So, we'll do a roll call with my fellow commissioners. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Commissioner Hill. Present. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. And Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. And we'll get started. This is public meeting number 388. We did just have a very productive agenda study meeting. So I apologize for being a little bit tardy. I'm just needed to take a couple more minutes for a break. We're going to get started today. We have a single item on our agenda. And that is the review of draft application for license to hold or conduct a racing meeting for future applicants. And we've got on hand our general counsel. And Dr. Lightbound director of racing in our chief veterinarian. I thought that we've had a councilor Grossman go through this document in the past. And rather than have him frame out many of the issues, I thought that what we could do is start with our asking questions or general observations, comments, questions that we have about what we've received. We have in our packet the application. We have public comments that were submitted in writing to us. We also had the benefit of a public hearing where we had two members of the public give oral commentary, which they and one did reduce to writing for us. And now I just thought before we actually go through the application itself and ask them both Dr. Lightbound and counselor Grossman and team questions. Just what are our sort of bigger issues that we want to ask of the team? Does anybody want to start? Otherwise, if it's helpful, I'll start. Mr. Skinner, would you want to start with anything? Good morning. I don't mind starting. You know, where I would start, chair in Todd is just with an inquiry. Have we proposed. Any changes to the application in response to public comments that we've received since we last saw the application or even. You know, the one to the one that is included in today's packet. Commissioner Skinner, the draft that's in the packet is the same draft you've previously seen. Of course we have received a number of comments and I think those should be obviously considered for amendment, but they haven't been incorporated. I think that's a good point. Yeah. And is that what the expectation is for this meeting? I think if it's helpful to Todd, I think maybe we should, maybe we could even start, you know, if we outlined some of the issues, maybe we could go through what we have. And if we have a consensus on a couple of the more policy directives versus we also got some helpful red line edits. So that's something that we have to do to help move this along. Okay. Before we do that, can I just throw something out too that. Have we contemplated how, if at all, this needs to change, given the recent sports way during legislation. Because to me, voting on something that we know it needs some sort of, we need to address that at this point. So. So I, this is reserved for vote today. I don't think that's a big question mark for me. And then. And I just throw that out before we dive in to the weeds. I think, I think absolutely, as we go through the sections. And if we can get to that global question to ask Todd. So right now, incorporating the public comments, the impact of sports weighting law. And then, I don't know if you have any other general. Both general and also of import. And it doesn't have to be so important, but if you just want to understand generally anything. Commissioner Maynard commissioner. I would just drill down on commissioner O'Brien's question. There's the broad. Sports weighting and there's actually the specific sections. That deal with horse racing. So I'm interested in both the broad and the specific. Okay, good. Same here, madam chair. Okay. I'm also interested in both of those two. I also, we have had the benefit of in the earlier public meeting. Delivery of a legal framework that actually. Serves as a foundation for us to even be engaging in this conversation. And we've also had the benefit of a silent briefing where we can't ask any questions, but we did receive again. An update on the legal analysis. I think because the complexities here and also the stakes here. That it would be important to memorialize that legal guidance. It would, it becomes, it's, it's an odd construct to ask your legal advisor to memorialize legal advice in public. We've been advised by the AG's office. I understand from that counselor Grossman, that that is how we have to receive. Legal advice that we can't do it through an executive session. This is already been put out in the public forum. But if we can memorialize it in a, in a, in a document, that would be really helpful so that if, and if, and when we do vote on this. We are very, we have a clear understanding. Of the legal foundation. Other general questions. And then we'll go through the section by section and that would be again and ask questions as opposed to sort of, you know, having it. I think it'll be more organic if we turn to our team members and saying, you know, even it's what does this do? That would be okay. What is, what is this? If you have specific questions or even just a broad question that you don't understand the overall section. I really invite everybody to participate in the discussion. Why don't we do the easier one first in terms of the public? Well, it's not necessarily easier, but it's maybe more concrete. On looking at the public comments. Does everybody have access to what was included in the packet? The first public comment I have. That's on. It's actually had it's, it is public comments, page one of the packet. And that's a letter from. That is Brazilian LP. And it provides. A general narrative and then it attaches a red line. Let's just get in, would you like to tackle the red line first, maybe in terms of. Thinking whether some of these are good ideas. I know the sounds a little bit like we're doing work, but I think this is moving the conversation along. Because we do not have a revised application in front of us that reflect these. These public comments for us to decide whether or not we want to. I think Todd, you should say. Intercheck. This is a good, this is good for the legal. For the document itself. Intercheck. Mr. Skinner do you have it or should I move it forward? I mean, I, I have it in, I have it in front of me. I think the substantive comment sort of feeds into the. Larger question of the implication of the language in the sports wagering bill relative to simulcasting. So. And there were a couple of comments relative to, to that. From the public. And then talk about sports. The sports wagering piece as the second part of our discussion and do maybe the more straightforward public. Well, some of the public comments. Also include some policy discussions. So if we could just park sports wagering and simulcasting. So the very first one. In the narrative is about section eight. And that is exactly, I think commissioner Hill, that's what you were referring to when you said you agreed with. Commissioner O'Brien too. And so if we go to the actual red line. These are some just nuts and bolts. I'll help out here. Or. Not handling me the suggestion instead of application of a name of the applicant. I would go to that. Okay. Let's make that change. So. It says in calendar year or calendar year, that actually may have legal implications. Do we need to be thinking about that? Oh, actually above it says. Location. He adds that in parentheses. I think the current which is. Oh, it's sufficient there. To me. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. I had an alert go off on my. Computer. Discommissioner. Can you restate that I couldn't hear you. Apologize. I said, I think that the current language. It's very clear that it means location. Okay. We don't need location. Yeah. Okay. The next one. I agree. That's up for grabs, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that the four is leading towards what they're advocating. The interpretation they're advocating for. And I think the end. Puts a lot of restrictions on their ability to advocate. So that's. That word choice while small words is. I think something we need to talk about. We actually do address this, of course, more squarely later on in the application. It's not necessary to include it here. It could cause confusion based on just this limited conversation. So I might recommend we just remove it here. And address it later on in more detail where we asked specifically about. The intention. For conducting actual live force race. So you're saying remove that entire line from that part of the application. Yeah, just on the front page. I mean. You know, it. It could, as I said, just cause. More confusion that it's worth. Because we do address it later on. As well. Was there recently made it into the initial draft? Counselor. You have to forgive. I'm sorry. I didn't catch the beginning of your question, but. Is there a reason it made it into the initial draft? Oh yeah. That's a great question. If I may. We, this whole thing was generally modeled after the existing application. And that's kind of where we started. And that's, I believe, just how it reads on the existing application. It wasn't. Intended to. Really address the issue that's being discussed now. There, as I said, there's another place in the application where we really are getting at. When actual racing will be conducted. And this was not the place. That that was intended to be addressed. But I mean, just to set the stage that is a critical issue. Is when will live horse racing be conducted? So I mean. For that reason. I guess in some, I would say we might not want to. Include this here because. People. It could be read in different ways. Would we say anticipated. I mean. Don't we? I guess. They're going to give us narrative in the application, but upfront don't, doesn't that matter? Well, I'm wondering if we at least say dates submitted because. That, that's a factual issue. And really what happens from there is our interpretation of what we can do in the year following that date. So maybe so the cover sheet is clear. You write whatever the date that's going to be. Submitted. That's the date that's on the face of it. So that is clear to us as we're going and looking at these. That this application pertains to was submitted in. You know, 2022. I think that makes good sense. We can change that too. And just say like dates. And then. At least on the face of it, we know. Any questions on that? Commissioner Skinner commissioner. We can. Let's put a little asterisk about that. Just sort of as we go through the application today, whether we can circle back to this. I'm wondering, is there a way to do track changes? That's just a different. Color Todd. So that we know what we suggested as possible changes during this meeting. That would be great. Yeah. This is, of course, these changes are remember. Handling. This is public comments. This is all right. The comments. Caitlin. I'm saying, is there a way. Caitlin just clear to throw. Yeah. I was just going to say. I'm, I'm been taking notes on the conversation, but I guess I can go and Todd, I can probably go into the word version and. Track change it. Yeah. I think so. And I'm, I mean, I'm doing the same. So yeah, I think we will. Obviously. I'm going to. Yeah, I think so. And I'm, I mean, I'm doing the same. So yeah, I think we will obviously produce a document for your review after the rough, you know, recognizes all the comments that were made. Well, I think that this is, that's a really important. It's going to save you having to come back and, and look at this hearing. So to the extent I can do it simultaneously, it's really good. If we could just put an asterisk next to this, because I'm wondering if I might become better informed as we go through the application as to whether there should be a flag against the intention of conducting racing. The actual time. Next is commission scanner. I don't know if you pulled it up, but I'm happy to have you go through it. But the next is he makes a suggestion to clarify for a new applicant is already gone, maybe submitted prior to racing, but not at the time of the application. Oh, go ahead. I'll go ahead. Okay. Feel free. I was. For this particular point, you know, it's obviously up to the commission. If you want to adopt language similar to this, the issue here is that the statute does require a surety bond with the application. However, there is a regulation stating that the surety bond can be provided later. And it's within 30 days of, I think the application being granted. If, if the commission would like to have language like that, I'm fine with adding it, but I'd prefer to modify it so that it tracks the language of the regulation a little bit more. Right. Cause there's no end date on this. This is more prior to racing, but of racing isn't have a set start date that goes back to go way past 30. Exactly. Right. Yeah. And it's important to recognize what the purpose of the bond is. It's really bonding compliance with the racing rules and it's not a construction bond. It's not a construction bond. Although the commission could. You know, require a construction bond later on. Which was required on the gaming, the casino gaming side, by the way, but. Section three. Oh, which is where this comes from. And it's cited here. Doesn't, it doesn't exactly specify what it's for, but it's more for compliance with. Chapter one 20. Eight A, which they won't be able to do until they're actually racing. So the purpose of the bond itself is somewhat moot. During the construction period, even though as Caitlin points out, the statute does say that no license shall be issued unless the person has submitted a bond. The commission then has clarified that by way of regulation. And I would just add to that. That if they're signed, allowed to simulcast before they do live racing, you might want that bond at that point. So given, given all of that. Todd and Alex, do we even need that line in at all? I mean, it starts with for a new applicant. That's what