and we are live and just waiting for it to go and we're all set. Okay, excellent. Good morning, everyone. This is the convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and because we're holding this meeting virtually, I'll do a roll call, although the good number of us right next door to each other today. Good morning, Commissioner Bryant. Good morning, I am here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Mayard. Good morning, I'm here. Okay, we'll get started. This is public meeting number 433. It's February 8th, just after 10 a.m. and we'll turn to Executive Director Wells for her call. Thank you, Carol. So following the theme that today is the Joe show, I am turning it over to Joe this morning for administrative update on the Community Mitigation Fund and the grant request that we received. Great, thank you, Karen. So this is really just a very brief update. We'll be giving you a more fulsome update a little bit later once we've got everything in our database. But so applications were due to the Community Mitigation Fund on January 31st. We received 58 total applications and the total ask was just a little bit under $15.5 million. So those numbers are up fairly significantly from previous years. I think if memory serves last year, I think we have 43 applications. So that's up almost a third or more than a third over what we got last year. So that's a pretty good turnout. So the breakdown by region, about the ask is about 6.3 million in region A and just a little bit over 8 million in region B. So again, similar to last year, region B, the ask in region B is a little bit greater than the ask in region A has been. As far as applications go, 28 applications out of region A, 22 applications out of region B and additional eight applications out of our category two facility. So that's the highest sort of level summary of that. As I said, we'll be putting a memo together with project descriptions and other things so that you can dig down a little deeper into this. But as of right now, that's our report. Great, thanks, Joe. So that's all we have for the administrative update today. I think we have a lot on the agenda so we wanted to dive right into it. Thanks, Joe, for that and we'll look forward to the full summary, but that's exciting. That's very, very good news. Yeah, very good. So turning to item number three, we'll turn it right back to Delaney and I know we have guests. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners.  And just as a matter of housekeeping, I'm just proposing that we follow this format. I'll give some opening remarks and an update on where we stand. I'll then turn it over to Encore and along with their attorneys, Mintz, to give an update on some of the project changes and the newly submitted materials that they gave to us. So there's a couple of additional memos, one from early January and the other one from February 3rd. And then at that point we'll turn it over for an update from the city of Everett, if they would like to give us one. We do have an additional document from Everett's outside council from Jonathan Silverstein on their opinion regarding the adequacy of the referendum. And we also have some correspondence from them regarding the probable cost of a referendum if a new one were to be held. After that, we'll turn it over to Todd Grossman with our legal division for some update from him on where our analysis is regarding the referendum question but also sort of that will of the voters kind of question that the commission had asked. Then open for commission discussion and if the commission is ready, we would take a vote of course, if the commission's not ready, we can certainly refer that. So if there are no questions regarding the order of the meeting, I'll proceed with some opening remarks. Okay, so what we're trying to do today is determine whether Encore can be allowed to have gaming in the proposed East of Broadway development. So in essence, the question before the commission today boils down to whether the affirmative vote on the ballot question that Everett held that has outlined in chapter 23, section 15, is a vote in favor of the issuance of an application's gaming license in general, or does that affirmative vote limit the issuance of a gaming license to a particular property or location? As we've discussed previously, 23K is silent on the matter of potential gaming expansion. I think it's also important to note that no matter how the commission decides, it does not in any way prohibit Encore from developing the properties on the East side of Broadway. It only potentially limits the presence of gaming on those properties. So for example, if the commission were to decide that gaming could not be allowed on those properties, Encore could go back to the original proposal that was under consideration last year and move ahead with that project after obviously going through all of the necessary permitting with the city and the state and so on. Now, should the commission agree that gaming may be allowed on the property, additional work will then need to be done in order for the project to proceed? Again, we are really just trying to answer the question on whether gaming is allowed on that property and not really dealing with the specifics of the project itself. So if the commission did allow a gaming to happen on that property, as we did with that earlier non-gaming proposal, the commission would need to hold a public hearing to obtain input from the host and surrounding communities as well as any other interested parties. And then we would hold a public meeting to discuss the merits of the project itself and deliberate on the inclusion of the project in the gaming establishment. So with that said, I'd just like to take a couple of minutes to summarize what has happened so far with respect to the development. So again, going back to February of last year, hard to believe that it's been a year, Encore submitted plans for proposed development at Easter Broadway that included a 999 seat entertainment venue, some additional restaurant space, a parking garage and a bridge connecting to Encore. At that time, no gaming was proposed in the facility. And ultimately the commission decided that the proposed development was not part of the gaming establishment. So the commission did place certain conditions on the development related primarily to security and access to the space. So fast forward to the fall of 2022, Encore refiled plans with the commission to now include a poker room and sports betting in that facility, which by necessity requires the commission to regulate this operation as part of the gaming establishment. So the commission initially took up this matter on November 16th, 2022 and raised several questions that they wanted answered before proceeding. So in response to those questions, the following additional information has been submitted to the commission. We included a section of the City of Everett Assessors map that shows the Encore Boston Harbor property as well as the Easter Broadway properties and also the old Monsanto property across the tracks, now the site of the Gateway Center. And that whole sort of lower Broadway area. We have a couple of additional letters, one dated January 5th, 2023 and a second one dated February 3rd, 2023 from Mintz that provides additional information regarding the referendum and the host community agreement and outlined some historic ownership of the East of Broadway properties that with some links to the former Monsanto property. Again, we also have a legal opinion from cities, the City of Everett Outside Council regarding the adequacy of the referendum and the provisions of the host community agreement as well as some of the efforts that the city undertook to rezone that area for entertainment and sort of the planning process that you place down there. The commission did ask for opinions from our other licensed communities regarding this matter. We did get a letter from the town of Plainville, which is included in your packets which provided input from their select board regarding the interpretation of the referendum requirement. We did not receive a response from Springfield. I did reach out a few times from them but we did not get any letter in response from them. And then lastly, there is a letter from the City of Everett outlining the probable costs of an additional referendum which total about $130,000. So in the interim, from November 16th when we last met on this project, a number of things have happened with the project itself. Encore has continued to pursue permitting of this project in parallel with the commission's review and that's quite common for projects of this size to undergo various permitting processes at the same time in the interest of time. And some of the things that have occurred since the project was last in front of the commission, Encore submitted a notice of project change to MEPA to include the full buildout of the East of Broadway project. So this includes not only what is in front of the commission, the parking garage and the auditorium and the sports betting but also the hotels and warehouse space and conference space that they are also proposing. So back on January 6th, MEPA issued a decision on that notice of project change and is requiring Encore to do a supplemental draft environmental impact report. And then that would be followed by a supplemental final environmental impact report. The main areas of study focus on traffic and access related items, you know, pedestrian, bicycle, traffic and traffic in general, but it also covers environmental issues such as environmental justice and greenhouse gas emissions, water and sewer use and things of that nature. And at the end, toward the end of that process on the MEPA review, the commission will need to revise its section 61 findings and presumably, you know, MassDOT would need to revise theirs as well as any other section 61 findings that need to be generated. Also, the city of Everett Planning Board has reviewed and approved the first phase of this project. The city is now drafting the decision on that. They are doing that, of course, with the full understanding that the MEPA process could require some changes to the project, which would mean that they would have to come back in front of the planning board to resubmit for those changes. And also the Everett City Council has reviewed this project in its initial review. This parcel was not included in the resort casino overlay district. So in order to allow gaming on that parcel, the city council needed to rezone that, which has happened. So that property is now considered part of the resort casino overlay district. So let me just stop right there. And if there are any questions from the commission at this point, I'd be happy to answer them. If not, we can move on to Encore with an update on their status. Commissioners, Joe, do you just want to frame the question that you've presented to us as we think about that for framework for today's discussion? I know that it's presented to us, but commissioners, it's for guidance for today's discussion. Yeah, so again, I think we're trying to determine whether Encore can be allowed to have gaming on that proposed East of Broadway development. We are not considering the project itself or the merits of that project, only whether gaming can occur over on that project site. And again, it comes down to with the ballot question, whether that affirmative vote that was taken by the city of Everett on the ballot question is a vote in favor of the issuance of an applicant's gaming license in general, just saying, all right, where will it give Encore gaming license in Everett, but not tying it to a particular parcel? Or does that because that vote did reference the parcel location, does that affirmative vote limit the issuance of a gaming license to that particular property or location? And I think that's the essence of the question. And let me, because this is a legal question, let me just ask Todd to make sure that I've stated that all the right way. I think you absolutely have, if it would be helpful, Madam Chair and commissioners, we could certainly look at the statute directly or we can allow Mr. Starr, Mr. Silverstein to present and then look at it. I'm sure they'll be addressing the same provisions I would point out as well. I think we stick to the plan for the programming, but I just wanted just to reframe just so that everyone keeps us in mind. And again, we can go back to the original framing as we hear more. So Joe, you are now going to turn to Mr. Silverstein. You won't, well, turn over to Encore first. We'll turn over Jackie Crum and she's joined by Tony Starr from Mintz, who I'm assuming will be doing much of the presentation. I see now I skipped over one line. Good morning, Jackie. Good morning. And maybe we should say I'm joining Tony Starr because he is going to be doing the bulk of the presentation. Thank you, Heidi. Good morning, Councilor Starr. Good morning commissioners and members of the gaming commission staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning on behalf of my client, WinMA's request that the gaming commission approve a revised gaming establishment boundary that would include gaming in the Easter Broadway development. My office has previously provided the commission with three letters in support of Win's request. Chief Delaney mentioned each of the three of those a September 13th, 2022 letter, a January 5th, 2023 letter. And then most recently this past Friday, a February 3rd letter to Chief Delaney as well. Thank you commissioners for the opportunity to submit those letters and for your thoughtful consideration of the material we included in them. I also appreciate the opportunity that the commission gave Jackie and me on November 16th that your open meeting then to address some of the issues regarding the request to revise the gaming establishment. This morning, my plan is rather than simply going over the material that I've already provided you in those three letters. Instead, I went back to my notes of the November 16th meeting. I probably should have gone to the transcript but I guess I'm old school and I trusted my handwritten notes in my little spiral binder here. And I found that toward the end of that meeting the commissioners posed four