the table to consider, and I don't think it's what Revere is asking us to do. So, so when, when, so when I divorced myself from the sympathy and empathy, which I definitely have, and I appreciated Revere owning the situation when we talked to them, you know, what's to keep us from deviating from any other city in town, you know, that may request the same even once that aren't inside the region. Technically, I'm worried about setting a precedent of putting money somewhere when it wasn't contemplated we would do that without a solve or a fix. So that's where I'm coming from on it. But the sympathy and empathy is definitely there. I agree with my college. So the consensus that is to move forward as we have proposed, but we'll do some more work on seeing if there's a reasonable solve for this problem through the legal department or otherwise. Yes, or more particularly, whether that scene, whether there's a path to sort of reopen surrounding community status and connection with the Encore expansion. I would call it a permanent solve. Rather than a workaround. All right, very good. Emily. This item, this was from Chelsea. They requested that workforce grants allow other entities to apply. And I think this was sort of a little misunderstanding we do. It is a competitive process. It's just that we only issue one workforce grant per region. And in the last couple of years, we've only had a single applicant in each region. So it is not sole source. It is eligible, but we do require a consortium approach. It's not just a single municipality coming in. But with that said, if they have certain workforce things that they would like to do with their own grant, you know, we could probably work with them under the specific impact category to do so. But I don't think there's really a, there's nothing to sort of solve here. On that particular issue. Good question. Joe, is there any indication as to what kind of other entities Chelsea's referring to? I don't know if I missed. You know, I mean, we've done other grants that actually Chelsea and Revere, I think it was, did a joint workforce grant themselves a couple of years ago. No, she didn't indicate it. I think their thought was that the, you know, mass hire that we use now, they felt they were not getting the best service from them. Clarification, is it that we will only do one? No, is that? We do one grant per region. So if we had two applications in, we would weigh the two applications against each other. So that wasn't her question. Like, could we do two grants? I mean, I think it was, it was, it was, could, could someone else be, be considered and, and the answer to that actually is yes. So, but they would have to put together a, you know, a consortium and, and it has to be regional and, and all of those other things that we currently get from the, from the providers that, that we're working with. Excellent. And again, the next one was North Hampton asked. I think the request was, you know, there was a lot of leeway on how the grant money can be spent, but it has to be in response to a casino related impact. We can't simply just give a community money to use in whatever fashion they would like. So, and then, and then the last one, were there any, any issues with that? No, I don't think so. Okay. And then the last one was city of Cambridge requested. So as you recall, there's four factors that we considered one was, was traffic. And they asked that they receive some traffic related monies. And, you know, frankly, we don't have any studies that were done that demonstrate that there's any kind of a casino related impact on Cambridge. Only one intersection was studied as part of the original project that was the McGrath and O'Brien highway and land Boulevard, which is admittedly a horrific intersection. But they show that the, any minor increases in traffic weren't really impacting that in any material way. And even going forward on the lookback studies rather than, you know, the, the studies that they're required to do ongoing, you know, mass dot did not require any intersections in Cambridge to even be looked at because it's been, it was determined by them that there was, there was no real impact on those streets. So again, while I sympathize with the communities and, and wanting some money for that, I just don't have any data that would, that would really demonstrate that. And all of the other communities that did receive money in that, you know, which we had studies that showed, you know, 6% of the traffic goes here, 5% goes there, 12% goes there. And in this case, we, we, we just don't have anything to go on. And I said this at the time to Mr. Degnan, but this is another one with EBH expanding in that area. You know, I, I don't know what is mass dot going to say to them. We want you to look again at that intersection, et cetera, which may prompt other studies, but that's a, that's a forward-looking question. That's not for this year. Right. Commissures, are we all set? I don't think that Chief Delaney is looking for a vote today. No, just wanted to know. So we'll be coming back on the 16th. We do, we do have a few changes that we need to make. There's some links that we need to put in the document. And I know there was some editorial changes that commissioners had when we did our two by twos that we still have to incorporate and, and so on. But okay. So yeah, we, we recommend the status