this is. It's an application. For a new license. And we know that. And we know that it doesn't, the regulations don't really fit well. For this in terms of requiring a shorty bond when the race track isn't even built yet. So I guess I'm suggesting that we don't even need this line added in. Yeah, I think that's fair commissioner. I think what. Maybe the best approach would be to just reference the regulation that talks about the timing of the submission of the bond and ensure we incorporate what Dr. Lightbound mentioned as well. That really before any. Wagering related activities or other activities under one 28 days when we would need the bond. That's what it's. Let's play this out. I see this. The license is in that chart. The language, the regulation note. And the statute says no license. Shall be issued unless the person applying therefore shall have executed and delivered to the commission of bond payable to the commission. The amount of 125,000 with this charity of sororities approved by the commission condition upon the payment of all sums. I know we're going to get into it, but this is where the sports for your during statute. We'll have implications. You know, this license, whether conditioned or not. I don't know. I don't know enough about this quite frankly. But it doesn't say. It's not tied to the language that. You said Todd, and maybe it's somewhere else. But should there be. You know, this license, whether conditioned or not. The stakes just went way up because now they have access to. A mobile. So the idea that we're going to just skip over a surety bond, which doesn't say. I don't know enough about this quite frankly. But it doesn't say. I don't know. I don't know. But should there be some kind of a bond given. Point, I mean. Up front. At least with respect to the statue. And then the red does say. You know, I don't know. It says that. 30 days of the award of the license, even though it says no license shall be issued. I don't know how we reconcile that reg with the statutory language, but apparently that's our. Well, that's the question, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. Yeah. I am. I don't see how we can override the statute. Right. In much case, I think we just, we require the bond. Right. Period. That you'd says so. I think that is a safe approach. Even though the bond may not do anything, but we can talk more about. What the content, what the bond has to cover. Yeah. You know, maybe get into that in a little more detail. In the near future. But I would agree with the sentiments. And that we just keep it in as is and require the. And it's upon, it's in accordance with the statute. Why don't we, why don't we find out how we, what bond we, what surety bond we asked for to make it meaningful. I think that that's the question. Yeah. All right. So now that's. Public comment page. Five. Looking over nothing on page six. Page seven. That looks like just a net. A helpful one. What do you think? Commissioners and counselors. That's just inserting the word copies because he don't, not sure about what. He's, he's not sent to the center. Certified copies. I'm sorry. I lost. Where are you. Page public comments. Page seven. 1.1. One zero. Oh, you're in the packet. I see. In the red line version submitted by the first comments. Yeah. I am. Council handling. Yeah. I'm actually not looking in the packet. I was just looking at his actual letter. So that's why. We're looking at the red line detachment. Yeah. Yeah. So it's page three of his. Well, it's like, it's the attachment. If you go into the red line detachment, it's section 1.10. You get to the yes. No. It's right above section two. Todd, you're right. It's page three of the application. Yep. Got it. Thank you. That would just say, so if we're going to put copies, just say certified copies. I don't have a problem not getting original. Obviously you're not going to get them, but. Yeah, that's fine. I mean, I think that was assumed, but we can clarify that. Okay. No controversy on that one commissioners certified copies. I'll set. Um, page eight. Um, there's a deletion. Oh, I was interested in this. Why did he want to delete? Yeah. If there's something Dr. Like down that you know that we don't know. Um, the deletion is subsection age description of anticipated number of outlets for fresh pure drinking water for patients and grandstand clubhouse and other locations. Do we not provide fresh water? Yeah. The tracks we have now they have drinking fountains. So I'm not sure why they want to eliminate that. I don't know if that's, um, you know, if they're considering when they first open that they. Might be in a tent or something. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. Um, I guess if, if they didn't have drinking fountains, they could certainly provide, you know, water bottles or something along those lines. But what you're thinking of is some. Um, Um, All the forest community coming in that they typically have access. Is it just spectators? Are we also. Patrons. Yeah. The patrons in the, in the gaming area. Um, and would have access to a water fountain. Can you refresh my memory right now when they, uh, the current licensees, uh, Come before us every year. Is this part of the, excuse me. It is part of the original application. Yes. Yeah. I'm not sure why we would take this out. I, I thought it was curious. Um, But maybe it's because so many people buying water now. Um, and I say that knowing my father's turning over in his. Date right now. That we buy water in bottles, but, um, anyway, I like, I like building line up. So I think fresh water access is still important. So, um, Yeah. All right. And it's important that it's part of the original. Well, thank you. We'll just keep that in. And, uh, Page nine, uh, 2.10, 2.10. I guess that in this case, um, I think it's a little knit. I don't think it's so critical, but it looks like, uh, commissioner scanner that he wanted to. Combine those two. It's because those studies are likely to be integrated into one. It's submit the same study twice. Yeah. Economic impact study is listed in both. Top sections. It does say both economic impact, but then feasibility. So feasibility, viability can just be added to 2.10.  Or is there something we're missing? Can I ask? I'm sorry, Alex, but before we go into that. So the first one says relating to the project and the other one says performed for the project. So are they supposed to gather up anything relevant. In 2.10 and yet submit anything they've done. In 2.11. Yeah. I don't think this question is on the existing application. This is one that we added here. So that the commission could really understand. The viability of this project. I think that it's a fair comment here. I don't think there's, it was intentionally broken out in any particular way. They obviously the, the main thrust here. Is that the commission have an understanding of what impact. It is fair to combine these questions. And just refine the language to make sure that. There is some kind of study performed as to what. Whether the project is feasible, but the economic impact will be. And whether it's ultimately viable. I think that's perhaps what you're most interested in. And we could write it that way. Okay. Did Leo come up with these, these languages? So they're relating to and the performed for, but that's all our language. That is our language. I believe we took these out of the RFA two application. So they're, they're probably identified there too. Although I don't want to say that for sure, but I believe that's where these came from. Okay. Cause I guess when I look at relating to, it seems to be a broader category than performed for. It seems to almost imply that they know of some other. Different languages. And I think that's what we're trying to do. Do themselves, but they knew of, are they trying to get more in front of us than just what they did? So as you go through and think about language, you want to submit to us. I just throw that out as a question. Yeah. And if there is, if there is a distinction, we should make the questions identical. Right. Are we good with those options? Make them identical. Okay. Okay. It captures. Mr. Brian's concern. Okay. Are we comfortable moving on or okay. Item. On page 10 of our packet. It's now item. Now 4.4. It's actually the beginning of section five. You know. This. to navigate, but he's concerned about giving out information that he would like to keep protected. Public records law makes that difficult, right? Councilor Todd, why don't you address that? I know you've raised this issue. Sure, I think it's a really important issue to make sure we're clear on. The public records law of course, as we all know, sets out a series of exemptions, some of which may be applied here and we can talk about those momentarily, but there is no specific language in chapter 128A or 128C for that matter that exempts language or information submitted as part of an application for a license, unlike on the gaming and now sports wagering side where such language does exist, it does not exist here. So that means that we need to apply just the straight public records law to all of the information that will come in as part of this application. As he noted, and as we talked about, there's the privacy exemption to the public records law, which would allow us to withhold and from public dissemination a lot of personal information about individuals who are involved in this application process, but it does not cover a lot of the financial and entity related information that may be associated with this process. He in the comments suggested that there be some kind of non-dissemination agreement or something along those lines, but there is no such provision in the law that would allow us to do such a thing. So that is an issue to be confronted here is what information will be required and how, if at all, would it be handled under the public records law? There is always one practical solution and it depends on what we wanna think about how our investigations are conducted in the amount of documentation. But the public records law is triggered by custody and to the extent that we don't have NDA coverage, you can review things through a portal and not take custody. And that's a practice that's done routinely. Lawyers do it all the time so that they don't own documents. Is that a practical solution? Not necessarily if we have to really come through things, but this is just something I wanna offer. Well, and also you commented that the new legislation on the sports wagering, it does apply to information submitted as part of that, right? So in theory, they're doing a joint potentially. They're a new horse racing. They'd also be potentially for the sports wagering. How does that play in in the statute? Do they get the protections from disclosure that are applicable to the brick and mortar in the sports wagering because they're doing a combined? Well, I think the answer to that question is no. I don't really see it as them submitting a combined application. I think there are two separate things. In order to trigger the sports wagering law, they have to first have a license under chapter 128A, which is what we're talking about now. And we'll get into obviously what the sports wagering law says about this. But I think the simple answer to your question is that there's separate applications. Although that is an interesting thought and worth taking another look at. And I haven't considered that specifically, but I don't believe we could loop that protection in here. Because this is the initial. I mean, I think we're all, we want to be always fair about what we're asking for. So I think I appreciate this. There is no real tool. And this is something that we've encountered in our regular day-to-day, right, Todd? So at this point, I don't think we can, we can't add anything into the application right now on this point. I think Commissioner O'Brien's brought up a really interesting issue. Whether they might get almost like retroactive protection or something, Commissioner O'Brien, if they, and as we're saying they, as if there's a they, it's an absolutely, yeah. No, I just meant if they were doing both, but I mean, Todd's analysis of it, that it's really sequential, that the access to the sports wagering really follows the issuance of racing. Right. But I like the idea of looking to see if they did get the first part, you know, the requirement, is there anything in the second part that would give them retroactive, some of our protections on what they submitted before? I don't see that, but I think it's an interesting legal question Commissioner O'Brien, right? Mm-hmm, right. So Todd can look at that. But right now, commissioners, I don't see anything we can do on the application before us on this issue, except to think creatively, with the also in the understanding, you know, we do our work in public and a lot of information comes to us in public. Anything, Commissioner Skinner? I am curious about your comments relative to Holder or Custodian of records. Is that term defined in the public record statute at all? And if so, does it allow for this notion of viewing documents via an online portal, right? Not equating to, you know, holding the record or taking custody of the record. Right. It's my understanding that that's a device that would work, but you know, it has its restrictions. It could be for some analysis, but it couldn't be for us to come to us. You know what I mean? It would be just for the analysis of the team. But if it has to come before us, there's no mechanism for under the current law. I don't think, right, Todd? I think that's right. I mean, once you rely on a piece of information and making your decision, then it's part of the record. And whether you looked at it on a portal or otherwise, it's, you know, I don't think it's protected. To the chair's point though, if, you know, if you needed me, for example, to just confirm that there is some piece of sensitive information in place and you would accept a yes or no, just to