questions. And what I'd like to try and do today is address each of those four questions as I made note of them. The four questions that I took note of was that the commission asked for an overlay of the Monsanto properties. The commission asked what the two other host municipalities Springfield and Plainville would say about their interpretation of their referendums on the matter of expansion of a gaming establishment. The commission asked for a copy of the actual mailing that was sent in June of 2013 to the residents of Everett before the June 22 vote. And the commission asked for Massachusetts case law on how we determine or interpret voter intent. I'll take each of those up in order. So the first question was the request for an overlay of the Monsanto properties. We were not able to find a single document that contains neatly in one place for you all of the properties in the lower Broadway area that Monsanto and its predecessors have occupied, owned or done business at since the late 1800s. What we did confirm is that during the last 125 years Monsanto and its predecessors including Cochrane Chemical Company, Cochrane Chemical Works and New England Chemical Works had ongoing operations and land holdings to both the West and the East of the current Encore site. My letters of January 5th and February 3 and the exhibits we attached to those letters detail some of what we located through a review of the available land records. If I could, I would direct you in particular to page two. I don't know if you have it in front of you of our February 3rd letter. And if you are able to look at page two of our letter of February 3rd, you'll see the information we shared which showed that at one point, Monsanto owned land on the West side of the railroad tracks that run next to the current Encore site. So that again is to the West. And I think Chief Delaney mentioned that as well. And we attached as exhibits A1 and A2, some of the land records that showed that. And we also included a graphic on page two. Can I, I'm going to ask if there's a way to find it in our large, popular materials because I printed out several, but I have a different. So we have a scroll package of 34 pages. We're on page 14, Madam Chair. Page 14, because I had a different version of the letter. So thank you. Thank you, Chief. I apologize, Madam Chair. I should have done a better job. It's okay. That's okay. I don't even got, I scrolled by down. So I had my own personal index was wrong. So thank you so much. So as I mentioned in the February 3rd letter, which I understand my reference to page two of my letter would be to page 14 of the material from the chief that he circulated, had the information regarding to the West of where the current Encore building is. And then on page three of the letter, we included the information we were able to locate regarding some of the historic properties to the East of Broadway. And what I tried to do in the letter, I should really say my colleague, Katie, who I hope is with us was able to do is we were able to embed in the letter itself a graphic from the land records showing property that was owned by Merrimack Chemical in the block that's framed by Dexter and Robin. There are a couple of lots that we were able to identify there. And then there's also a lot that was owned apparently by Mary Cochran, who I assume, although obviously I don't know this for certain, we're relying on the land records that Mary Cochran was affiliated with Cochran Chemical. So we included that there and you can see side-by-side a graphic of the proposed development East of Broadway, which at least in part overlays right on properties that were owned at one point by a predecessor to Monsanto. So our search of the land records, which is all we were able to look at, it focused on property that was owned by Monsanto or its predecessors. And we've shared what we were able to find with the commission principally in my February three letter. I would note that it's certainly possible that Monsanto or its predecessors had operations on some of the other properties on this area as a tenant or some other arrangement. Again, we were looking more at ownership information, but I do think it's reasonable for us to conclude based on the review of the records that we were able to do is that at one point in time, Monsanto and or predecessors operated both to the East and the West of the current Encore site. So moving on to the second question, which was about the interpretation by Springfield and Plainville of their community votes. I understand from what Chief Delaney just shared with us that Springfield had not yet responded to the chief's outreach. As for Plainville, I had an opportunity to review what the chief included in the material for today's package. It apparent to me that Plainville does not consider their ballot voter host community agreement as limiting the potential expansion of the gaming establishment. That said, I've spoken with Attorney Silverstein and my understanding is that Attorney Silverstein actually worked with Plainville on their host community agreement. And I think he's in a far better position than I am to share some insight into the situation in Plainville. So I'll really defer to Jonathan on that. I know he'll address it in greater detail. The third question that I'd made note of was that the commission had requested a copy of the letter that the city sent to the residents before the June 22, 2013 election. Of course, a copy of that June 18th letter has been provided. We included it as exhibit C to our letter February 3rd. And I believe chief, you've included it in other material. It's our understanding that all residents of Everett received the letter, which plainly included a copy of the host community agreement. Again, I think Mr. Silverstein has counseled that Everett will provide you with additional detail on the efforts, efforts made by the city to ensure that all of the residents received the June 18th letter and the copy of the host community agreement. But I think from my client's perspective, as a result of the efforts that the city did make, we believe that the Everett voters were notified by the clear terms of the host community agreement, which they all received, that the project site was subject to expansion, that when has or will acquire land and options to acquire land in and around the project site. We talked about this on November 16th. The very first recital in the HCA notifies the reader of Wynn's current ownership or intent to acquire land in and around the project site. So if you're thinking about what was in the mind of the voters, if they only read the first page, they knew that Wynn already was purchasing or had purchased additional land in and around the project site. And also importantly in that HCA, the Everett officials had negotiated a specific provision to address new construction on property other than the current site, including a mechanism to address that construction. We think that the proposed Easter Broadway development with the expansion of the gaming establishment is precisely the type of new construction on new property that was contemplated by the HCA, which was in the hands of all of the voters prior to the June 22nd election. The fourth question that I made note of was the commission request for case law on how we interpret voter intent. We summarized the case law that we were able to find in our letter of January 5th, which I know is in your packet. You know, the short answer is there really is no case law directly answering the specific question asked by the commission here, which is with a referendum like ours, how does one determine voter intent? When I was talking with one of my colleagues about this, she said to me, well, as a practical matter, the only way you could truly determine that is you would ask each voter what he or she intended when they voted, which of course is not possible in this instance. But I do think that said, the case law that we provided regarding decisions with ballot referendum typically do provide us with some guidance, at least to answer the question that the commission posed. And that is you focus on the information that the voters had before them and how would we expect a reasonable voter to understand that information that is before them? And here the voters of Everett, of course had the ballot in front of them with the reference to the host community agreement clearly in the ballot itself. And they had the letter from the mayor, which enclosed a copy of the host community agreement. And if you look at the mayor's letter on the third page when the mayor provided a summary, he concluded his letter by saying, this is a summary. Please refer to the formal agreement. That is the host community agreement for all the terms. The case law that we shared if the commission or council has had an opportunity to review it, typically arises in the context of whether or not a ballot question met the statutory requirements and various appellate courts have weighed in on that. As I said, I think those decisions do provide us with some guidance in this case. Obviously the ballot question here, if you measure it up against the case law included a fair and concise summary of the host community agreement. And of course, the host community agreement was provided to the voters before the vote. So I think that requirement was certainly met. But I think more relevant to the specific inquiry that the commission made here is that questions about a ballot should not be considered in a vacuum. In several of the cases that we shared with you, talk about that, albeit in the context, for example, of whether or not there was an error or an admission in a ballot question, the courts say the question of whether or not there was an error or admission should not be considered in a vacuum. Any error or admission in a summary must be assessed in the context of the entire proposal and it's likely impact on the voters. A determination cannot be made in a vacuum whether an error in a summary or is minor or fatal to the validity of all or part of a proposal. And that's from the Massachusetts Teachers Association case which we included in that case, if you had a chance to look at it, it involved a tax limitation measure and the court went on to explain the summary was not the only source of voter information on this widely debated proposal. And then it went on to say in the entire scheme of proposition two and a half in the Attorney General's summary, the error though unfortunate was minor and not significantly misleading. You know, the lesson there is what the court looked at was not just the ballot summary, they looked at and trying to understand did the voters get all the information, get the intent of it, they wanted you to look at the whole thing. What we take away from that is voters don't vote in a vacuum. The Everett voters here didn't vote in a vacuum and we hope that the commission will consider and not ignore the following circumstances that surrounded this vote. The Gaming Act required a host community agreement as a prerequisite for a vote. Had to be agreed to before the vote and that requirement was met. The host community agreement references property in and around the current site and the parties negotiated a specific provision to deal with the very situation we are faced with here. The Gaming Act required a concise summary of the host community agreement to be included in the ballot question and that requirement was met. The Gaming Act required that the host community agreement be posted in public and that requirement was met and Everett went further. Everett made sure to the best of its ability that all of the residents and voters received a copy of the host community agreement. In the Pensley versus Attorney General case which we also included, the court noted that making the full text of the proposed act and other information available to voters does not obviate the need for a constitutionally adequate summary and I'm quoting here but it does give the court confidence that the voters understood the scope of the initiative petition. Here we think the voters were notified by the clear terms of the host community agreement that the project site was subject to expansion. The ballot question passed with over 80% of the vote. We hope that the commission does not view the ballot question in a vacuum. The parties complied with all of the requirements of the Gaming Act. The voters were plainly apprised of the contents of the host community agreement which as I've said repeatedly contemplates the quote new construction, close quote on quote new property that is proposed now and the Everett voters overwhelmingly approved the host community agreement with a yes vote. Well, I'll stop there and answer any questions or let Jonathan pick up on a couple of the points that I thought he was in a better position to address today than me. Commissioners, should we pause just to see if we have particular questions for Attorney Starr before we continue? Okay, let's have Attorney Silverstein go forward then Joe and then maybe with a combination we'll pause again, check in on their two analyses. And I see just the main artist is nodding his head. So that's where we should go. So we've got Jonathan Silverstein and Aaron Devaney from the city of Everett with us today. So I guess maybe Jonathan, it makes sense for you to follow up on what Tony had been talking about first and then Aaron. Certainly. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the city this morning. I'll try not to retread ground that Attorney Starr already covered. Perhaps I'll start by following up on the choice posed to you by Chief Delaney, which was whether the gaming establishment is limited to the original site, the site that it currently sits on or is not limited. And I guess I would note that from our perspective, it's not quite that binary. Certainly we would not suggest, and I think this was a question one of the commissioners posed to me at the prior hearing that expanding the gaming establishment across town without a new referendum would be appropriate. So that is not what we're suggesting. And I think that dovetails nicely, although the safe Springfield didn't have an opportunity to comment the town of Plainville did and it noted in its letter, look, we don't think that this would be something that could be expanded anywhere in town, but we don't view the ballot question that was passed by the voters in Plainville as prohibiting any expansion of the gaming establishment. And as Mr. Starr noted, I represented the town of Plainville with respect to their permitting and host community agreement and proceedings before the commission with respect to the Plain Ridge Park Casino. And I can tell you that there are a few distinctions that or contrasts that I would wanna draw the commission's attention to. First and foremost, unlike the host community agreement in Everett, the host community agreement in Plainville cites a specific property address and a specific acreage. And although unsurprising since I negotiated both agreements there are some similarities in that the agreement calls for expansion of payments if there's an expansion of the gaming establishment it refers only to new square footage, additional square footage, in other words, expansion of the building. Whereas the Everett host community agreement refers to expansion of the project site or expansion on to quote unquote new land. And I can tell you why there was never any discussion in Plainville during the negotiations or the permitting of first hour way and then pen acquiring additional land and expanding the gaming establishment onto additional land. However, that was a discussion from day one of the negotiations and discussions between Everett and Wynn. And so I think that's a really important point and that's exactly why in several locations throughout the Everett and Wynn host community agreement in contrast to the Plainville host community agreement there are explicit references to expansion on to new land. I also wanna note that the practical implication of the commission's decision here is not as Chief Delaney mentioned to prohibit almost every aspect of the East of Broadway development. The only implication would be to prohibit a poker room as part of that development. And I think apart from the fact that the voters of the city were on very detailed and repeated notice of the fact that the gaming establishment could expand, practically speaking, it simply doesn't make sense that a voter of the city would say, well, we're fine with hundreds of thousands of square feet of redevelopment, entertainment space, restaurant space, parking, all these amenities that all flow out of the existence of the gaming establishment. But boy, we don't want that 8,000 square foot poker room on the East side of Broadway. We wanted to stay on the West side of Broadway. So, as Chief Delaney said, the practical implication is not whether or not this development happens on the East side of Broadway. It's only whether or not a very, very small portion of that development includes gaming. And I think it's important now to again reiterate, but I won't dwell on the fact that the legislature felt it very important that the voters of a perspective host community, not just know where a gaming establishment is gonna be, not even have a summary of the host community agreement, but that the actual wording of the host community agreement be available to every voter of a host community before the vote. It prescribed how long before the vote it had to, the host community agreement had to be available, how the host community agreement had to be made available and the city followed those requirements to a T and then some as Mr. Starr noted, although not required, every household in the city was provided a letter from the mayor and a copy of the host community agreement by mail prior, well, prior to the vote. And that's in addition to a number of public forums that were held where the host community agreement was made available. And so the legislature wouldn't have required voters to have the host community agreement available to them prior to the vote, if the legislature didn't think it was important for the voters to understand and have available to them the details of the host community agreement when they voted. So they're not voting just on a location, they're voting on the terms of a host community agreement. And the terms of the host community agreement are very clear that there could be expansion onto additional land. I also wanna know, and I run through some of the history leading up to and following the ballot vote in terms of the planning efforts that the city has made with respect to the lower Broadway neighborhood of the community. And I'll note that the ballot question in the summary refer to lower Broadway as the location of this site certainly do also refer to the Monsanto chemical site. And while I laud Mr. Starr and his colleagues for the detailed title history that they've provided to the commission in terms of what was once upon a time part of the overall sort of chemical site along lower Broadway. I think in all honesty, members of the voting public and you've heard from Attorney Deveney last at the last meeting and you'll hear from her again today that people in Everett refer to lower Broadway as a neighborhood. It's an area, it's a region of the city just as Beacon Hill isn't just the Hill, it's Charles Street. Lower Broadway is an area and the Lower Broadway Economic Development District zoning that followed the Lower Broadway master plan includes land well off of, quote unquote, lower Broadway, lower Broadway being anything south of Sweets or Circle. It includes Robin and Dexter Street. It goes well off of Broadway. And that's what people in the city understood was that this was part of the lower Broadway master planning and redevelopment effort that began before wind came to town and continued well after the vote through adoption of zoning, through adoption of a redevelopment, an urban renewal plan creation of a number of different planning documents both leading up to and subsequent to the vote. I won't repeat Mr. Starr's exposition with respect to what the will of the voters should be viewed as in this context. Again, there's no specific case law but I do think it's important to understand that when the courts have looked at the will of the voters they have looked beyond the actual ballot question and they've looked at the general circumstances and attendant to the vote and what voters had available to them in terms of information. And I think at that point, those are the main points I wanted to highlight. I'll turn it over to Ms. Devaney who again is chief of staff for the city to just follow up maybe on any items she wants but I know that she can speak more knowledgably than I with respect to what's considered lower Broadway in effort. Thank you, Attorney Silverstein and Madam Chair and through you to the commissioners thank you for the opportunity to share the community assessment of where we stand on this proposal. The mayor started talking about the redevelopment of the lower Broadway area back in 2010 well before even contemplating having the Encore Casino and Resort as a possibility in the community and his conversations since that time and to the present day have focused on that entire area of the community as a way to revitalize Everett and bring in new industries and opportunities to diversify the tax base with the hopes of eliminating burdens on residents. If you were to talk to residents in Everett that lived in the community for generations before the referendum was taken and those who reside here today the reference to Monsanto was not exclusively to one parcel but it was bringing its easy attention to an overall area in the community. As Attorney Silverstein and Attorney Starr have both referenced when the public conversations and meetings and the mailing which the city undertook and did an effort to combine as many informational and mailing lists as possible to make sure it was a comprehensive informational and outreach effort was done it did reference the willingness of Wynn to participate and support that lower Broadway master plan which was not one parcel which was an entire area within the community. If you talk about lower Broadway in the city of Everett you're talking about an area you're not talking about any one particular property or parcel. So we would ask the commission to keep that in mind that the vernacular in the city isn't limited to one particular area. And I bring attention to the conversations that have been taking place within the community most recently about this proposal whether it be before the planning board or presentations and conversations that have taken place at city council meetings. Those conversations that members of the public have participated in clearly reflect an understanding of what the host community agreement language contained. It does contain information as attorney Silverstein has shared which clearly contemplates either the project area that was initially embarked upon by Wynn and Encore Boston Harbor but it's also talks about if there is any new construction that were to take place. And the reason why residents are focused on that and why we believe it's a reflection that they always knew that expansion was a possibility is because they're very eager to have the city reopen and re-engage conversations with Encore about what this expansion will mean and the potential financial benefits that the city will yield. In all of those public meetings and conversations that I have been at for more than the past year, I can share with you I've never heard residents questioning whether or not this expansion is going to happen or any concerns about what type of expansion the public conversation that has been taking place has been about what will happen once that expansion takes place. So I wanted to share that information with all of you to try to answer that question about whether or not the residents in this community when they first took a vote had information and were aware about the possibility of further expansion. And from Mayor DeMaria's position, he's always been very clear about the possibility of expansion of opportunities not limiting to the types of opportunities in lower Broadway and those conversations that are taking place before public political bodies and amongst residents. There has not been any conversation in this community recently that has even raised any suggestion that community members would question the ability of Encore to be able to expand. Residents are more focused on what that expansion will mean for the community in the terms of positive benefits. So I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have from the community perspective but thank you for the opportunity to share that information with you. Thank you, it's nice to see you. Thank you very much for that update. Before we turn it to our own legal analysis, does it make sense now to just pause Joe to ask a few questions and then turn back to Councilor Grossman so that he can sort of react to the growing questions we may have? Should we wait? Well, I think it makes sense to ask some questions now. Commissioners, do you have questions now? Commissioner Bryan. So the one question that I still haven't and to give you a sense of where I keep coming down on this is the statute required a referendum with a description of site in the referendum. And what I'm gathering from the position of when and ever it is that that description of site, plain bill viewed as site-specific, you're not necessarily disagreeing that it's site-specific but the question is what was the description and the outer boundaries of that site? And I'm still having trouble figuring out what that is. So I went back and I looked at the historic maps, et cetera, which didn't really provide me with any clarity in terms of where the outer boundary is. And there's even a reference when you make the reference to the HCA saying there was some reference to across the street properties but there were no outer boundaries given. And so what I'm struggling with is the description that was in there that references lower Broadway is not lower Broadway than neighborhood. It was the property on horizon way off of lower Broadway. So I feel like if the description had been the lower Broadway district, the lower Broadway neighborhood, et cetera, I would be far more comfortable without a specific address and saying the boundaries went beyond that. This is really a morphos for me in terms of the requirement that it be a description of a site. And so if anyone can give me any more clarity on that, on where you would view the outer boundaries of the description of the site that was voted on that because that's really what I'm struggling with. I'm happy to jump in on that first, Madam Chair. So I think it's a fair question, Commissioner O'Brien. And often in the law there's the, I'll know it when I see it type of answer, which is in this instance, I guess we need to step back. Why did the legislature require identification of the site? Was it to ensure that voters would know the specific map and parcel number? Or was it so that voters would know where in the city an establishment was gonna be located as opposed to are we gonna allow generally gaming in the city, which I could contrast chapter 94G and maybe we could invite Commissioner Stebbins back, which communities generally legalized or prohibited marijuana establishments within their boundaries with 23K, which requires identification of where in a community gaming is gonna be allowed. And so practically speaking, does a voter, does the objectively reasonable voter, which is a tough platonic ideal to pick to grasp, but does the average person going into the ballot box in Everett care if the poker room is on the west side of Broadway or on the east side of Broadway, as opposed to in the Glendale Park neighborhood of Everett or in Everett Square where city hall is. And so I think you need to apply and courts generally apply when interpreting this type of language. Sort of objectively reasonable standards. And I think in light of the case law that we've cited, those objectively reasonable standards should be read in conjunction with what is stated in the host community agreement with the legislature, which the legislature required. And so what are the outer boundaries?  