quo. Okay. Right. Okay. I'll set. Thank you. Very good. And then the other item, Madam chair, you would ask me to, to put together a little presentation just on the community mitigation fund that we've done in region B out here in the Western part of the state. And, you know, so we've done in total almost $48 million a grant statewide of which about 21.1 million is out here in the, in the Western part of the state. And then so Springfield itself has received $8 million of those funds, just a tad over 8 million, almost 8.1 million West Springfield. Of course, being right across the river has also received quite a, quite a bit of funds from that at about 3.8 million. And of course, we have also done a significant amount of work on regional awards workforce and others and the handed sheriff's office and more recently, pioneer valley planning commission and, and a couple of other smaller awards. But you know, so we put out a lot of money out here and there's been a lot of good projects, one of which we're going to go see right after the meeting today over on Elm Street, one of the Springfields projects, about a $6 million project, about a million and a half coming from the community mitigation fund to do improvements to Elm Street itself, which support the redevelopment of the 31 Elm Street project. So we'll be going to look at that once the meeting adjourns. And that amount's been distributed since what date? 2015 was the first year when we did, we did reserves, which with a $100,000 grants that we gave to each of the communities. Thank you questions on this. Thank you for compiling this report on Springfield. We shared a similar report at GPAC, I know Commissioner Maynard attended and I think it's an important, it's important for this region to see how, how much care you've taken to shore, really fair and generous distribution. So thank you. It's a good report. Is there any questions on Springfields piece? All right. So, So that completes our report for the moment. I guess we'll be going back to MGM, Springfields quarterly reports after, after lunch. So commissioners, I'm going to ask we could turn now to the, the two screening committee reports. And then we have a brief update and then break for lunch or do you want to break for lunch? And then you turn to Mark. How are we doing? Ours is very quick. I don't think it's more substantive on that job description for the IB. No, I mean, yeah. Okay. We'll move forward then. So we're going to turn now to item number 11. And this is the executive director screening committee reports from commissioner Brian and commissioner Maynard. And I know that chief module is available and you have two other committee members, but the two of you are representing today. Okay. Thanks. So the committee met for the inaugural meeting publicly. And then an executive session yesterday to start the process of reviewing the resumes that we've been given so far. I do. I think the only thing that Dave will do might be able to add to this conversation. If he wants to, I don't want to put him on the spot is what the status is of the executive search firm discussions into terms of whether they have started to do any recruiting and dissemination of the posting outside. But other than that, we can say that we've started the process. And we intend to have at least a couple more meetings to get going in terms of screening, how that's going to happen. And questions and that sort of thing. So right now you don't have a, haven't made a decision as to screening and interviews, but that will come a little bit later. Right. Any questions? I have a question now. Chair. When does the posting close? It is open. And we haven't decided when to pull it down. Okay. So that's part of the conversation. Okay. And that's that keys into somewhat, obviously the executive search firms part. Totally up and running in terms of pushing this out and recruiting. So the position, it is currently open. I would say, and correct me if I'm wrong. Certainly not before the end of November. I wouldn't think. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So that's the update on that. Item number 12. It's a two-fold. The IEB director screening committee and that involves commissioner Skinner and commissioner. And data module, of course, is a resource for this subcommittee. And it is a screening committee. And it is. As I understand it, just the three of you and if we could have a turn to the job description, which I believe is added to the packet. And we also have card copies here. And then an update. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Madam chair. So. The purpose of today's. Discussion is really just to. Find. To the job description that you have. In front of you. It's a new packet. And as the chair said there, I provided. Paper copies. This marked up version was distributed at our meeting last Wednesday. And hopefully you all have gotten a chance to review. And I'm happy to. I mean, for the, in the interest of time, I won't walk through each of my edits. And I'm happy to. I mean, And I'm happy to. I mean, For the interest of time, I won't walk through each of my edits. But happy to open. The. Description up for discussion. And. To accept a feedback and any. Additional edits. My fellow commissioners might have. In the packet. It means. Merit at the end. At the very end. Yeah. In the. 171. The blue versus the red doesn't mean anything. Correct. No. I don't know why it appears that. I don't know either. I don't know either. I don't know either. I don't know either. I don't know either. I don't know either. I don't know either. I don't know either. I don't know either. I don't know either. Okay. So it looks like. The clean copy didn't make it. No. It's fine. It's fine. It's not. Yeah. We have a clean copy. So the only question that I had, and I think you put it in here, which is making sure there's a statutory reference to the title. In 23. It looks like you fixed that with the red line. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Deputy director. Yeah. Any other comments or questions? Commissioner. Commissioner Hill. I have my red pin ready to mark this version. We hear at it. My blue pin. That's the blue. No, it looks good. That was when I looked at the person and that was the thing just making sure that the. The position and the statutory title was. Yeah. Everything else looks good. I'm good with it. Okay. Okay. And I think we should just reiterate the process in terms of if you agree to this today, we actually hope to put this post tomorrow. And what does that mean? Post it tomorrow by internally and external. That is the goal. We don't yet have another meeting on the books, but we hope to generate that meeting soon. And it is during that meeting that the subcommittee will review or at least begin to discuss the process at which wishes to undertake. During the screening. And when you say post, do we have strategies on posting? Well, so we do. You'll have to refresh my memory, but I believe. The subcommittee of determined that the job posting should be up internally for 30 days externally for 45. But practically. If there's an internal candidate who wishes to apply beyond the 30 days, I mean, it's still open. And so we would reject it. Is that sequential? Is that. At the same time. Concurrent. It would be concurrent. So. I think that came and I know. Chief Maltrow is, is listening in and participating. That really was the recommendation coming from HR. It's just to structure the posting that way. Hi, Dave. Good afternoon. We can't hear you. Oh. We're not functioning correct. It is. It looks like. Okay. I guess I wonder if you've made your microphone on your actual keyboard. My question on strategy is the outlets. So this is a, um, a position where. Uh, So Dave does have that list. But I guess, yeah. Thanks. And I say it because I also want the public to be aware. Um, how they can access. Yeah. And I think, um, you know, all of that is, is, you know, I think it's important that we continue to be ironed out when we meet. I actually had a really good conversation with truth. Our HR. Uh, Manager yesterday. And so, um, we do, we do have some ideas generating. And so, um, Hopefully she can make an appearance at our next subcommittee meeting as we discussed. And, um, We can really get into the nitty. Around process. Can you folks hear me? I think that we are having trouble hearing you. Yeah. Yeah. I think we're good. I think commissioner Hill and I have captured the gist. Yeah. And I think Dave, you'll be able to report back on my question. Uh, Commissioner Skinner at the next, at the next update. Does that sound right? Yes. Everybody else that. Okay. Then you have on the last item is a commissioner update with respect to the independent monitor. Do we need to vote to approve? Oh, yeah. I do need a bow. I'm sorry. Thank you so much. Do I have a motion with respect to the job description? Uh, madam chair, I move that the commission approved the job description for director of the investigations and enforcement bureau. As included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. I felt, yes, excellent. Excellent work. Thank you so much. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and get to the next item. And then the next item is a commission update. Um, Commissioner Brian and I have since the independent monitor. There's a pointed me. Kind of. Almost. By and really twice a year or three times a year with the independent monitor just on process to. To find out. Um, where they are and when they want to come in front of the commission. Can you now so enter our mind, everyone, that that was a condition that was put on the license following the hearings we had in the spring of 2019 and that that condition was the monitor would remain in place for five years unless the company licensee petitioned otherwise, but in no event less than three. We are approaching the fifth year anniversary come either August 31st or September 1st of next year. So we are entering in 2024, we are entering the last several quarters of that. And so the monitor is aware of that and was talking about working with that date in mind when they come back. And I believe March, I think of us March. Yes, they rather than having any kind of an interim report before the end of this year, they thought that it would be best to come before us I think February or March. Yeah. So we'll keep you posted. I think it will be a full sum report at that point, not one of their more truncated reports. So they're working hard. And I know that our finance team works with them to make sure that all the financial pieces are taken care of. Any questions for us? All right. So we do have our whole team here. Will you join us for lunch? Or we could go ahead. How hungry are we? Very. I think that... No, no, no, no. I'm