make sure we covered our bases somewhere without knowing exactly what the document says or something like that, then yes, we could probably get there. But I don't think that's going to answer the question completely here, you know. I don't think we can show you there, for example, their feasibility report. I don't think we could just say, hey, everybody just go log in and read their feasibility report to see what it says. Because you're gonna rely on that. No. I didn't think so. I just, that's why I wanted to kind of dig into that a little bit. Yeah. Not for us. Not for us, just for the kind of due diligence he said. You know, the other exemption that comes into play and to mind is the investigatory exemption. And that's one I've heard mentioned in the past in this context. The important thing to understand about that is that it only applies as long as the matter is being investigated and would somehow compromise our ability to complete our investigation. So it's a limited effect. And it may cover certain documents for some period of time, but ultimately not completely in the fashion that I would think the applicant would be seeking. So that's not really a great solution here either. There really are no tremendous answers to this, which is why it's built into the gaming law and the sportsway during law that certain information is absolutely out because there is no exemption otherwise. Yeah. Yeah, and certainly I didn't want to in any way indicate it's what I suggest is to circumvent public records law. It is simply a way to sometimes be able to look but not rely on, you know, it's really very, very difficult when there's just no exemption on the public records law to get around this as Councilor Hanley suggests. That requires, I think, a legislative fix. I don't chair. Councilor, do the current licensees have to provide very similar information under the same rules and no protection for a life of a better term currently? If you're afraid of Plain Ridge Park, so Plain Ridge Park is at present the only racing licensee and we do not ask for this exact information as part of their renewal application in that they're already up and running. So for example, you don't need a feasibility study as to how all that's gonna work and things along those lines. And we have not historically conducted suitability of the racing entity specifically. Obviously we conduct suitability reviews of most of those folks under the gaming laws, for which we do have protections. But if I understand your question correctly, we don't receive this type of information from Plain Ridge Park when they seek to renew their application annually. And I just wanna clarify, I think Pat Hamlin's comment is directed to qualifiers section five, qualifiers and suitability as opposed to like the feasibility. I think that is, yes, absolutely where he directed, but I think it is important just for us all to recognize that it has, of course, broader implications than just this one section, although that is where he kind of identified or focused his comments. And so I just wanna follow up with Commissioner Maynard's point and other commissioners, let's think about this, when we get our suitability information, much of it can be public, but to Todd's earlier point, it's exempt under, a lot of it's exempt under the privacy exemption under public records law. With respect to the entities that are assessed, a lot of it's protected under the NDA that's permissible under 23K. If PPC's horse racing track was not attached to a category two licensee under 23K, that protection wouldn't follow. It's because of the fact that it falls under a category two license. So that's how the NDA follows. That's right. Now also my follow-up question that I thought I heard, are we gonna be asking for more suitability review under the new applicant than what we ask of the current renewal? Other, I mean, outside of those under 23K? Or are we gonna be, is that gonna be an update to the renewal license? Well, I think that is the question, part of, at least part of the question before you is what level of suitability do you want to conduct? There are obviously practical differences between PPC and existing entity that you're familiar with and whose principles have gone through a thorough suitability review and background check. And then some new entity that we don't even know who comes before us and individuals who we may never have encountered before, who you're gonna want to ensure are suitable to hold the license. So it is possible that the initial suitability review anyway will be more rigorous in this instance than it is for the renewal of the PPC license. Maybe when we go through the license provisions itself, that will be helpful to Commissioner Maynard. So if we, at the very least on that point where he's asking for some kind of relief from disseminating that sensitive information, the answer is we really don't have a tool right now. Is that fair? I think that's right. Yeah, and so I think the last comment that I'm seeing really relates to Commissioner O'Brien's earlier, more global question is the impact of the sports wagering statute now because if I understand correctly, section eight may be somewhat implicated by that statute. So should we, before we go on through the license itself, should I'll go for Todd, Commissioner O'Brien to update us on what we view as the implications of the new law on this globally. And then, is that the right approach, Commissioner? Okay, Commissioner Hill, you're good with that. I am, I think this is like one of the biggest issues that I've red flagged as you already know. So yes. Okay, so we've got through, I think comments submitted at least by this particular public commentator. Let's move, we'll table, we'll table the rest because even though I'm going out of order just what I said earlier, just because I think it's really pertinent and then we'll go back to the other public comments. Some of them are critical quality questions, okay?  Sure, hold on one second, Mr. Chair. Close out some documents here before I share my screen. Okay. There's, with your indulgence, I'll just share this document with you. So we're looking at the same thing. This is, hold on one sec. So this is what was the sportsway during bill. It's now obviously codified in the law but it's the same language. So I think we can just take a look at this. There are two things that I'd like to just bring to your attention. One gets specifically into race days and simulcasting. And the other is kind of the broader question as to how this affects or what effect of being awarded a license under chapter 128A will have. So there are a couple of places to draw your attention to. The first is right here. As you'll see the term, and I assume you can all see my screen here. The term category two license is defined and you'll of course are well aware that there's three categories of licenses that have been established under the sportsway during law. The racing piece of it falls under category two. So I'll just talk about category two if that's okay. And category two itself covers a fairly wide swath but the part that we should really be focused on for purposes of this conversation is the highlighted language that talks about that it's a license issued by the commission that permits the operation of sportsway during in-person on the premises where either live horse racing is conducted in accordance with chapter 128A or the other entities. So this is an important starting point. The next part though, and it's directly related. So let me just go over to the next relevant piece which is right here. So this is the licensing section of the sportsway during law. I don't have the section six B2 of chapter 23N. And it says the commission shall issue a category two license. And of course we just looked at the definition of the category two license which includes to an entity that was licensed under chapter 128A to conduct race. The position shall issue a category two license to any holder of a license to conduct a live horse racing meeting in accordance with chapter 128A. And just to kind of give you a full picture it's not that they automatically get a license. It's any entity that meets that that also meets the requirements of chapter 23N and the rules and regulations of the commission. So they have to of course meet other rules that we'll put into place and regulations but as a general matter if they do so an entity that holds a license under chapter 128A is eligible let's say for a category to sportsway during license. And that's what the new sportsway during law says. Now just to add full context to this conversation little two and in fact the other piece of the definition we just looked at these get into the two simulcasting the existing simulcasting entities. So a running horse racing licensee here this is referring to the Suffolk Downs license and little three the Greyhound meeting licensee this is referring to the Rainham Park license. So they they're all kind of grouped into the same section of the statute and they all are it says they shall the commission shall issue them a category two license if they meet the requirements of the chapter. But to everyone's point what we're doing today and the review of this new racing application is critical and supremely meaningful in that if an entity submits this application we're talking about and is awarded a license under chapter 128A it will make them eligible let's say for a category two license and that is important to understand. So it carries with it more than just the ability to conduct live horse racing and simulcasting and potentially ADW operations. It also carries with it the real possibility that they will be allowed to conduct a sports wagering operations as well. There is one other let me pause there for a second and then I wanted to get into the other piece of the sports wagering bill that is relevant here but are there any questions or otherwise about just the eligibility and the category two license? I understand what you just read to us. I'm trying to understand how that coordinates with the new application and the concerns that were brought up so would we take away 8.2 because this overrides that? Well, commissioner Hill let me actually it might be helpful if I just move into the last piece and then I'll I think that might answer your question. Thank you. Can we just look at this language just for one second as a pause commissioners it's any holder of a license. There's no cap on this particular type of license correct Todd? That's right and I by the way, madam chair that is true of chapter 128A too. So there's there at least in my opinion there's no limit on the number of what it referred to as running horse racing meeting licensees or thoroughbred racing meeting licensees. A live horse racing meeting here. All right, so do you want to go to the final time? Yeah, if I may let me just scroll further down and this piece amends this is in the sports wagering law or a sports wagering act I should say but it actually amends chapter 128C and it's not let's say directly related to sports wagering. That's my 927 here. There we go. So this is section six of the sports wagering act and as you can see it as I just said it amends chapter 128C of the general laws. It's not going into chapter 23N and it's important to kind of take a look at the introductory language here. So 128C at present, well I shouldn't say at present because this is not the law but before this was passed had eight sections. It now has nine sections. So this adds the ninth section to chapter 128C and it starts by saying importantly not withstanding sections one to eight inclusive meaning that regardless of what any of those sections presently say what this says is going to control this particular issue and this is important because it does kind of override some language that's in chapter 128C. The part of the section here that I haven't highlighted talks about offering wagers for greyhound racing which is also important to understand but it's not really relevant to the present conversation that's why I didn't highlight it but we should talk about that at some point too. But the part that is relevant is this highlighted language here and it says that in a running horse racing meeting licensee shall and I'll finish that of course but I wanted to pause for a second there just to note that what we're about to talk about only applies to running horse racing meeting licensees which is thoroughbreds. It does not affect Plain Ridge Park Casino because they are standard brits. So that's not addressed here. So any running horse racing meeting licensee shall conduct not less than 20 live racing days at a thoroughbred horse racing track provided the commission may waive this requirement as necessary and appropriate to ensure the financial ability of the licensee to develop and operate a race track. So the question is what does this mean? If you read in a vacuum it's hard to understand what it means but you'd have to take a look at chapter 128C and let me show you, I can show you 128C I'm sorry to bounce around here. So you can see kind of what piece of the statute it's really getting at if you'll bear with me for one second. There it is. So I will share this with you too. So this is chapter 128C section two dealing with simulcast wagering. I should point out just to clarify 128C in its entirety talks about simulcast wagering as opposed to 128A which talks about live horse racing and paramutual wagering and things along those lines. 