I can't give you the outer boundaries, but what I can certainly tell you is that everyone knew that when was negotiating to purchase land proximate to this, the original site along lower Broadway and everyone knew and hoped that they would expand their development onto those properties. From day one, there were attempts to purchase the MBTA yard adjacent to the site. Never owned by Monsanto, but still in the lower Broadway region. You go to the lower Broadway Economic Development District Zoning, which included all of this land which was adopted. And it talks about the purpose being to redevelop this area, create jobs and create revenue opportunities for the city. So I guess I can only answer if I saying, I don't know what the outer boundary is, but I certainly know that everyone in the city anticipated and hoped that the establishment would expand to the areas where they're currently proposing expansion to. And I don't know if Mr. Starr or Ms. Devaney have anything to add on that? To compliment what Attorney Silverstein has said, and we also appreciate the commissioner's question but wanting to truly be able to ascertain what the residents would reasonably have identified based upon the ballot, the referendum question and the information on the ballot. I don't necessarily know that a resident would have been able to tell you at the time where Horizon Way was. But they can identify a large parcel of area. But I think if you look at the entire language that is on that official ballot, it does include all of that other information that was included in the mayor's mailing of information, which does include the language about the lower Broadway master plan that was done prior to this referendum. And because to do that master planning process, the city had to engage in very extensive community outreach in communication, the steps that the city had taken prior to this referendum, in addition to the work that it did surrounding the information sharing in advance of this vote being taken in the community, did all talk about one greater area in the community. So I think if you look at that to the commissioner's point about what would a voter have reasonably interpreted because there weren't specific boundaries or sort of title, the information you would see in a title for a specific plot of land, if you look at all of the information and conversations that have taken place in the community, as part of the master planning process in advance of this referendum, the reference to the lower Broadway master plan, that was something that was arguably reasonably known within the community and did not just focus on this one particular site, which is why the mayor believes the proposal to include gaming across the street would not be inconsistent with the possibility that the community has been contemplating since this original site opened. Commissioners, follow up questions or new questions? Commissioner Hill, are you're leaning in? I am not, but thank you. Thank you. I think it was Mr. Silverstein, perhaps it was Mr. Starr. We just put Commissioner O'Brien's question in parking lot for right now. Our regulatory powers extend to the gaming component and that's why I wanted to make sure that I heard Joe's framing of the question clearly and set points in our memorandum. As I look at the host community agreement and I do think about that in conjunction with about language and what the voters in effort had before them, I appreciate that recital right at the very top of the page or at the very top of the document. I think one of you is saying can't really point to gaming but that it would have been not practical to imagine that the voters were authorizing an expansion across the street that would just be for strictly the entertainment hotels, restaurants and not imagine it would also be an extension of I think the poker room or some kind of gaming. I think if I can get around the boundary issue that would be my question, okay, did they contemplate gaming in that expansion and not sure if it's precisely stated in the host community agreement, but this would be maybe a question even for Alison Brosman, the host community agreement was a requirement an applicant for a gaming license. So the outcomes for the host community agreement or to be an economic driver, all the issues that Chief of Staff are saying raises, our role really is the oversight of gaming. And so when the host community agreements were reviewed, Todd, I don't think the gaming commission approved them but we received them, but it really was from a lens of not development in general but our role as regulator of gaming. So when I see that host community agreement and I see that first recital suggests to me that the voters were put on notice that this was likely to be a project that extends beyond the construction project that was being reviewed by our team. Do you have any memory of that, Todd? Or do you agree that the under chapter 23K was a component of gaming that the host community agreement and not simply development? Yeah, well, one of the core principles of chapter 23K and the commission at the time spent a lot of energy thinking about was ensuring that wherever a gaming establishment was to be cited was in a place that the community wanted it. And a key component of that was the host community agreement. And to your question, the commission did not approve of host community agreements. It didn't go through it line by line and say it has this, it has that. There are in the statute some minimum requirements and we did look at them to make sure they were all covered and they were in every single case. That was not an issue. But ultimately that was left to the host communities to negotiate the best deal they could with the applicants at the time. And it was a factor in the overall assessment of the individual applications, the arrangements in general and how welcoming of the applicants a particular community and the surrounding communities was. But to your question, they were not specifically approved. And we had no time was this specific question ever reviewed to the best of my memory as to what the expansion might look like or whether gaming was covered or what have you. And I do have a few other thoughts. I'll stop there though and just kind of... But it was a requirement of a gaming licensee to have the community agreement executed. So if I were the informed voter, received all the information when they received the host community agreement, do you think it was practical for them to read that in the context of this is about expanded gaming and casino play or is this strictly about development of an area in the city that really needed some attention? It's hard for me to answer that question as to what the voters may have understood at the time. I think perhaps everyone would agree that the host community agreement does not specifically say that there might be gaming across the street or there might be gaming elsewhere. That is, I think I heard Mr. Silverstein address this to some degree, but there's no question. That the host community agreement contemplated project expansion. It does not get into to the best of my reading, whether there might be gaming activity elsewhere or anything along those lines. To that point, I agree with you on that. And I think we heard that the language isn't there. But if you were a voter in Everett, when you received this host community agreement, it wasn't an agreement. That they would normally see in the context of ordinary development. In fact, if they weren't doing, I think we know this, if they weren't having any gaming, this kind of development goes on without any kind of oversight from certainly the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We don't look at every development in Everett, correct? So I guess I'm wondering when would it be practical to assume that when the, and we always assume voters are informed. I learned that, gotta be sex, you know, back in the day. So when they read their materials, they would have been thinking, this is about the proposed casino that's for Everett, as opposed to strictly an ordinary development. This is, I'm not, I don't want anyone to foreshadow where I stand on this. This is where we are, probably there's a struggle, you know, between the two, even if we can figure out the boundaries, then how, what was the buzz that was occurring at the time about this host community agreement and they can, it's reading. Yeah, and I don't wanna jump again, but I'm in, when it, when my turn comes up, one of the things I was hoping to do was to help place all of this in context, to try to understand why that's an important question and what lens to view it through, perhaps. Yeah, so that's why I sort of thought maybe a couple of our questions would help frame it. So commissioners, councilor Grossman's heard, a couple of our questions, anything else that you wanna frame? So that's on your mind right now, okay. Then you've got those two questions, come to help address so that you don't have to read our minds. Oh, I see, Mr. Starr. At the risk of getting too far into the weeds on the host community agreement, the idea of expansion is addressed in two spots. It's addressed on page four with the annual community impact fee. And then again, on page five, with the pilot payment. And as I read the impact fee, it's addressed in two spots. And as I read the impact fee, that's for the operation of a destination resort casino. And the sentence at the end of section one, paragraph one there, talks about if wind commences operation on the new property, then the party shall renegotiate the impact fee and if you agree with me that the impact fee is to provide compensation so to speak or money to Everett for the operation of a destination resort casino. The fact that the parties wrote in, when you have expansion, you have to renegotiate that impact fee because I think at least some indication that you're talking about an expansion of the casino, that's what the impact fee is for, for the operation of a destination resort casino. And if all wind was doing was across the street, putting in a restaurant, as you say, that's not a casino. That's other types of development. And if you notice, if you read in the second part with the annual pilot payment, that's renegotiating on the real estate tax, but that doesn't talk about, you know, that doesn't tie back to the impact fee. So I appreciate, as I said, we're into the weeds here on language that was drafted 10 or 11 years ago. But in answer to your question, can we discern in the HCA whether there was language that forecast not just when putting in a restaurant across the street or on new property, but actual casino operations, operation of a destination resort casino. I think you have some language here that shows the intent of the drafters that they were anticipating that the casino itself, the casino operations itself, the gaming could expand, and not just other aspects of the development. That's very helpful to me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to talk about just a bit of. So. Except as Kentucky roots, I have very strong Vermont roots. And what I'm enjoying in this whole discussion, Commissioner O'Brien is that the boundaries of an urban. Project. As perhaps as. As I said, I think it's a little bit of a struggle where that often is tied to a old maple tree or a stone wall. And where that maple tree is long gone, maybe replaced by a pine. So it's a little refreshing to see that it's not just rural areas that struggle with land boundaries. So Commissioner O'Brien, I put your question in the parking lot, but it's only temporary. So thank you. And now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Madam chair, I think. Attorney Silverstein wanted to make a call. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thanks. Good eyes. Thanks so much. I appreciate it. Yeah. I just wanted to follow up on attorney stars point and draw the attention of the commission to the recitals of the host community agreement again. Specifically the second recital. The second recital. The third recital. The third recital. The third recital. As. A project involving a category one gaming license. And the development of a luxury hotel and destination resort casino on the project site. And we're talking about. A host community agreement that authorizes expansion of the project. So the project is the destination resort and casino. And I can tell you that. Having done. 20 years. It's never entered into a host community agreement other than for the development of a resort casino. Then two recitals down. It talks about, and this goes to Mr. stars point. The intent of the agreement to mitigate impacts in accordance with Massachusetts general law is chapter 23 K. And then the purpose, the next one down. The agreement is being entered into. To satisfy the requirements of section 15. Sub 8 of the app. So all of this supports, I think what. Madam chair, you were. Alluding to. In terms of the reason for this agreement. So that's why I think we can turn it over to Todd. To authorize the. Development operation and expansion of. Christina. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now we've got to three. So I guess at this point, I think we can turn it over to Todd for the legal divisions presentation. So is anyone else asking a question now before we turn. I think we can turn it over to Todd. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Good morning, Todd. Good morning, Madam chair, commissioners. Thank you. I would start by saying I certainly don't take issue with anything. Anybody has said at this juncture. And again. My hope at this. Point is to just help go through some of the specific language in the city. So to help you reach a decision here. I think again, I don't want to reiterate everybody's points, but I think an important one that bears repetition is that again. The question here is not whether. The lower Broadway master plan can be executed by the city. Or when can develop across the street. Or anything along those lines. They can. That's not what we're here to talk about today. But it's not just the poker room. It's also potentially sports majoring. Which under chapter 23 N. Has to be in a gaming establishment. As it relates to a category one license. Which. When resorts. When mass is. So with that. There are a couple of. I don't know. I don't know. Of course. Subjective city and state approvals as. But as. Has been referenced. The real question is whether gaming can be conducted across the street. Now just add. It's, it's not just the poker room. It's not just the poker room. There are a couple of. Points that I wanted to get to. And I wanted to add before I jump in too far. We're joined here as well by me and Macarius partner at Anderson and Krieger. Who has assisted with this review as well. And he can certainly speak to. Issues related to deciphering voter intent and that. Subject area and perhaps any other areas. As I start to go through. Some of the, some of the, some of the, some of the, some of the, some of the statutes and some of these considerations. But ultimately the question. As has been framed is what is the effect. Of the vote that was taken on June 22nd, 2013. In the city of Everett. And it's important. Because there is a, a statute that talks about that. And I think it goes without saying, but it is critically important. So how do we place that in context? I would submit that one way to look at it is that the, the will of the voters provides some context to you when you're trying to look, you're deciphering what chapter 23 K. Section 15 paragraph 13 means. What would the voters have understood at the time. And that's one factor in helping you resolve the question as to what the effect of the vote is. And I think in order again to put it in context, we should take a look at what section 13 actually says. And I know you've all had a chance to look at it. It's been included in the materials. I can certainly share it if it would be helpful, but there's a couple of points. That I just wanted to get to. Before we jump into the analysis. And the first part that I think is important because there's been some question as to whether another vote would be appropriate. In some circumstances here is important to look at the introductory language to chapter 23 K. Section 15. And it says that no applicant shall be eligible to receive a gaming license. Unless the applicant meets the following criteria and clearly states as part of an application that the applicant shall. And then of course there's a list of things that had to be done. And I think that I would only to ensure that we take a look at what section 15 was designed to do in the first place. And that is to set some of the prerequisites in order for the applicants to apply for a gaming license in the first place. So whether it is of continuing effect is part of the question before the commission. So then it says the applicant shall and the. Relevant language is down in paragraph 13. And there are a couple of places that are worth talking about. The first is the very first sentence of paragraph 13. Says the applicant shall have received a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election in the host community in favor of such license. So when you're trying to decipher what the purpose of the ballot question was, the statute does add some context there and provide some guidance as to what the purpose of the vote was. It suggests that the ultimate question was whether the host community is in favor of such a license. The section or the paragraph then goes on to articulate a series of provisos. A couple of which are relevant to this analysis. And the first one that we've been talking about. Is the actual language that had to appear on the ballot. And this was a proviso in paragraph 13. It said provided further.  The question submitted to the voters shall be worded as follows and then it goes through it. And the language appeared on the actual ballot. We've been talking about it already. And it required the question was, does the property of Everett permit the operation of a gaming establishment licensed by the Massachusetts gaming commission to be located at property located on horizon way off lower Broadway in Everett, formerly known as the Monsanto chemical. That was the question that was presented to the voters on the ballot as required in paragraph 13. There's one other proviso that I think is important to bear in mind. And I think it's important to highlight this evaluation. And that is almost directly after the. The proviso that I just read, it says that provided further, that if a majority of the votes cast in a host community and answer to the ballot question is in the affirmative, the host community shall be taken to a voted in favor of the applicant's license. The vote was specific to a parcel. Or more broadly, whether it was in general favor of license being awarded to this particular applicant. These are parts of the statute that are important to bear in mind because they speak directly to that. So with those provisions in mind, I wanted to just address one of the points that was raised earlier. Mr. Silverstein noted that the question was not necessarily binary. And I do agree to some degree with that. But I think it's also helpful to try to simplify this as much as possible. And I think you can consider it a binary question. And the question being. As Mr. Delaney already articulated. Does paragraph 13. Only speak to a specific parcel and allow the applicant to move forward on a specific parcel. Or was it intended to allow the voters to speak as to whether they were in favor in general of a license being awarded to the applicant. And that perhaps the location was identified to add some context and texture to that vote. As everybody has discussed, of course, but I think that the question that was included here in paragraph 13 was a requirement that the host community agreement. Be posted and made public. And it certainly was. To the extent. That we are getting into the weeds to take. Some phraseology from Mr. Starr to decipher exactly what it says. I think you can consider whether an average voter would have the right to vote or not. But I think it's also important to point out. That as Mr. Delaney also mentioned, if you were to answer the question. That. The purpose of paragraph 13 is to try to. Determine what exactly the host community agreement said at the time they were casting a vote. And then think about it through that lens as well. So I think the question is binary to that degree, is that the purpose of paragraph 13 was simply to. Vote in favor of the applicant's license that doesn't end the inquiry. The commission would then have to go in. And evaluate whether it wants to actually allow the gaming establishment to be expanded there. And you'll recall, we have established a test. Through which you would run that analysis. And I would expect that we would use that test or some version of that. In the future to determine whether you wanted to allow the boundary of the gaming establishment to be moved over there. And I think that's important to note, because I think it would be reasonable to be concerned that this could be a slippery slope. If we were to conclude or you were to conclude. That the vote simply approved. Gaming in the city of ever. And that you could move from there to allow gaming anywhere in the city. That's not necessarily the case. It's not the case at all. I would submit the commission would still retain complete control over where the boundary of the gaming establishment. Would lie based upon a series of factors that have been previously used and articulated. And are rooted deeply in chapter 23 K itself. So it's not a slippery slope here. And I think the question is to some degree binary. That said, I think it's also important. Just to recall. When you're interpreting. Chapter 23 K. Section 15 paragraph 13. That this is a provision of the gaming statute. Which means that the commission is afforded tremendously broad discretion. In. In providing the first read of it and determining what you think it means. And I thought I would just briefly. Mention some of the discretionary language that's contained both in the statute. And in the jurisprudence. So you're, you have that before you as you're making this decision. The first is within chapter 23 K itself. And this is the familiar language that we've looked at a number of times and cited often in courts have recognized. In a number of on a number of occasions. In section one paragraph 10, it says that the power and authority granted to the commission shall be construed. As broadly as necessary for the implementation, administration and enforcement. Of chapter 23 K. And further chapter 23 K provides in section four that the commission. Shall have all powers necessary or convenient to carry out an effective purpose. So on the face of chapter 23 K, the commission has tremendously broad discretion to interpret. This provision of the law. There is one other piece of jurisprudence that I think might be helpful. In, in reaching this decision. The highest court in the Commonwealth, the Supreme Judicial Court has. Held expressly. That in accord substantial discretion to an agency to interpret the statute at its charge with enforcing, which in this case is chapter 23 K section 15, especially where the legislature has authorized the agency to promulgate. Regulations, which in this case it has. Where the statutory language is not without ambiguity. Our deference meeting the court's deference to the agency's interpretation of the governing statute is highest. I think when you connect all of these pieces of law together. You are left with the conclusion that the commission has fairly broad authority. To make a decision. In this matter. As to what the statute means. So. With all of that being said. Again, I would circle back to what I believe the, the ultimate question is. And I think Joe framed it. Correctly. And I think. Just to simplify things that is the helpful lens to view it through. Is essentially what do you think. Paragraph 13 means. Was the vote. Intended to approve a single parcel of land. For construction of a gaming establishment. Or was it more general in nature? Where by the voters were simply approving. The applicant's license or the sentiment that they would approve the applicant's license if issued by the gaming commission. I think that's ultimately the question before you. All of these other factors, the, certainly the. Will of the voters, the understanding of the voters. All adds. Context. To that analysis. And I think that's how it factors in and why it's important. But it doesn't answer the question directly. What, what the voters thought at the time. Doesn't answer the ultimate question. It's a part of the answer. And so with all of that. I'll stop. I'll see if there are any other questions. Or whether it would be helpful to ask. Mina to talk a little bit about. Deciphering voter intent. I have a follow up question to that. I hear us deciding between general. And specific and specific being. The language that I assume. Is in. You say is in the ballot. And so with all of that. I'll stop. I'll see if there are any questions or whether. It would be helpful to ask Mina to talk a little bit about. The ballot language. And what I hear general. And I don't know. What that means, because I think I've heard that. No one believes this mean. That. It was without any kind of scope or boundaries that was imagined. And so. The idea that we might be saying that. The voters have ever voted in favor of the game. When mass. I'll see generally. That doesn't take him. It doesn't sound as though. Taking into consideration. All the information that was delayed. About this particular ballot vote. You know, we all know when we enter. To vote on those questions. That you need to do a lot of study. Before voting on a referendum. Because they usually are written in a crazy way. And so you have to do your homework. And you have to read about it. So. There's the idea of specific, which I think you're saying. That's the ballot language. But generally. He doesn't mean without. All the information that came. Conjunction. With. The. Referendum in the ballot itself. Where are you saying something? I am not suggesting. Even if you were to conclude. That the vote is of a more general nature. That any licensee could simply construct. Casino wherever they wanted in that city or town. I'm talking about the, the idea of the voters. I think I'm seeing language that. We might consider that the voters. Ever voted in favor of the gaming license. Awarded. To win. Generally. And not specifically. And I'm having trouble with the idea. Generally. Because. It. It wouldn't necessarily. Include all the other. Information that did inform the voters. Well, I think, I think. That's a good point. And that is why this is a difficult question. I think it's important to just reiterate that it seems clear to me. That the law did not squarely contemplate. Certainly expansion of a gaming establishment. Or this. Specific issue. That being said. The commission does have tools at its disposal by which it can. Control. Where the gaming establishment is located. Which go beyond. This ballot question. And what is described here in section. 