beating you. Our team from MGM, given that response, I would suggest that you allow us a little bit of a break before you present. We'll be in a much better position to digest everything, including our lunch. All right, so we'll pause and it's 10 of one that brings us, I think, back to our original timeline. We thought we'd gain some time, but we seem to have taken advantage of some opportunity. All right, so we'll break for lunch to 10 of one to about 1.15, 1.20. Makes sense, the lunch is right here, handy. And if we can get going earlier, we'll let you talk about. Thanks so much. Good afternoon. We had a nice lunch break. Thank you for that to our team from MGM. We just needed that break. Again, this is the convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, still November 2nd, and it is our public meeting number 485. And we are very pleased to welcome our MGM team, Chief Delaney, was ready to perhaps introduce you, I'm gonna go right ahead and say welcome to President Chris Kelly and Councilor Asasin. And we are looking forward to not just one quarterly report, but two. So thank you. Did you wanna bring everybody up front? We can just rotate through. We're gonna do a musical chairs, iterations, yes. We talked about that, Jeff. Well, Chair, before we go forward with the presentation, of course, Chris Kelly, my right President, I'm Jim Springfield, did wanna greet you to Massachusetts, to Springfield Massachusetts and have some comments before we start with the presentation. So I turn it over to Chris. Oh, thank you guys. It's a very formal way of saying on a cold day, we wanted to offer a very warm welcome on behalf of the leaders from MGM Springfield that join you today, but also on behalf of our entire team. A special thanks to this entire commission. You have been very frequent visitors to Western Massachusetts here, just a matter of weeks ago for the announcement around a preferred developer in the city of Springfield in this very building, which we, of course, have the privilege of managing in addition to MGM Springfield. So thank you so much for that. Thank you for being here throughout the day. I was present virtually for Paul Picnelli's talking points earlier and just wanted to extend a very big thank you to him. He and his family, three generations deep have been wonderful supporters of this city, of this community. And of course, Paul has been first a wonderful advocates and then a wonderful partner for MGM Springfield and everything that we have been able to do here. He spoke a little bit about the development that's ongoing in the city. And in the roughly four years that I've been here, I've never seen more than I have seen going on right now. I believe the commission will have an opportunity to tour in a little while, 31L, of which we are a $16 million funding partner adjacent to this building. We have a brand new parking structure and plaza under construction as we speak. Paul Picnelli, I think, spoke on Columbus Avenue. We just had the groundbreaking for Panera. And so many more exciting things happening in the city of which we have the privilege of saying we are a part of that economic engine. I think exactly as it was envisioned in the billion dollar investment that went along with it. I'd also like to call attention to one superlative that we are very proud of that is not necessarily reflected in the slides. But our team members contribute a very significant amount of volunteer hours. It's a very important part of the culture of MGM resorts and of the property that is MGM Springfield. Through the third quarter, we have contributed as a team in aggregate over 2,000 hours of volunteer work throughout our great city. That is greater than any entire year's worth of volunteerism since this property became an operating entity in August of 2018. And we couldn't be more proud of their efforts and their commitment, of course, the largest single percentage of which comes from Springfield City itself. And then lastly, just an additional recognition for our team, as this commission knows well, we have been no stranger to challenges along the way over our five years. But our team members have always been more than up to those moments. They've always met them with the same commitment, grace and inspiration that we have come to expect of them. And this last quarter, of course, is no exception. And so a special thank you to them. A thank you again to you. We look forward to presenting quarters two and three to you today. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. I also want to echo Chris's welcome to the commissioners here, along with the MGM staff who made their way to Western Massachusetts to be here today. We always appreciate your presence. It makes us feel proud that you take your time to come and be with us. And so again, we are extremely grateful that you are able to spend your time and be here with us today. You've met Chris with me sitting behind me from left to right, our Arlen Carballo, our vice president of finance. Dan Miller, our director of compliance. And Beth Ward, our director of community affairs and public relations. Not present with us, what she wanted to be here is it was Amanda Crotto, our director of entertainment. She unfortunately is under the weather. So I get the distinct honor of talking about what Amanda would have talked about, which was the entertainment that we bring to the