128C is focused solely I think on simulcast it. So it talks a lot in here about the signals that the different licensees are allowed to carry and that's important to understand too and we can go through that but the relevant portion comes in down here and it says that no racing meeting, licensee, shall simulcast live races in any racing season unless the racing meeting licensee is licensed to and actually conducts at least 900 live races over the course of not less than 100 calendar days during that racing season with no fewer than seven races completed on any of those 100 calendar days. So this is the existing law the way it has historically been viewed and the way I read it is to say that essentially in order to qualify to run to conduct simulcasting which attaches by the way to the fact that you have a license under 128A you have to race for 100 days. You have to have a racing meeting of 100 days which is not an issue for Plain Ridge Park they race over 100 days. You may recall in the past, was it two years ago Alex or last year where because of the pandemic they fell underneath and there is language in here that the commission looked to that allowed you to authorize them to continue to simulcast even though they fell under 100 days in here that's right here. It says, except if the commission determines that a licensee cannot conduct a full schedule of live racing performances due to weather conditions racetrack conditions, strikes work stoppages sickness or quarantine not within the control of the licensee the commission may permit the licensee to continue simulcasting, et cetera. That's not the territory we're in now because the baseline rule is that you have to race for 100 calendar days, okay. So I realized I'm moving kind of quickly here. So let me just stop there for a second before I go any further. And that's only annually. Annually, yes. So let me let's back up a step. When you review Plain Ridge Park's application for to conduct racing annually one of the things they submit and that's required under the statute and we'll talk about it in the context of this new application too is that they submit the whole schedule, their whole calendar, which has to include at least 100 racing days if they want a simulcast. And of course they do simulcasting is a critical component to any viable racing operation. And it's this part of the statute that triggers their ability to be able to simulcast. And we have not had an issue with them that I'm aware of in which they have fallen below the 100 days except during the pandemic. So that's why you've perhaps never had an opportunity to review this section of the law or encountered any issues with it because they've never come in under that. With a new racetrack though, it has been suggested and I think most would agree with the idea that conducting a hundred live racing days at a new thoroughbred racetrack will be difficult just for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there aren't enough thoroughbred horses that would be available to race over the course of a hundred race days. And I think it seems to me that most would agree with that principle. And so at least for the first, let's say a year or two of any thoroughbred racing meeting, it seems from what I understand, unlikely that there would be a hundred races. Maybe eventually you get to that point, but in the short term, let's say it's unlikely. And it's important to understand that because that's why the language I believe was included in the sports wagering act that talks about 20 live race days. It says not withstanding anything that's in 128C. So it basically means regardless of the fact that section two that we're looking at says a hundred race days. And let me pull this down for a second. We can go back to the other document. Not withstanding 128C, they're saying the horse racing meeting licensee shall conduct not less than 20 live racing days and we can stop there for a second because then there's additional language built in that appears to address a new racetrack that's being constructed. But my read of this language in the sports wagering act, which is now 128C section nine is that this 20 live racing day reference is intended to supplant on the thoroughbred side the hundred day requirement and bring it to 20 days. Pleasure. Sorry, my apologies. No, no, no. So let me stop there for a second because this is complex, but super important. It's important to make sure we're on the same page with this. And so this is what Mr. Hanley was commenting on in the draft. And he's absolutely right. When the draft was initially put together the sports wagering act language didn't exist. So that's why it's not referenced in there. We would absolutely have to include it in there. But it's important that the commission take a position as to what this means. And I've obviously shared my opinion with you as to what it means. But if we're going to put it into the application, it's important that there be some type of agreement that that's what we're going to do with it. I would add one wrinkle, Todd, which is that this provision doesn't go into effect for a year. Yeah, thank you, yep. If an application was for next year, it wouldn't apply. But if an application was for 2024, it would apply. And that is in the very end, the effective dates. But that applies to this section and another section, correct? So that's, this is the sports wagering act. And it says sections two and six. And we were just looking at section six to take effect one year after the effective date of this act. So thank you, Caitlin, that's absolutely right. And you're still interpreting that 20 days to be 20 days annually, correct? That's right. So the only other thing that if, to just take a quick... Can we just, Caitlin's point is a really important point. As we think about the license, Commissioner Hill's original question, how does this alter the application? So they don't want us, they say that we could waive this requirement as necessary and appropriate to ensure the financial don't need the licensee to develop an operator race track, but we couldn't do that for another year. For a year. And the way, effectively, I think what that means is that if you were to award a license under chapter 128A, in the next month or three or what have you, they couldn't be, the licensee couldn't then turn around and come in within the next year and say, oh, by the way, please give me a license to simulcast too, because I need it to ensure that we can develop and operate this race track in the future. That the request can't come for at least a year. How about the 100 days? So the 100 days piece too will be in effect for a year from a week or so ago, which is okay. It doesn't really affect this application process because they're not gonna be simulcasting anyway. So even if they come in and say, hey, we're only proposing these 20 race days, you could still give them a license. It doesn't, the law doesn't say that you can't have a license to race for under 100 days. It just says you can't simulcast if you don't race for at least 100 days. So the fact that this piece of the law doesn't kick in for a year will not impact that at all because they wouldn't be racing anyway. Well, let me take that down for a second. Okay. Okay, now, sorry, go ahead. Someone was saying something. I was just going to say, ask questions for Todd and then also, I'm hesitant to go backwards in the application, but I think it's important to connect this right to, I just lost Commissioner Hill, but right to section eight is Commissioner Hill was suggesting. So if we look at the applicable provisions, it's actually section nine, right? Section nine is what I thought. I think it's mostly, if you're afraid to section eight of the application, right? Yeah, because Commissioner Hill referenced section eight, but that's facilities and equipment on my document. Do you mean to be section referencing section nine in this exhibit? I think just one note, all the exhibit numbers are just off by one number. Just so. I am looking at draft page 13, 8.2. Yeah. See, I think, oh, I'm looking at page 13, 9.2. That's part of your packet, right? Yeah. I'm looking at the draft that they sent us two days ago. Well, I hope we're all looking at the same document. It says in accordance with GL, chapter 128c, section two, no racing meeting. Yeah, I think, the problem, I'm sorry, I realized this after I put this in the packet. The reason it's section, it's actually section eight, but in the draft, it's at section nine because somehow, if you look back at section three and four, you'll see that there's a highlighted piece in the packet for section four. That's actually a question under section three. So all of the sections got pushed back a section. There's actually only eight sections in the application. I don't know if that makes any sense, but if you look at- So, I'm recognizing that the packet that the public has in front of them is not aligned when necessarily the document that. And that is just a note. So it sounds like we're just one off. One thing I noted was on the exhibit numbers, they're kind of just one off, that's okay. But so when I'm looking on page 13, it's your 8.2 and that makes sense Brad, because that's what you referenced was eight, which I knew what you meant, but it just happens to be nine and nine. Okay. So section eight on page 12. Wagering and simulcasting, okay. In terms of what you just went through, do you want to walk us through that section in terms of what you would recommend for changes? So do you have that? Sure. Yeah, I think that if all are in agreement, so we wouldn't necessarily want to delete, they keep, let me start over. It's important to remember this application applies to both thoroughbred racing and standard red racing, even though as a practical matter, we've heard that there's mostly interest in developing a thoroughbred racetrack, not another standard red racetrack, but the application itself was designed to cover both. So for that reason, I would not recommend that we pull out the existing language in eight or 9.2 altogether, but supplement it with the new language that's now in chapter 128c section nine that talks about the 20 days instead of the hundred. And we would ask the question, we would tailor the question that's a little, to focus it a little more on if you're a thoroughbred applicant, are you gonna have at least 20 race days? If you're a standard red applicant, will you have at least 100 race days? And that's, so I would definitely suggest that we do need to include the new language in here. Commissioner Maynard, we're leaning in. But, Councillor, what I heard earlier from Kailin was that we're a year before the commission could actually adopt that language on a sportsway trip, Bill. So why would we put in that provision now? Well, it's a great question. I would say that it's no way it's the law, right? We just know it's not taking effect for a year. And I suppose the law could be amended, but it's not some remote or speculative thing that might happen. It has happened, and we know when it will be. And as I mentioned, assuming the law stays in place, and I suppose anything is subject to change, but assuming it stays as is, if you were to award a license to race under Chapter 128A, and the applicant only proposes 20 racing days, we know what the governing simulcasting law is going to look like. And that's really what we want to address here, I think, because that is what they're going to want to do. And it will be okay. I don't think you wanna not include it and say, okay, well, since this doesn't kick in for a year, you're not gonna be allowed to simulcast because that's not necessarily true. Can we address Commissioner Maynard's point though, by somehow showing the trigger date or something, the one that actually could take effect to avoid confusion? Yeah, I think that it is important to include the fact that this language doesn't kick in for a year. But I think it will be important that the commission notes that the race days are something less than a hundred days, and that assuming this provision of the law stays in effect, that they would qualify to simulcast. Do we know that it's, can I ask, I may have just maybe ask a question I shouldn't know the answer to. We know that it's less than 20 days, or is that only connected with simulcasting? Well, it's in chapter 128c. So the way I've always read it is that it just applies strictly to simulcasting. That's correct. It applies just the ability to simulcast and it's not financially viable for a racetrack to not have simulcasting. It's not financially viable to have simulcasting. I think we're hearing you say that based on your experience. Dr. Lightbound, but it's not required by statute to have simulcasting. Oh no, no, it's not required. Yeah, so if they didn't have simulcasting, would they have to do 100 days? Like under 128a, is there any, there's no, no, there's nothing. It's only about simulcasting, that's what I thought. Exactly. And I understand what you're saying. They're linked and that's why the days came into the equation. For me, Todd, the question around the timing of the application of the law, the changes to 128c section two relate to the legal question that we talked about at a couple of earlier meetings around whether the commission can grant a license for a future racing season or date. And if the answer to that question is yes, why couldn't we consider an application for a new track that won't be up and running for at least another year under the newly worded statute? You can and maybe I probably didn't explain it artfully enough, but the way you explained it is better. So yes, you can. That is the point. Well, so then that would get to commissioner Maynard's question around whether or not we'd want to include that language in this application, even though it doesn't go into effect until a year from now, right? Yeah, that's very helpful. I still think having in there some sort of effective data explaining that this is a wrinkle in the application may be important. But yeah, that definitely does clarify some of it. And that assumes that we as a commission determine that the interpretation of the statute allows us to do greater than just the next calendar year. Because if we decide no, then that language doesn't go in for another year. Exactly. And commissioner Skinner is touching on the issue that I raised about our ability to issue a license in the future and attach conditions. That's where I would like to have the legal analysis memorialized in writing so that we can go back to it each time we kind of come across these issues. All right. So should we now look at time is 1222. My thought for the next, we should probably before we close off, I'm wondering if we should go back to the public comments that we have and at least chew on them a little bit. I'm not sure if we'll resolve them. But then maybe take a break and then just walk our way through the license itself in any particular questions we have or do you want to keep on working through? We do have a hard stop, I think at two. Should we just turn back to the public comments first and while you're thinking about that, I was thinking 1223, I mean, maybe I'll get through these by 1230. The first one is in public comment packet, public comments page 24 in our packet. This is from the New England United for Justice appears to be a nonprofit organization that is really referencing a policy that was in place during the construction of the casinos. Three, 11 labor harmers. And Madam Chair, not to interrupt but we basically had two comments on the same point. So we did take them at the same time. Yeah, I think it was MBTU Massachusetts Building Trade Union on page 31. So, Todd, do you want to just set us up in terms of the history on this because it is rich in history? And I know, I don't know if Crystal's involved, she's here. So Crystal has any insight. She was quite closely involved in this back in the day.  