15 paragraph 13. So certainly there. There must be control over that boundary. The question is whether this ballot question limited that control. That. To a degree. And I would suggest to you that certainly the voter intent in the will of the voters. Does factor in. To the answer to that question for sure. And, but ultimately. If you were to conclude that. The voters just generally voted in favor of the license. That would allow. The commission to expand the boundary of the gaming establishment beyond. The existing boundary, which is on the horizon way site. Off of. Off of lower Broadway. If you were to conclude that it's specific to that parcel, just to be clear. Then the boundary cannot be explained. That it is. Where it is. And that. That's. Pretty much it's subject to where lower Broadway is. And that's what commissioner. Brian's getting at. How far out does lower Broadway expand to. And. If we're talking about the specific parcel. But the ballot question also talks about. The property located on horizon way. And ever. So it's not necessarily. Potentially. That the voters would have signed off on. A gaming establishment anywhere in lower Broadway. If you're reading the language of the ballot question specifically. It specifically says it properly located on horizon way. So that's. That's the specific read. I would submit a broader read would be. In that general area. And the more specific view of that would be whether you're actually limited to that specific area. Or there. You could move further away. Of course, the further away you get. You certainly move away from what the voters probably understood at the time. And that's the rub here. Yeah. And I think that. It might be a little bit of language and we can charge. The important conversation that I know that. Turning carries quite an offer, but it might be a little bit in the semantics that are you saying that they voted generally. Or specifically. Or are you saying they voted on a specific parcel. Versus. A less specific parcel. It's like, is that the generally. Is that the advert of the voting that you're talking about. And I'm looking at. And I think. It might be a little bit of language and we can turn to the voting that you're talking about. And I'm looking at. Proposed draft language. Or are we, you know. I, I think. That one of the things we have to consider is do we. Do we just look at the language of the ballot. Which is. Art. Of this. But there's a whole lot of other provisos. And so I wonder how we take into consideration all of that. And I think that's why I wanted to go through those provisions in paragraph 13. I think that they're not necessarily in conflict with one another, but they do kind of speak to slightly different things. There are the two places where it says that. The affirmative vote. Shall. If it occurs. Shall be taken. To mean. That's why I wanted to go through those provisions in paragraph 13. I think that they're not necessarily in conflict with one another, but they do kind of speak to slightly different things. And I think that. That the voters shall be taken to mean that the voters voted in favor of the applicants license. It doesn't say. It could have said, but it doesn't say that should be taken to mean that the voters voted in favor of awarding a license at that specific location. It doesn't say that. And it actually uses that language twice in the statute that says that. The voters shall be taken to a voted in favor of such license. So then if you were to take that view that that's what the purpose of the vote was, the question becomes why was a specific site location included in the language of the ballot question. And there are a number of ways to answer that question. You could view it to mean fairly that well that's the voters were voting on the facility to be located at that location. And that's what we meant by it. Or, as someone suggested earlier, you could view it to mean well, the law was designed to give the voters an idea of what was being proposed in conjunction with the host community agreement which was posted and included, and the concise summary. So voters would have an understanding of what they were voting on, but whether it was designed to limit it to that parcel is a separate issue. So it is a bit complicated, but I think ultimately it boils down to how you read these provisions of paragraph 13. Thank you. Any questions for Todd before we turn it over to turning the carriers. Okay, thanks. Madam chair I don't really have a separate presentation actually what I was going to add dovetails to this part of the conversation pretty directly. I think the we've reviewed the case law that was provided by attorney star and attorney Silverstein on voter intent following the last meeting. I think attorneys star actually characterized it the same way we read it that it's not directly on point but it does sort of reiterate that general rule that voters are presumed to be aware of the surrounding circumstances not just the letters on the page so there's not much to add on the language, but we're in ties to here and I think is important and and maybe this gets at your question, Madam chair which is the, as Todd explained that the sort of additional language, if you just take it on its own the host community shall be taken to voted in favor of the applicants license. One of the sort of limiting principles or limiting features in the gaming act of how a license might be interpreted in the future comes from the host community agreement and actually playing bills short but sweet letter helps drive this home and I think interesting got at this. It's very possible that host community agreement could say, we're agreeing to this site and if we don't, if we want to go beyond the exact meets and bounds of particular site we're going to need a new agreement or we're going to get a new agreement, etc. Or it could, it could contemplate some expansion. And so I agree with you know Todd, what Todd has point out is, if you're voting in favor of the license that may include reference to the host community agreement. So I think ultimately the question for the Commission to put it in the simplest terms is, do you read section 13 as being a vote for, quote unquote the license as a whole with those background documents. If you resolve that question, I think the second question is, do you read the license as voted on at the time as contemplating. I wouldn't say any expansion I think that's been sort of conceded it's not any expansion, but expansion to these sites and as we talked about last time there's language in, you know there's an attorney star as pointed to language of supports expansion here, so language that may suggest that it was more limited but I think that's, that's reading into the agreement itself. And the, and then after all that, even if it's permitted for, I think to answer a question you asked a while ago, I think it would all be within the context of a license for gaming that that is clearly what was, was being voted on no one thought they were voting. I think, having been around at that time to and in the litigation following it. No one thought this license was about building anything other than gaming so if it extends to their and arguably extends to gaming. The last point just to reiterate what Joe and Todd have said is that then there are other external limits on what that might mean so the host community agreement maybe one, but there's also this the city's own zoning the city's and the MEPA process and the city's own, you know, sort of agreement to let it expand, not to mention the Commission's weighing of the four factor test that Todd mentioned so. Commission's questions for all of our presenters 1012 I think maybe it's a good time for everybody to take a little bit of a break, and then regroup and think about the questions they may have. And then next steps. That makes sense commissioners. Madam chair, I do have one question. Thank you for Miss Devaney if I could and we have to go back in history for this question. The city held many meetings for its citizens to give them a preview of what was going to be happening of preview of what was going to be happening on the ballot. Any questions that may have been asked was expansion ever brought up during those discussions before the vote was taken do you remember, or anybody that can help me know what took place during those meetings in regards to expansion. I will also suggest that attorney Silverstein could could provide some some information from the information and the materials I've reviewed. So, consistent with what Attorney Grossman was was outlining under the statute was the community agreeing to the license, and then the license being for for gaming versus necessarily a specific site, the conversations that took place in the community meetings were focused on the concept of bringing gaming into the community as part of the efforts to create a catalyst for overall recommendation and then I don't know, and this is where attorney Silverstein might be able to give you further clarification as to conversations about what exactly was in the host agreements. But, but there were there were very clearly conversations about whether the city wanted to bring gaming into the community is as part of overall economic development engine. And if you were to put those conversations in the context of what the Commission is considering today. The language in the language in the host agreement did clearly talk about we're going to talk about the city bringing in this initial project with the opportunity to to expand from there. And so Jonathan might be able to attorney Silverstein might be able to talk more specifically about any conversations at the meetings themselves. I'm happy to weigh in on that. I did attend all of those public forums. They were held, most of them were held at the Connolly Center which is a large public meeting venue in the city and they were well attended. Over a decade ago now or close to a decade and be lying if I remembered specifics, but I will say that a lot of the conversation at those at the presentations made by the city's planning director at the time. Jamie Erickson, as well as other city staff and the mayor himself, all it all started with here is the lower Broadway master plan. It always started with that the lower Broadway master plan that the mayor commissioned in 2012 that concluded shortly before the host community agreement was signed. And here's how this project fits within those redevelopment goals for lower Broadway. I know that there were a lot of questions asked by people about the host community agreement in general. Everyone, as I said, copies were handed out at these forums. People had clearly read it, they asked questions about it. I cannot tell you commissioner that I recall specific questions about specific provisions and regarding regarding expansion. It's very possible but you know I can't make that representation to you. But what I can say is that the thrust of the presentation from the city side was this is sort of a lynch pin of lower Broadway revitalization redevelopment. And then Madam chair, I have another question. When I was going through the host community, and I think attorney star brought this up the impact fee on expansion language popped out to me when I was reading about it. Can anybody elaborate a little bit more on the negotiations that took place on that language on an impact on expansion, because clearly somebody thought about expansion, when they put that language in the host community agreement. I can take that one as well. I think I'm the only person on the zoom who was in the rooms for those negotiations for every negotiation. And I can tell you those that specific language was heavily negotiated. And it was based specifically upon the fact that the mayor knew at the time that there were discussions ongoing. When was trying to negotiate with the MBTA for the adjoining train yard property. They were already starting to talk to other property owners along lower Broadway. And what the mayor didn't want to happen was that there would be a substantial expansion of the gaining establishment without a concomitant increase in the benefits, according to the city, and the impact fees according to the city. So that was the specific conversation about all that language contemplating exactly what's before the commission now. It would be clear for me to and you've seen me before it takes me a while to get it all going and figuring it all out. When you were negotiating this with when it was clear in your mind and in the mayor's mind that the expansion would not just be for a hotel slash restaurants, but would include expansion of gaming as well. In one word. Absolutely. And I can tell you that it was repeatedly brought up. At the time it was going to be with the it was going to be called the win. And I remember the win of the mayor repeatedly saying during these negotiations. Let's look at Las Vegas. Let's look at the original win and the encore. Now we've got the encore and I don't know what, you know, if we're going to have double encore, but it was specifically in the context of looking over at Las Vegas, we made a trip over there and saying, this is the second casino resort. Essentially, what if they do the same thing here we know they're buying land. We want to make sure that the city's going to share in those benefits. So Madam chair, I'm continuing my questioning if that's all right. So this is, this is a question. This is a question for when. So now we have the two locations in Vegas. Do you have a separate license for each one, or is it one license for both. I can answer that. Vegas is very different so it's, it's not like you receive a specific as specific license so those are run as a joint property though. And they're next to each other and they're not across the street from each other. They are next to each other. They're on the same side of the street connected with a large walkway between them. That's very helpful Jackie thank you. And I think that for now, does it for me for questioning Madam chair. I thought you were going to get to asking perhaps chief, did any weather. Do you have any insights on community input right now. You've had commissioner skinner was that I'll let you go right ahead and ask that question. Exactly what my question was going to be. Thank you. You know, just to follow up to commissioners Hills first question. He talked about any feedback from the public back during the 2013 referendum and around that time. I don't know whether there was any and so that's my specific question relative to today. What is the public discussion right now. If any given, given, you know that the matter is before one of the state agencies MEPA, although that might be the act. So you'll have to forgive me. I think you said the zoning board, the city council, the planning board. Is the public engaged in that process in what's what are you hearing. And I'm assuming that the gaming establishment, the proposed gaming establishment is part of the landscape in those discussions. We're going to have to think that the chief of staff that I was directed to. Is that right commissioners going to do that were you first asking the chief. I'm actually asking whoever is is is. Well, then I will leave. I will leave our guest first and then turn to Joe. Thank you. Lainey Devaney, you know, it's sometimes hard to tell. I do. I do go back and forth though and I thank you. It's fine to commissioner Skinner's question. There have been conversations that that have been going on throughout the community. That started with the city's efforts to change its zoning to allow for specifically the expansion of the destination district as we're calling it to the other side of of lower Broadway. So there's been public, we followed all