All right, so this is chapter 23K, obviously the gaming law and in section 18, which I hope you can see here, it talked about a number of objectives to be advanced. Determining how to grant the license. IE, what things should the commission think about when deciding who to give the licenses to? And there are 18 different things. These were all, by the way, incorporated into the RFA2 application. That's how they were manifested. And there were obviously a lot of other things included in the RFA2 application. This language does not exist in chapter 128A or C, but 128A does give the commission broad discretion and flexibility to basically ask whatever you want and whatever is relevant. So this is not mandatory, but this is certainly within your discretion to include. And so this is again in section 18 of chapter 23K. And they are talking here about section 18. And I can maybe just give you a moment to read it. I don't know if you can all see that, okay? If an applicant is looking for sports, wagering opportunities through a mobile app, there is a, am I correct, commissioners that the $7.5 million capital investment applies, which is close all of a track and amenities is relatively low, but there is at least a minimum of $7.5 million capital investment that applies to this particular license as well. Madam Chair, I read it as a category two licensee which I'll make a capital investment of not less than $7.5 million within three years after receiving a sports changing license. So I would say it does apply in my reader. Yeah, so they'd have to get the 128A license and then that would allow them if they comply with the 23N rules and regulations and sports and then they have to do the seven. So there is the construction is presumed. So this is relevant. I just wanted to mention why this is relevant here. So commissioners, what's your thoughts on this? Do we want to include? Do we wanna think about this? Do we wanna include this some? I like this language. I mean, one of the things I was most impressed with when I came on in 2018 was the success of that program that went with the construction phase. I've been a happy to hear obviously other people's comments or the industry's comments on it, but I really thought it was one of the most positive things we did as a commission in terms of the casinos. And Crystal was very involved in that. I wanna note that. So she's familiar with the implications and the communities that were involved in really standing up this. Before we move on to more general, can I ask the technical question? Would we include that language? The Ms. Ramos looks as though she's suggesting this 3-1-1 labor harmony. Is that? I think I was trying to end, I was gonna ask the question I've taught myself. Because I think what she's referring to is the old application, but I was found to find it. The actual language in the RFA too is a little bit closer to what is included on age 51 of the packet with the Building Trades Union. That's section six, public interest. 31, 31, right? Basically what Todd was just showing us, yeah. But I, yeah, the interesting, really the difference there is the labor harmony piece more closely refers to the PLA agreements, which are the union agreements that they would negotiate were have in place prior to compiling the application. And I did see on page 34 of your packet where there's a section six, public interest. Six, five essentially shows some of this work already, the plan to attract and employ a diverse workforce in both construction and operational phases of the proposal. So it could just be if you are interested in knowing whether there are any PLA agreements or what they're referring to here as labor harmony, you could build that into that component, I think. So the language, I appreciate you're flipping us over to 32 because that does track the language of the statute, section 18, right, Todd? Pretty, if not exactly closely, right? And does... Any question, yeah. And then so section four refers to this assuring labor harmony. And then, Crystal, did you, did everybody enter into these project labor agreements for the casino developments? Is that familiar terms? The application portion of the RFA-2 predates me, but I do recall from our AOC meetings, several discussions of these PLAs, I wouldn't wanna go on the record, saying it was every one of them, but I'm almost certain with every one of them. We did track, of course, on even from Plain Ridge on. So those access and opportunity, sorry for your commissioners, the access and opportunity committee meetings were how we tracked. And managed the workforce and the union agreements across the board as they were developing the construction on the casinos. And all of the unions were involved in those meetings as well. So I think there was a question at one point whether PLA was in place prior, but I think they were in place, if not prior, soon after. So, Todd, would we want to add or would that be like a... I shouldn't, I wanna turn to the other commissioners. I'm just thinking technical. So that technical question, what do we feel? Commissioner O'Brien, I agree with the sentiment you expressed perfectly. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard, how are you feeling about adding this dimension? I would have no problem with it. I support adding it. I would even venture to say that we should be thinking more broadly. One of the comments that we received had to do with community transparency and holding the applicants accountable for whatever promises they might make to the community in furtherance of a license from the gaming commission. So I mean, just asking us all to think about not only adding this labor harmony language into the application, but something that relates more broadly to hold applicants, again, accountable for the commitments that they have made to the region. Good, so that could be either here or maybe even in where there's a local approval provision. Provision, I'm not sure where we make it in a separate section. I like that, Commissioner Skinner. Commissioner Maynard, how do you feel about adding the... I support adding the language. Also, I do, too, Commissioner Skinner's point. And I'm looking through the application again, and I'm thinking about other ways that we can take into account different factors, including some of the diversity standards, too. So, but I'm definitely thinking this language is good language. So just to be clear, would we have a new section, Commissioner Skinner, or would we try and add it to six... What I'm looking at is six, five, which is page 10 of the draft. Section six is entitled Public Interest, so I think it would make sense to add that right under there. Todd, do you agree? Caitlin? Absolutely, I had it penciled in as six, six, and basically include a question similar to the one that was on the RFA, too, about the labor harmony. And that's, I think, what I'm hearing. And the only thing is... Seven could be a more general statement to Commissioner Skinner's, more general, unfolding of promises made to the community. Yeah, so not to... The construction is what I think you're getting at, Commissioner Skinner. I had that penciled in up above where we ask about local approval, if you're inclined to ask for any promises or what have you. Yeah, I was saying... That's section four. That was my earlier suggestion, but I wonder if it's maybe more... Local approval might be more technical in terms of getting permitting approval, where I thought Commissioner Skinner might be getting it more. If you're making promises, you got to be transparent and stay committed to them. But I don't want to put words in your mouth, because you're getting it. That's exactly right, Madam Chair. I thought approvals first to local approvals, Todd, but then I could be convinced of making it more on the public interest. Well, I like that though, Commissioner Skinner. We do need to go through local approvals in more depth as we go through the license. So I think what we've just done though is we've reached a consensus in terms of we'd like to see language addressing at least the construction. And I assume that we're very familiar with having our licensees report to us. And they did report on the construction repeatedly. So we would want the licensees to be held accountable, right? I'm sure some of that would be in there. I think that was the magic, right? Crystal was the continuous... They were required to report to the Commission quarterly, but they did meet and report monthly when we were doing the access and opportunity. Let me continue cracking as we go through it. Very, that accountability, it was not a get, it turned out to be a team effort. A large, yes, and just across the state and several different team players, but it was a large undertaking, but in the end, everybody was on the same page. So I think it could certainly be remodeled. Modeled right after that same system. I will send you further information that I have that I have for you on those PLA agreements as well. Okay, are we good then to turn to the next comment on page 25 of our packet? This is from Mr. Ombrello, who's the Executive Director of the New England Horseman's Benevolence and Protective Association. We hear from Mr. Ombrello frequently and he's a collaborator and helps us on our course of facing policy development. We appreciate your input. We appreciate your input, Mr. Ombrello. So two points are highlighted on my document. I don't know if they're highlighted on anyone's, but for section five, 5.9, and then again, 8.2, which we are now reframing. 5.9, do you want to go through that time? Sure, let me just find his comment. Oh, I think what it is, and I thought it was fair, is that he thought that the question should be broken out perhaps for clarity. And 5.9 in my right, Caitlin, on that. I think that's right, yes. They're written seriatim with just one yes or no right now. I think his suggestion was break them out by category to get a little clearer where the potential issue may lie. I think that's a helpful recommendation. Yeah. And then on his next, is Ombrello set with that one? Yep. Okay. And then the next on 8.2, he points out needs for the discussion of concern around the language pertaining to race days and races. And I think our discussion on that probably addresses this concern at the stage anyway. Does that agree? Okay. So thank you, Mr. Ombrello. We always appreciate hearing from you and your recommendations. The only thing I think he puts in more specificity, Kathy, and I think we just remember to add it to our discussion, maybe in one of the notes when you guys are redlining, is his last paragraph? The purses. The purses and whether that plays into looking at, good point, whether that is a substitute. Alex, do you have any suggestions on that one? Alex, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, before Alex answers that, just looking for a little context for those of us who aren't familiar with. I guess that's why I turned to our expert. Alex, this is on page 26. It's from Mr. Ombrello. And I'm sorry that I didn't, and thank you, Commissioner Obreon, for raising it. Because I did note it last one night ago. We suggest that as long as a purse agreement has been signed by any HBPA and racing licensee agreeing to the number of race days in purse structure, then there should be no restriction on race days and races pertaining to this application. Can you help on this for background and maybe how we might remedy this for starting with Dr. Leipo? So yeah, usually in our original application, it does ask about a purse agreement. Sometimes the tracks and the horsemen have not had a purse agreement in place when they have applied. And as long as they were working towards one, they have gone ahead and been given their license. There's even been, and Todd and I were talking about this yesterday, I'd have to go back and look at the language says about the purse agreement, whether it needs to be signed by the time of the application or by the end of that calendar year. I know there have been calendar years when the purse agreement wasn't signed by the end of the calendar year. And as long as legal counsel was involved and as long as the two sides agreed that they were working together in good faith, they were allowed to keep negotiating until they did get the purse agreement and they didn't pull the simulcast signal. Talking about the number of race days, that's really, like you all were just discussing, that's been put into the sports wagering bill now. So they're, you know, that's taken care of in that section with the 20 days and the discretion that's given to the commission. So by restriction, where it says there should be no restriction on race days and races pertaining to the application if there's a purse agreement signed. Is he referring to the licensing limitations, the conditions that are precedent to issuance of a license relative to the race days? I think this was sent before the sports wagering bill came out that specifies the 20 days now. And so at the time he was suggesting that if the horseman and the future track agreed to a certain number of days that the commission should, you know, basically go along with that, there shouldn't be a restriction on the number of days and races. Meaning there shouldn't be a requirement to race a number of days. Right. Okay. But that's what I mean is now in, that's been addressed in the sports bill, in the sports betting bill. Yeah. So Nikisha, I was also thinking, do we take that comment and more? Is that something we can take into consideration? I wasn't totally comfortable with them commenting on agreement and that being a substitute for statutory minimums, but more that that's something we, as a commission decide that we take into consideration. Maybe we set a minimum days based on that agreement. Like we could, and I was taking it more along those lines. So even though it went from 120 potentially now, I still think we could say, fine, you've agreed to 15, but we are gonna make that a condition because you guys have agreed to it. Understood. But I think in order for that to happen, we'd have to identify, we'd have to relate it to the financial stability of the applicant. Right. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Looking at the other comments, I think we have a figure that were submitted really in connection with a particular potential applicant. That's really, I don't think are as relevant for our review today on the license, but I might be wrong. Commissures, what do you think? Then we have Ms. Kell outside that were submitted on page 35 and through 37. And they might be helpful for us to look at as we go through the application unless somebody there's other words. We heard her public comments and she was kind enough to do some to writing. And I thought that might be a good way for us to do a side by side with hers as we go through. But in terms of the comments from Plymouth, do we need to go through those now? Is there anything that, is it, am I making too much of a general statement to say that they're not pertinent today for our exercise? I don't think they're pertinent to what we're discussing today at all actually. I appreciate their comments and welcome them for sure. But I'm not sure that it addresses anything to do with the application proposal that's before us. I do think they make us think about the local approval process and they are- For sure. Commissioner O'Brien is shaking head so- Right, but not the question on the forum that we're talking about today. How we assess the answer is a different thing I think than what the agenda is today in terms of what's gonna be in the actual application. Yeah, I agree. And to that, yeah. So for that, I think I appreciate, Commissioner Hilsen, we really appreciated it because it does focus on the overall process of local approval. Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Skinner, how do you feel about that? I agree. Great. Okay, so is this a good time to take a break and then we'll go through the license itself with any particular questions that we have. If we run out of time, we'll just have to address that. But I think we have a hard stop at two. It's now 10 and four. How much, what break do we need? I know some of us are in the office a little bit harder to get some lunch. Full half hour? Is that gonna be enough? 30 minutes? If we're going straight to two, Madam Chair, I would like the full half hour. If that's okay with everyone else. I think we need it. And just a reminder to those who are participating by phone or listening today, we did have an earlier meeting that started at 930 and we had a 10 minute break. So this is earned, certainly. All right, then it's 1248. We'll do a 120 and we'll have a good review of the application for the stage and put it on a break, finishing up at two. All right, thanks everybody. Very, very helpful to me at least. Thank you. So we're gonna stay on the meeting and then. We'll stay on the meeting but convened at 120. And so I think Dave will put up his form of service. Perfect, thank you. Thank you, bye-bye. Just mute. Thanks, Dave. We get to take it down? Yeah, I'll set, thank you. Thank you very much. I'm gonna let it to get my paper tonight. Okay, thanks everyone. Caitlin, it was fun to see your little one earlier. Oh, thanks. I think that was her first public meeting. Our grandson turned one. Congratulations. Yeah, on the 14th. And he, when he has his picture taken, he points. So it looked like he was saying, I'm one. It was very good, a keeper for a picture. All right. A framer as we call it. Oh, it's a framer, yeah. So we can get started with our business at hand, but I want to take a roll call because we're using the virtual platform. Next, Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Well, I didn't call her, Madam Chair. Great, thank you, Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. And Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. Great, thank you. Thank you, second, Director Rouse. Our Delight Bound and our legal team today, Todd Grossman, Caitlin Monahan, and those of you who are joining. I know Judy is in the background. We appreciate your input here as we make our way through this applications for our license to holder conduct a racing meeting. We've gone through the public comments. I did want to keep an eye on turning Kellogg's comments as we go through. And unless you have a different approach, I thought we'd just start at the beginning. And if we're good, we're good and we'll continue on. But if we have any questions for either Todd or to discuss among ourselves, we'll stop and take some time on each section. But I'm starting, I think, unfortunately my printout is maybe a different version, but I am using the public packet one. And if I get off, I'll probably refer to just the section in terms of the background. Hopefully I'm not confusing things. So starting on page two, all the background information, we had a little bit of input earlier. Anything that we need to address that came up for you, that's section one. Hearing nothing. I'll give everybody a chance just in case. Okay, and then the bolded language actually applies to sections two through five. Todd, correct me if I get the numbers wrong, right? Okay. Any questions on, let's just do section two first. And this is project summary and financing. I'll make one observation, the italicized language where the first time it comes up is under 2.2, I believe it says, please note the commission may condition any license award applicant completely and satisfactorily answering this question. I've already noted that that's where I do think we're moralizing the legal analysis for that, that statement will be really helpful. You know, what our ability to condition. I think this gets to a sum of attorney commons initially. Anything else, anybody have on section two? I have one little net and this is for Dr. Lightback. I think I saw it in a comment somewhere. Maybe it was an attorney Kellogg's. We're asking about seating capacity. Should we be asking about anticipated spec papers numbers? In other words, I wonder if there was some comment that I thought I read where there's really, they're not focusing so much on horse racing, but rather on the game. Yeah, she did make mentioned a comment in there that one of the, somebody who was previously interested in building a track had made a comment in public that they didn't need to worry about traffic because there wouldn't be much traffic. I think that was the trigger. Yes. I don't know the applicant going forward would say that. You know, and certainly on big days like Kentucky Derby Day, you know, as you've seen with Plain Ridge, they do get a large amount of interest and a lot of people do come. So you think that whatever the seating capacity will reflect what they would anticipate as their largest number of spectators, right? Yeah. So we don't need to actually ask about the anticipated spec papers. Okay, those are my comments. Anybody else have anything? Okay, moving on then to, and I think this is where section three and section four get confused because I wrote why is section three empty? Is that the old version? Yeah, I think you'll see that what is identified as section four is actually what should be the first question in section three. Is this application for a license to hold or conduct racing meetings in calendar year 2023? That is 3.1. That's 3.1. I don't know how that happened, but that's why it's off. Sorry, so I'm confused. Could you review that again? So section three, schedule of proposed races should actually be? No, so that's right. But then in the version that's in the packet, right underneath it, it says section four and highlighted language, that what is identified as section four is actually really just the first question under section three because the version in the packet doesn't have any questions under section three. Is there a 3.2 or is the 3.2 just, and if you have a proposed schedule, please attach? No, so 3.1 is... Right, yes or no for next year? Yes, right. So that's the current, is the current three supposed to be 3.2? Like please attach schedule, propose schedule if you have one. Please attach proposed schedule, which... According to page six, it seems to be that way, Commissioner. So 3.1, here's how I have it set up on mine anyway, 3.1, the question is, is this application for a license to hold or conduct a racing meeting and calendar year 2023? Check one, yes or no? That's 3.1. 3.2 is pursuant to general law chapter 128A, sections two, four through five and three, an application must state the days on which it is intended to hold or conduct a racing meeting. That's question 3.2. Wait, an application must state the days on which it is intended to hold, so, and that was the old, like it almost looked like a footnote because there's a line. Yeah, it does look like a footnote the way it's formatted right now. Okay, so that becomes 3.2. What about the language that I mean just referenced if no and what calendar year does the applicant propose to hold or conduct? Is that part of 3.1? Yes, that's the... That is 3.1, that's the whole question. Yeah, that's the whole question, got it. And then that last thing under that line is the new 3.2. And then if you carry on over to, for me, page six, submit as, and you'll just make sure all the exhibit numbers coincide with sections, right? Yes. Is there anything other than that is new, that is 3.1, 3.2 complete section three? Yeah, it's just those two questions. Okay. Are there questions on that section? Those two questions. The 3.2 is a critical question, of course, because this is one of the key issues associated with the award of the racing license is what days you're gonna race on. So this does have to be completed. This is not something that can be conditioned in the future or anything along those lines. So the statute does say that they can seek an amendment of the allowed dates. So this is- Todd, can I ask you that if no, what calendar year do you propose to hold or conduct? Should be that a more robust question? Because rather than just getting us a year, should we be asking for what's your anticipated rollout? Yeah, I think- Not fair. No, this absolutely. This is definitely the area we want as much information about that as possible. My initial thought was just that, what is now 3.2, where we asked for the actual dates, that kind of outlines that very specifically when they plan on starting, but we can certainly ask more precisely too. Yeah, I think I'd want more than just the dates. I mean, if they're not ready to race the next year, I'd want more information about, is there finance that you're supposed to be getting? Are there, what's your plan? What do you think you're going to get it? I'd want more information than just some hypothetical dates like two years ago.  