of the local and state requirements for modifying our lower Broadway urban renewal plan that does require publication of notices. So residents could know when hearings and meetings were being held and what the topics and subjects of those conversations when also has appeared before the planning board. And that included sharing information with our planning board for the original proposal, which was brought before the the the MGC as well, when it did not have a gaming component. But they've been very transparent regarding this proposal as the gaming landscape has shift shifted in the Commonwealth and how they saw that that would impact their operations. Our city council is aware of the of the proposal both the original one, and they're also aware now that the proposal has been amended to include gaming specifically on the other side of of lower Broadway. The conversations in public meetings from from residents who have opined has been focusing on the express interest of renegotiating or having an opportunity to renegotiate the host community agreement to be able to revisit the conversations about any financial community impact that the city envisions that would take place. And so the focus has really been on on how this development, including the including the most recent proposal with gaming across the street really has been about Okay, how can this go forward and how can the mayor and negotiate the additional benefits that the city would be able to realize from from that expansion. In the community meetings that that have been held. I'm not aware that that any residents have publicly come forward and questioned or criticized the addition of for the expansion of a gaming location that that isn't something that that's taking place in in in the community at this time. Yeah, okay. No, I just to thank you to misdemeanor very helpful. Okay, and I just want to make sure that she's doing this. There are very close to me. I just I just misheard. Okay, great. Thank you. So during the planning board meetings that took place to allow the development to move forward. I think I heard you say you didn't hear any negative comments is that an accurate statement. I'm not aware that there have been any negative comments with with respect to having gaming as a component of this proposal. I'm not aware that there is any projects in the city of Everett gathers both positive and negative commentaries, but I am not aware that there is any anti expansion of gaming within the community. Clearly, there was a lot of publicity last week associated with the introduction of sports betting, which admittedly is in the current site, but there hasn't been. There hasn't been a negative commentary about even introducing a new type of of gaming at the current establishment, which I think it's consistent with public sentiment as to why we haven't heard any objection about adding the possible poker room across the street. To the earlier question about the expansion, I was sort of thinking to your questions, Commissioner Hill about where the wind sites are in Vegas. If if Mayor de Maria could have persuaded you know the MBTA to give up that parcel, then obviously they wouldn't have been able to have that so we think having the connection with the pedestrian bridge is probably as close as we can get seeing is they're they're kind of landlocked where they are now so and that would be his perspective on whether or not he's ever tried to introduce, you know, expansion into any option on lower Broadway for for encore. And I know this this issue. I'm sorry, go ahead. I'm sorry Commissioner Hill I was just following up on your question I was just going to mention I attend every planning board meeting in the city and earlier iterations of the project when they came before the planning board before there was a proposed expansion of across the street. Just full disclosure, that engendered opposition from some area performance venues. This was before the reduction in size of the performance venue across the street. That's the only negative feedback. I recall any of the planning board hearings regarding this project. So, and then my I know this has not come up yet madam chair and maybe it's something that will come up after our break or not. But for transparency purposes and making sure that we're comfortable with how the Everett citizens truly feel when anybody be against putting another ballot question out there before the citizens. About expansion questions. I don't know what the language would be, but we haven't talked about it yet today. Maybe a condition maybe something we might throw on. Anybody want to. It's a core question because we could. We should ask that directly. What's the problem right of doing another. I can jump in first on that if that's okay. Obviously there's significant expense to an election. If we're going to wait for September or November, there's delay. There's already been obviously a fair amount of discussion. It's also, you know, fundamentally, to my mind, it's a question of respecting the vote of over 86% of the voters back in 2013 who I have and will continue to submit voted in favor of a project that they all anticipated and frankly hope would expand over time to provide more jobs and revenue and other benefits to the city. And so it's an, particularly if we're going to talk about a special election, it's a huge inconvenience to voters to have to come to the polls again. And to city staff who have to run another election. It's not a small undertaking in a city like Everett and I don't know if Miss Devaney wants to wants to speak further to that. I think I would share with the commission. Some of some some of the other issues or concerns in the community. Aside from this, this conversation that we've had today about the 2013 intent of voters. One of the concerns that the mayor would have about about delaying this project is that the city of Everett right now is losing substantial commercial based tax revenue. We have a parcel that's across the street not not part of this project area for the proposed expansion for on core but the constellation energy site, which for all intents and purposes the the city is aware will no longer be supplying energy to the grid in 2024. That's had a dramatic impact on tax revenues in the community. This year alone we lost $6 million in valuation. And so what we've heard from residents in the community is that they expect the mayor to do everything that he can to bring in other types of development into the community. In order to mitigate the loss of dollars which had on average in this tax year, a 21% tax increase for residents of a single residential single family home. So I share that with you because to the point of what what would be the harm. It's, it's the potential that this puts off a project that could help taxpayers and residents of Everett and pushes it out even further. And that I think would be a legitimate concern of residents in this community so I just wanted to sort of share that overlay of other issues in the community that come into factor when considering this this proposed development. Well, follow up for on that issue. I have one follow up. So, I do understand it's expensive and I do understand that the arrangement has been in the past that they're nice to see me and versus the city. I suspect that would not be a reimbursement on the labor that's involved the force that you need in terms of getting our friend I'm done to you. We have I think a, unless you're unless the, and I'm sorry that I don't know the answer to this question, unless your estimates included that to forgive me if I missed that. Yes, the, the estimates of the cost of the election did factor in poll worker poll worker costs I don't believe that we. I don't necessarily know that we factored in our salary employees that we that's what I was wondering yeah the salary of employees right. So we factored in the, the additional costs of having to, to hire individuals to work the polls because that would for doing a separate election specifically for a referendum. That's not currently factored into a into a city budget and those would be additional costs. Thank you. So, the couple of questions that I have I it's my understanding that there are some delays that don't have anything to do with us right MEPA requiring certain studies etc to be done so I'm not really sure what you know the the construction timeline is ultimately, whether we say yes or no today. My question more for Jackie is, you know the building is going forward, assuming it gets all the approvals the MEPA etc you know, whichever way this vote comes out he's either going to have some gaming component or it's not. So, would that pose any delay and you can go forward and construct. So is there anything that would substantially alter the basic infrastructure of this building. You were told that this juncture you don't have authority to put gaming over there at this time. The answer is yes, because we have to redesign the whole building. So we've got to essentially start from scratch again. And we'd have to start the MEPA process over again so we're doing this. We'll, we're essentially dual tracking it right now. If, if the commission says no it can't go forward, we would absolutely have to stop everything. We'll leave it again and and and start the process over. So you already submitted on the, we're not going to put gaming across the street correct. No we've submitted on the basis that we would put gaming across the street that was out. So where, where was the posture when we came in and a year ago and you guys asked us not to consider it to be gaming. We hadn't yet submitted MEPA. Okay, so the first time you went to MEPA was post the statute being passed on sports wagering. So you altered the plans and went forward that way. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. We had had initial discussions with MEPA before them, but we hadn't made an official submission. Got it. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. Anything you want to add before we maybe take a little bit of a break. So thank you madam chair and I appreciate my fellow commissioners questions. I asked a question last time we met on this. Mr. Silverstein, perhaps. Mr. Laney could also Mr. Laney can weigh in to get to attorney Grossman's point of getting in the mind of the voter. I asked a question about if I took the average voter. Who passed the referendum. I took them to the front of ebh and I turned them around. And I said, is it a problem. If gaming happens there and I point to the site that we're talking about today. Would they, you know, would they have had an issue with it now. The last time I asked that question, it was a little muddled the answer. But today I'm pretty much hearing it that the answer is. They would have been okay with that. Is that the case. I'll jump in commissioner. I think yes, I'm sorry if my response at the last meeting was muddled. I mean what I was trying to convey was that I think the average voter. Before ebh was built. Just knew it was going to be built in lower Broadway. So now they obviously know specifically where it is. It's quite a landmark. If you put their back to the building now and said, do you have any problem with the expansion? I think what you've heard. Miss Devaney say, and certainly from my observations of the meetings I've attended is. All I have heard from residents and public officials is wanting to make sure. That the mayor is going to make sure the city benefits from the expansion. Not any issue with the expansion itself. And certainly not. Oh, we'd be okay with an expansion of the non-gaming portions of the resort. But we don't want. Somehow it's going to impact the city differently. If people walk across the pedestrian bridge over Broadway. And. And that's what I think is really important. Is to engage in gaming. Across the street. I haven't heard anything along those lines. And it sort of wouldn't make much sense. From the logical standpoint. If you're considering the quote unquote objectively reasonable or. Average voter. Thank you, Mr. Silverstein. Mr. Starr appreciated. The. Back in my prior life. I used to. I used to do deep searches as a property attorney. I used to do a lot of. Everything that was put together in that letter. Footnote one. And this really is just a followup on, on the question I just asked Mr. Silverstein. On a packet from my fellow commissioners packet page 13. When, quote, I'm reading now. Quote when directly or through an affiliate. Comma has or will acquire land. And options to acquire land. In the city. In and around. The second sentence also points out that. Some of the land that crossed Broadway. I'm assuming not all of it. Was. Was also included. In the proposed revision. The area depicted in exhibit a. The project site. That's from the HCA. Recital. And then the second sentence also points out. That. Some of the land across Broadway, I'm assuming not all of it. So, really as a follow up to my last question, you know, did the average voter believe that in and around the area would have included that side of Broadway? In your opinion? Sure. And in the reason I say that has nothing to do with attending any of the meetings, because I didn't. I go with the approach that the appellate courts have asked us to take, which is you have to make an assumption that a reasonable voter would have looked into the other information that was available to them. And from what we've heard today from Attorney Silverstein and other other, well, principally from Attorney Silverstein, there were a series of meetings that took place where expansion of the gaming establishment was plainly discussed. And the host community agreement, as I pointed out since our first meeting, I think in a number of places clearly puts the voter on notice that expansion of the resort of the gaming resort, the casino operations was anticipated. And I think for me, the voter who did not want to approve the potential for expansion votes against the ballot initiative on June 22nd and pushes it back for renegotiation with a more constricted gaming establishment, that's the negative vote that would have forced the conversation to go back to the mayor to renegotiate with when a host community agreement that didn't flag and tell the voter wins buying up a lot of other land