Yeah, I mean, if they say like, I can do this and we could do like one show race maybe in a year, but then it would take me, I'd want more than that. I think we do have a question about, yeah. So question 2.5 asked for the proposed construction timeline. And 2.9 gets into a detailed budget of the project. So I guess I'd want to loop three into not just the calendar year, 3.2 I'd want to know and please explain how your answers and two relate to how you see live racing, your live racing plan commencing, something to that effect. Okay. Would you just say that one more time, commissioner, please? I think I'd want, what we're now, it says section four, but it's going to be section three, three, two. I'd want more than just the year. Yeah. I would want to know, and I don't know how, what level of detail, but we can harken back to whatever they answered in question two and say, you know, in reference to your answers to question two, please explain if you're not going to race next calendar year, what you see in terms of, you know, what your facility, your amenity offerings and your racing offerings are going to be the following year. And then in the, under 3.2, the submission on exhibit, it says a statement of the day or date, so much effort and tends to conduct a race meeting or race meetings in the hours. So that gets into a little bit more detail, right? Yeah, I just don't want someone saying, well, in 2024, I'm going to do, and they throw out 20 random dates with some hour. I mean, I'd like there to be some underpinning of those representations. So we can gauge whether it's realistic or whether they're just saying it. And the legal basis for this will be also memorialized, okay? Any other comments on this particular section? All right, then we'll move on to what must be sectioned for then non-commissioned approvals. Correct? That's right. All right, so now this is where, I think we were talking earlier about the local authorities, Todd. Questions for Todd on this? I would like to interrupt, but the only thing I would add, having gone back and looked at it in light of some of the comments, I might adjust what is 4.2 or could be 5.2 on yours, I'm not sure. That if you haven't gotten it yet, when do you expect it? I think we need to be clear, that is a prerequisite to getting a license. So I didn't want to make it sound like, you can get it whenever you want. So I do think that question should be adjusted to make clear that it has to be received prior to any license being awarded. Would you mind, maybe even including it in the language under 4.1? It says, has applicants proposed facility and premises been approved by local authorities in accordance with chapter 128, section 13A? I didn't go back, I'm sorry, to look to see what that actually means. Like location and selectments, approval and mayor. The zoning, is it listed out precisely or do we rely on them for all their listing of their permits? Cause I would like to have them be held in list to us, everything that we need to move forward. Yeah, and I wanted the language to be less passive and saying, has applicant obtained all necessary approvals in accordance with? Right, both those suggestions. And Todd, the language you were suggesting be added to 4.1, it's already at the end of 4.2. We asked them to explain the present circumstances, including when they expect to obtain the local approvals. Yeah, absolutely. But that does have to happen before the commission awards a license, that was my own. So you might want to say it's a prereact or something more affirmatively. Okay, I think this is where I could really use guidance on what is actually a prereact. Am I right that it would depend on each individual site? In other words, it's not uniform, right? They have zoning, they could have conservation, but not necessarily conservation issues. They have historic issues, but not necessarily all those. And that's all, and that's captured by zoning. Yeah, and we have that in 4.4, or what would be 4.4? Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Which it was the technique we used in the casino gaming licensing side, where we said on the RFA application, you tell us all the permits you need. And when you plan on getting them. We didn't set out to identify all the permits for them and tell them how to do that. I want them to tell us, but I want it to be something that's like, that we can rely on. Like they can't come up and say, oh, didn't know I had to get something from MEPA. You know, or didn't know I had to get some rights. It's the community, the town's conservation commission didn't know, in other words, they have to have a full sum. Yeah, I think that's, so that's 4.4. And those are the exact questions I would ask if they submit something that doesn't include MEPA or it doesn't include a building permit or things along those lines to say, well, don't you need a building permit? That needs to be on your list. What is your plan for that? But this construct is such that they identify all of those things for us in the first instance. Okay. Just a little net and that's 4.4. I think that's supposed to be any plans for acquiring them or is it and does and applicants progress towards. Any last sentence. Just a little typo. The last sentence. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Questions for on this section four. Mission Hill, this is familiar territory for you. Is there anything that you can offer for help here? Or do you feel the same way that they need to give us the exhaustive list? No, I do agree to that. I'm trying. I'm not ignoring any of you. I'm trying to go back into. The mayor's general arts, exactly what it is that they. One or mayoral and city council town council approval and. Things like that. So it doesn't go into the level of detail in terms of selling the building permit. And, you know, it doesn't go into that level of detail. No. I was just going to say section 13. The city council, town council, mayor has to approve the location. That's all it is. It's not any other permit zoning, anything else like that. Then section 14 is the county has to have voted in support of having racing in that, in that county at some point in time. And then this 5.4 is the commission's discretion. This is additional information you're looking for. This isn't required by statute. But that's okay, right? We can go beyond the statute. Absolutely. I like it. Well, I will say that the statute specifically says that in an application, the commission may ask any questions it would like. I'm paraphrasing obviously, but you're allowed to ask. And that's why it's good to include that in the memorialization. Yeah. I think that's okay. No, it's okay. To be, to be clear though, just so we're all clear. If the town, so for example, like town. Select board. I'll use that because that seems to be what we've been getting used to lately. If they vote no, right out of the box. Does this application now become moot? Yes. Okay. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Right. But yes, but that we don't have any authority to circumvent a vote of the board of select. Not that we would. I'm just saying that to be fair to everybody. Okay. So to that point. Why is, does it make sense to require the approval before the application is even submitted? I mean, I know, I, the question is, the approval is a later submission. And I'm speaking of 4.2. But do we want to, I think Todd, you made this point earlier. Revised that question to have the approval. Of the local community. Be absolute. So the approval does have to be absolute. And it does have to be before the commission awards of license, and it does have to be before the commission awards of license. And in recognition of the October 1st submission deadline. I think it makes some sense to allow some flexibility as to when it actually comes in. But it does. It's not a flexible requirement. And the October 1 deadline is applicable to new applications as well as the renewal application. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So Kayla, just to get to your point, we can ask additional questions. So if, for example, I wanted to know the last time a select board voted not to move forward or, or the, the community voted not to move forward. That's something that we could do and not have to add it into the application. Excuse me. I apologize. I just wanted to see if I could follow them through with the application. If you give me one second, I can find the wording. So 128 a section two says that the commission can ask in an application for the answers to such other questions as the commission may prescribe. So if you wanted that information about prior actions of the town, I think it would be best to include it in the application. But you could probably also ask it at a round table or So commissioner Maynard, just to make sure we get this exactly right, can you just restate what the question is you'd like to ask? Please explain. So you could really drop it into 4.2, right, you could even make it part of that. You could also say explain any recent votes or any votes, right, that were in the contrary, right. So you're basically asking the inverse question.  Because you do want to say have you ever been denied? Have you ever been denied local approval? Yeah, because what you're looking at is the history. And then there would be some kind of a referendum or else a new vote. Sorry, I apologize. I was just going to ask, this is specific to this application, correct? We're now asking for the history of the applicant. Have you been denied in another town for another project? Have you ever been denied in the town for this license, correct? Or for this location? But I'm interested. Okay, great. I think it goes to viability. And that's the reason I'm asking it, right? If you've just lost something that weighs in on us. It's important history for us to understand. I appreciate that question. Anything else on this section? I think we're going to move on to local approvals. This is just 5.3 is the county one. 5.4 is all. All. 4.3 relative to county approval. Do we want to mirror 4.2 in that? We're looking to know if not. When do you expect? Yes, I think absolutely. So they should reflect on another. Yeah, we can change that. Although I would say it's probably, because of the whole process, you need to get something on the ballot. It's probably unlikely that it would be within that six week period, but I think we can definitely make that the same. Yeah. Or is it scheduled? You could ask if not, is it scheduled? And if so, when? I remember correctly from the one that we heard, I think it was last year. There was a very, in my role, a very old county approval that was relied upon. Yep. And we would just want the proper documentation of that too. Right. So they just need, they understand this is really a critical component. Both the local and the county and any relevant. Federal and state. It's on them to be. Put in there and some sort of requirement that they ever, to their knowledge that the vote hasn't been superseded. Since then, I mean, somebody could give us something from 1954, knowing it was rescinded at 72 would just be silent. To my point. Thank you. That's the right follow up. I want to make sure that. We don't have to do that. Right. It's on them to show it's a valid. Yeah. I'm presuming the local arm are likely to be. More recent, but that might be a wrong assumption. So it's the same thing applies. Well, I think your instinct is actually right. I think that the local vote has to be recent because it's about the specific project.  So that could have been from 50 years. I think that prompts the question. Is it still valid? Yes, we've researched that issue. You can include that. And I thought that you've done that last time. So thank you. Any other questions on on this section for local. Not commission approvals. Yes. Thank you, Madam chair. The note at the end of the question, I think could be clarified to specify that. The approvals. Are the ones that are referenced in that particular subsection 4.4. So in other words. It's not reading as though the commission can issue a conditional license on the local approval piece. Yeah. Okay. Very good point. Okay. Then moving on to section five qualifiers and stability. Did I miss. I'm sorry. The other. Okay. Oh, that's the dog barking outside. I'm sorry. No. Not a certain. We also to sound like that. Right. So section, section five qualifiers and suitability. Any other questions for. Here. I had just a general question and we have, I think an opportunity here to just check in with IEB on this. I presume you used. When back to. When, when, when you were just setting up. Yeah, I think that's where a lot of this comes from. I think it's important to recognize though. Well, the statute and the case law are clear that the commission can and should require some type of suitability review. Prior to awarding this type of license. There is no direction in the law as to what that process should look like. And. We of course have a very effective. Program that's been put in place on the gaming side. So we're going to take a different approach. And the question is, do you want to mirror that? Are we going to use the same standards? Are we going to identify the same entities and. Individuals as qualifiers. Or take a different approach. And that's all set out here. This. Depending upon where the commission is leaning. We could. Shorten this and just say something like the. The same forms that they have to submit on the gaming side. And then we don't have to ask all these questions. If you're not inclined to use the existing forms. Then we would want to include all these questions because most of these are contained in the existing. Well, I'll just start off the. If they get a license and we keep on using the term bank, which I. If an applicant gets a license under one. 28. They absolutely have a right to mobile. App. For sports. Under the new statute. Correct. I pause on calling it. But it's pretty. Access to it versus. Sorry, wrong language. 23 and in rules and regulations. As long as they comply with that. There's no cap. There's nothing big. They have access to getting it. Yes. My instinct is, is that's probably what will be a big motivator here. So there might be some efficiencies. If we ask, are you going to. You know, in the event you're awarded a license. Are you going to pursue a mobile. Operators sports. Operator's license. And if so. You should have the same suitabilities done so that we're not doing it twice. Right. Thoughts. I like that idea. Yeah. Sorry. No, I, I, I agree. I guess it could be a check. No, not going to go for it. So they do something different, but. That does seem unlikely. I guess we have to just think about the timing of everything. And when it is going to be that the sports wagering application will be. Issued and what the timing of that suitability review will be relative to the commission's review of this application. And I would also. Just fine by November something. Okay. Got it. Sorry. I would also just say that I think it's an open question as to if someone is seeking a license for 2024 or 2025. If they have the ability to seek a sports wagering license right away, or they have to wait until their license is actually effective. So there could be a big gap between. Applying for a 128 a license and then applying for a sports wagering license. So that's an interesting question. You're distinguishing an effective license versus a conditional license. Yes. We haven't talked about that. And I'm not sure that that's something that Todd can, Todd can jump in. I'm not sure if we're prepared to talk about that today, but I think it's an open question. Commissioner Brian, when. Licenses are awarded to. You know, they were conditioned. But they were effective at the time when they were awarded. Correct. Well, and then you had the time to help me out the verbiage for actually being able to open the doors. Right. And so you had your, your license was effective, but that didn't mean you could open your doors till you get your operation certificate. Is that what you're getting at Caitlin? Not necessarily. But there are license conditions. I mean, we, we attached them also to this, the operations certificate, because I know like with EVH there were a number of things you were going through.  Masslet hadn't set up an account. He's outside their control. We didn't want it to get lost. And so those conditions were attached. And Todd, maybe you remember this better than I do. I thought they were attached to both. Like they were. Kind of keyed in. They got the operation certificate, but subject to the conditions that were attached to the license. That is absolutely true. And that is a great distinction to draw. Because it's a very important part of Caitlin's point. Which is just whether you would consider that entity, even though they can't operate. A sports waging operation. Or a horse or live horse racing, whether they are would be considered under the statute to be a holder of a one 28 a license. Even if it's conditional. Well, revisit suitability given information. I mean, they were like a holder of the license, right? Yeah, I guess, I guess I would, I guess I'm really, I agree with that, Commissioner O'Brien. I guess I would be really interested to see that legal analysis and writing. Caitlyn, where is the distinction of our awarding? Well, when do we give it to them so they're folding it? Like, what, where's that gap? Is it the additional versus final? Conditions, is it because of the effective date of this, you know, when they're going to, I would have thought that the awarding that they now hold to my sense, it's just conditional. And that's why the conditional question is so big. But that's a really interesting point. Commissioner Maynard looks like a thing, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Hill. Just a question. Whether you're issued, an applicant is issued a conditional or full license, they'd still have to be reviewed for suitability, right? And that would have to have been done before any license is granted. Is that right? Todd is nodding his head. So I'm just a little confused as to how this discussion relates to the section where on qualifiers and suitability. I may just be have like a brain fog. It might have been prompted by my idea that could we use the suitability, whatever we are going to be expecting. And Todd raised a good point, you know, there might be some time issues, because will we know what we'll be expecting for suitability for sports wagering in a timely fashion? I'm hoping so. Would we have them go through that? If they are inclined to want to be a sports wagering operator, mobile sports wagering operator, just have them go through the suitability standard that could then be applied to the 128 a section and then not have to redo a full suitability study. So I think that's what prompted it. Yeah. And I think Caitlin and Todd were concerned about the time lapse between the two events. But right now when IEB does the suitability reviews, it's a one and done, right? Unless something happens in the status of the qualifier, right? I mean, obviously suitability is ongoing, but yes, there is a moment in time where a decision is made as to whether someone is not suitable for sure, and that would have to happen here. So perhaps what you're getting at, which makes good sense, is for us to look to the language in 23N related to suitability and see if we can really just make use of that in the racing context. So whether we do it in advance of any 23N review, or at the same time that they don't have to resubmit the same documents that we're looking at the same individuals, we're looking at the same entities, and we're applying the same standards. And I think that does make good sense. And I think it can be done. That can be done. So it is a little after two. I know we had a hard stop at two. Yeah. And that was section five. All the suitability standards. Section six, we tucked on it in the public interest. I think what I would suggest on section five is maybe working through the issues that just were raised, and then also checking in with IEB, other suggestions, in addition to what we raised today, just now I mean, if there's a, if there's efficiencies that could be built in, and it fits in the legal construct, we should try for it. And then the public interest is section six. Any questions there? Alex, are you okay with sections 6.2 with respect to the executed agreements with all the representatives, horsemen's organizations? Does that work? Is that consistent with what we do now? So Madam Chair, are we going to go continue to go through, or are we going to? No, I just wanted to, I think we're almost there. So section, if I was just looking at public interest, if there was anything that jumped out at us, Alex, okay. And then we already looked at, we didn't look at facilities and equipment, but I wanted to say anything that was really something that we could mention now. And then otherwise, I think we're good on section eight. So we kind of got through. Yeah, I think we're done. The only other question I had that I picked up from one of the commenters was a suggestion that there be some requirement that the applicant identify how they will provide for the welfare of horses on site in their aftercare and things along those lines. I think it's obviously an important question. I think, and I'm kind of going out on the limb here, but because I'm not 100% sure that this is covered in some way in the existing regulations and how the animals are treated and the type of medications that can be administered and things along those lines. But obviously, this is an important issue. The question is just whether it's something to put in this application. Todd, if I had my way, we would put it in the application. I know it's in the regulations and how you're supposed to be towards us. But this is a huge issue. And actually, a couple of people have asked me about that. I have no reason why we couldn't put it in. And I know you could show us what section that would go under. But I'd like to see it in the application, actually. Me too. Anybody else? Commissioner Maynard, were you nodding your head as well? Yeah. I think I had it kind of earmarked for the end of section seven. But we can take a look at that. I mean, it's not directly related to facilities and equipment. But I think that was the closest place. Thank you. Public interest. I mean, I think we want to always make sure that the animal athletes and the horse community are all the safeties around being corporate, bring the rags up in. I'd be okay with that too, you know, as a guy. Is there anything else? I'm glad that you raised that because I just know I've gone. I know we're short on time. But we've got to now come back with a revision. And Crystal and Jack will have to work their magic to find how we revisit this. Commissures, other questions, comments? I think it's possible. And I know we're running out of time. But I'd like to really have know today what the next step is and when this will come back to us. Because I'd like to see it done. Crystal will talk to us about timing. And then of course, there's some work to be done on legal. Crystal, have you been able to find a time? How far in advance is the October date still a time date? October 1st is a good time. That's what I do. So I mean, Right. So sometimes I'm saying how far in advance of that date do we need to have our agreements? I think. Is it our goal to have it done by October 1st? It's statutory. Yeah. Adam, Chair, is it too much to ask and legal to have the item taken up at the September 8th meeting? Would that be reasonable? We have the 8th and 15th. And would that allow for adequate time? I don't know that there would be time. But I was going to say, I do think there would be time on the 16th. What about September 7th? September 7th is an agenda setting meeting. What if we added it on before the either frontated agenda setting and then do this after that, Crystal? I think we might be able to. There's a lot of internal moves. That's fine. We can also just somewhat is on vacation, right? Yeah. And then it's into Labor Day. So there's only like one day after Labor Day to before that vote would then happen. Good point. So September 8th, we've got we're going to start with sports wagering. That's going to be a good fulsome discussion. And then we have about an hour and a half of you know, probably can't do that on that day. Yeah. Madam Chair, what about the holds we put just today on Tuesday, August 30th, Wednesday, August 31st? I don't know. We because of other internal staff schedules, that's meaning that this is due the week after next, right? Internal stuff. If it's internal stuff. Yeah, I just don't know what's staff are available to make all of the changes, right? So on the 8th, I have a hold for in the morning. That's from 9 30 to 12. But then there's also a public meeting. Yeah. So in the morning, you'll have the sports wagering part and then you'll have a big break because that's going to be a lot of information to digest and process. What about September 9th, Friday? So we using up our Fridays. I'm available. I think you still have someone on vacation. I'm so sorry, Jordan. But I, listen, if we need to make something work, let me know. I'll make it work. I think if we go into the early on the 12th or the 13th, like you have three meetings that week, but if you want to take this up and you think it'll be a couple hours, we can Well, we have, we have it. There's a delivery in there on the 13th, right? That could be moved in theory to accommodate getting this out on time, right? Or more expeditious. Let's do that. I don't see that, but I was thinking on the 12th when you already have the executive session. Yeah, the executive session would be pushed after the licensing. Let's do, let's start at like 930 on licensing if everybody's available. I'm just wondering, Jordan, when do you come back from vacation? I mean, I'm just wondering if it's easier to do it like the next day at 11 or 10 as opposed to throwing them back in. No, I'll be back on the 10th. He's going to have memorized this on the plane. Speaking of someone who's going to be doing that about three weeks later, you know, not totally, not totally altruistic of me to make sure we got a buffer in there. I appreciate it, though. So what about like just sticking with the 12th and starting at 930 through 1130 and then we follow up with an executive session right after that. And that's the um, communication update. Does that work for a legal schedule? Just want to make sure this we need them. I've got my whole day open that day. It looks like so. I know when we start doing music, then moves past to make sure we have legal. We can have a regular session as available. Let's use the 12th for, um, you know, anything we need. It looks good for everybody pretty much. I'm just wondering if we did 10 for the executive session, because I know the day in K is available at that time and then kept it short and then went into a public meeting after that. These sessions at 10 or 11 went into a meeting on this. That works for me. That's fine. That works for me, except I have a one o'clock that cannot be moved. Works for me. So 10 to 11. Wait a second. We've got a one o'clock that can't be moved. So um, the litigation update is at 10, um, and so on. 10 to 11 and then 11 to 1. Should work, right? Yeah, but is it, do you need, do you need time to get to your one? No, it's virtual. So that one o'clock will be 10 to one is fine. It's not my meeting. So I, you know, when I say it can't be moved, it can't. I just wanted to make sure we didn't have travel time involved. That's all. I want to take that into account. Okay. Double checking. Okay. So 10 to 11. Keep the executive session, which works well. And then 11 to 1. We'll schedule the race. Okay. Okay. All right. Are we good to move? I have to say I have a little reservation because the executive session isn't the priority, unless there's a time factor for them to say, I just want to make sure we don't run into any time factors on getting this done. No, if you'd prefer to have the, this, the racing application meeting at 10, I can contact NK and just make sure they're available. Just to try to see if we could possibly flip it, you know, you know, I just want to make sure that we don't change one. I would, just from a scheduling perspective, if you start with it and get it over with, then you don't have to work out ending the racing one at a certain time.  By the way, I guess it doesn't matter. And for that reason, I would suggest starting at 9.30 on the 12th. That's exactly what I'm thinking. 9.30 for the licensing and CFA and KCON. That, that's really, I'm much more comfortable with that, particularly with a one o'clock objective, which actually I think for commissioner Skinner, it's very helpful. We will be able to have a nice lunch break at exactly by that time. I'll look at the 9.30 to 11.30. Caitlin, could you just get back to Jacqueline and I with confirmation for NK? Absolutely. Excellent. Thanks for going back to them. I'm assuming that hopefully they don't have too bad of a schedule, so please. All righty. Anything else, commissioners? We ran a little bit long. Todd, you all set? Ready to go. Feeling like this was productive for you? Absolutely. Okay. And thank you, Dr. Leith, on your all set. Caitlin, you're all set. Karen, all set. All right. Hey, Jacqueline, thank you for staying on. Crystal, thank you for all your guidance. And David Mills, thank you. And for those of you who joined, we appreciate your joining us today. And I will need a motion to adjourn. Don't move, Madam Chair. Second. Okay. Any discussion? All right. Commissioner O'Brien? Hi. Hi. Commissioner Skinner? Hi. And Commissioner Maynard? Hi. And I vote yes, 5-0. Thank you, everyone, appreciate it. Great work, team.