here. We're already putting in place mechanisms for if they expand beyond the property, you would have removed that if you were a negative vote, if you were opposed to the expansion, you would have voted negative. You would have forced the conversation to come up with a different host community agreement. To answer Todd, Attorney Grossman said the ultimate question. When he posed the ultimate question for me, you can't answer it according to the courts by looking at the ballot alone. You must look at the other information that the voters had in front of them, which included the host community agreement, which I believe a reasonable voter would have understood was authorizing indeed endorsing the future expansion of the resort as we're seeing today. Does that answer your question? Thank you. I guess my last question, Madam Chair, if you'll humor me. Ms. Devaney, you talked about in response to the chair's question about the election, if there were to be a new election. I believe we received some information from the clerks, but the process, a couple of questions. Question A, what was the vote last time, and anybody can answer that has it, the percentage of the vote, and question B, what kind of disruption would this be to the clerks? I think I've worked a lot with the local clerks in my former life and often heard about not just the cost, which I understand will be shifted, but the actual work involved in doing a special election such as this. I can say that I never met a clerk's office that wasn't willing to do it, but oftentimes had very strong opinions about the necessity of it, if it didn't have to be done. So I'm just kicking that question to you. I apologize, I don't have the percentage of voters who came out back in 2013. We can obviously get that information for you. My experience with the clerk's office and the elections department here in Everett is the same as yours, commissioner. They'll do anything that we ask them to do. What I would say to Everett is a very diverse community, and so we take very seriously our obligation to make sure information is available in multiple languages. We're now, because of our census population, any information about votes we have to make available in both English and Spanish. So to be representative of our community, we have additional work that we would have to take on an additional cost to be able to make sure we're giving our residents the type of information and notice that they would have. So it's not a question of will they do it, absolutely they would, but for us to do it effectively and feel that information has been shared with our residents, it would not be a small lift, and it's not one that they've contemplated doing up until this point, so then they would have to start and figure out how to manage this in addition to the work that they would expect to do in a normal election cycle this year. Thank you, Joe. Commissioner Mayer, I just looked up the referendum question according to the Everett independent, it was approved by greater than 86% of the population, of the voters. Thank you. And I think there were about 4,500 people, it was held on a Saturday and 4,500 people came out to vote. And 86% of them? 86.5 voted in favor. Actually it says here 5,320 said yes, with 833 against. Thank you. Other questions before we take a break? Commissioner, I think this is the, we've had such great information in Bade. I'm sure you feel like we could all take a minute to reflect and think about this and do we want to have our lunch break now at 1226 and we convene, I see Commissioner Bryan, yes. Yep. Commissioner Bryan, you all said, any further questions you want, because we hadn't turned back to your initial question, so any clarifier that can be offered right now? I don't think so, maybe when I come back, but I don't think so. Okay. Everybody else, I'll set to take a break. Then we convene at one. Does that sound okay? All right. We just have a few more minutes. Can we do like 105 because I have to run out to get lunch? That's right, why don't we do 110? Commissioner, no running. You can walk and contemplate. So 110 and again, thank you everyone for your time and wisdom. We'll put up a screen saver. Thank you everyone. Okay, Dave? Also? Thanks, Dave. Well, I think that looking, I'm sure I have all the commissioners. There we go. Madam Chair, that one matter, we were looking for those two emails on. Those just came through. Do you want to pause for a moment so you could take your time? I will need to pause everyone. We just have a very time-sensitive communication I got to take care of. So if everyone could just give me five minutes, that would be great. My apologies. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. The timing of that wasn't perfect. My apologies. Commissioners, thank you. I think I see Commissioner Hills there. So this is a reconvening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. And are we all set, Dave? Yep, we are. Good to go. Okay, so it's a reconvening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and because we're holding this meeting virtually, although that's our next door to each other, we do need to take a roll call. Michelle Bryan. I am here. Michelle Hill. I'm here. Michelle Skinner. I'm here. Michelle. Maynard, there you are. You just shifted on me. Thank you. I'm here. Okay, I need to start pinning more intentionally. And we are reconvening public meeting number 483 after a really full sum discussion on the first item on our agenda regarding the Encore Boston Harbor East of Boston Development. So just to reframe, I'll turn to Chief Delaney. Well, I guess we've taken all of the testimony that we were expecting to take today. So I think we can move to any further discussion that the commission would like to have on the matter. Michelle Bryan, did you have any questions? I did. I have one question still, which is the, and I don't know whether Council Silverstein or Starr or Ms. Devaney can answer, but I'm curious as to why the phrase Lower Broadway District Master Plan Area was not included in the referendum description. If anybody can speak to whether that was discussed and or decided to not be included, that would be helpful to me. I can, I guess, address that by saying it wasn't discussed as a way to identify the property.  The Lower Broadway Master Plan, though the city had put a lot of work into it and a lot of public outreach. I don't know that every voter would necessarily know what that encompassed any differently from discussing Lower Broadway in general. And again, I think the presumption was that since every voter received a copy of the host community agreement, it was published, it was posted on the website. There was so much outreach and it specifically talked about expansion that it didn't necessarily need to reference the entire Lower Broadway Master Plan area, which again, is much larger than what we're talking about in that and what was ever really contemplated in terms of potential expansion. So that's the best I can say in terms of why that particular phrase wasn't used. I don't recall that ever being suggested as the way to refer to the project site. If I could make one other point that occurred to me during the break, the question was posed as to what potential impact and what the issues would be with having another ballot vote. And we talked about sort of the disruptive nature of having an unnecessary election in the community and the impacts to town staff and city staff, et cetera. It also occurred to me that there really isn't provision for it in the law. The statute, Section 15, prescribes the exact language that's to be used for a ballot question. And that question is whether shall the city of Everett permit the operation of a gaming establishment licensed by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to be located at? And it says description of site. So that's really the only language we could use. And I have a concern that that would be extremely confusing to voters who already voted to authorize a gaming establishment and might be led to believe that they're authorizing the operation of a second gaming establishment. And there simply isn't any provision for alternative ballot question language in the statute. So I just thought I would throw that out there for the commission's consideration as well. Other questions, commissioners? Thank you for that. Sports wagering is still pretty easy, huh, commissioners? So, really interesting discussion and we've been the beneficiaries up now, really a couple of meetings on this topic. And then of course the earlier discussions with when the first proposal came to us. I guess what I'm saying is perhaps thinking, perhaps you're asking this, when did you first come to us about the development proposal? I believe it was about a year ago. Yeah. And then after it was what's wagering, I think you mentioned that that it shifted to exclude. And we were getting a lot of demands on poker at the same time, if I remember correctly. So we've been thinking about this topic for a while. And what I just want to confirm, what I haven't heard is any real outpouring against this from the residents of Everett, this project. Is that fair? I think we've just to confirm that. Mr. Hill, I know that you've asked that. It's on our minds. Well, but to be clear, we haven't also conducted any public hearing specifically on this question. So yeah, but I'm wondering for again, turning to the city and back you because there have been so many public hearings. We certainly have had our public meetings at length. So we have in front of us the agenda, it was there's not a, we have not marked it for vote, but that's really done as a practice. It's not required for us to put vote on the agenda. I think it was perhaps because you've done you thought we might want to chew on this for a bit. And, but I think our council anticipated that we might in fact want to go proceed with a vote today. So the discussion was framed in that way for us. Commissioners, I'd like to get, take your temperature to all back on a familiar phrase. How are we feeling? And I see you're cheap. Dylan, are you leaning in? No, I just must have made a noise in the background. Commissioners, thoughts? So the only thing I have to say, and I hate to, you know, be the person that throws a wrench in this, but the last comment made by attorney Silverstein in terms of if the finding were to be, you need to do another referendum to further define the boundaries. Can you comment at all, Todd, on the issue that was raised by attorney Silverstein in terms of the language that would be required under 23K? Sure. Well, it seems to me that chapter 23K section 15 does not really apply to this situation. That section applied to the initial application. You could, using your, let's say, plenary authority to oversee casino gaming, require a vote of sorts. And I think you would have discretion to craft the language in any form you wanted. It wouldn't, I don't think, have to be tied to this specific language. I take Mr. Silverstein's point that we certainly don't want to confuse the electorate out there. So you may want to craft language that's entirely different from this and just be very precise as to what question would be asked. And further, I think you could make it binding or non-binding. It may just be that you want to get a flavor of how the voters feel about this issue. So I think you have more discretion than just looking at this paragraph because a case could certainly be made that this doesn't really apply anymore. It puts me right back where I am. Then what was the purpose of doing that? Is there supposed to be an outer boundary or not? So that's what I'm still struggling with, Madam Chair. Well, I'm having a little trouble following that advice. If the commission were to vote today and to not green light, to say we think another referendum is necessary, are you saying a lot doesn't actually require that in this case? Well, I think the commission has broad discretion to interpret these statutes however you wish. So you could find that Section 15 still applies and that another vote is required. You would have to be able to do that in light of the introductory language that talks about an applicant being eligible to submit an application for a gaming license and then goes through all these criteria. That's not the situation we find ourselves in here. You would have to frame it as some type of redo or retake of that vote, I suppose, in some way. But on its face, this statute doesn't apply to the present situation, other than to give you context as to what happened in the past. But if you were to do it again, you could use this language. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm saying you could craft whatever language you want. You have authority to do that. Commissioner Hill, what are you thinking? So, Madam Chair, I will share with you my thoughts on this whole issue. Thank you. I, my view at this point, after hearing all the testimony and hearing the thoughts from my fellow commissioners, who I always respect and love hearing from, I think I may be in a different view than they are. As a former... I don't think you should make any conclusions right now, Commissioner Hill, about any of our positions. That's the one thing I'm going to say. Okay. No, understood. Okay, great. Go right ahead. So, as a former local official, I'm looking at it through that lens, and I'm also looking at it from this lens. My view at this point is that the citizens of Everett knew exactly what they were voting on and that there was a very good chance that there would be a possible expansion at some point from the casino in this area, not just on the property that it now sits. When I think about my little town, we often use not addresses, but we have names for locations that everybody in town knows about. So, for example, in Ipswich, I live in what's known as the Caponelli's development, which was built like in the 60s. Everybody knows where the Caponelli development in Ipswich is. So, all they say is, I live at the Caponelli's. Everybody knows exactly where I live. We have this beautiful peninsula outside of Ipswich called Great Neck and Little Neck. And we always say, hey, I'll meet you out at the Neck. Everybody knows exactly where I'm talking about. In Wenham, we have this little intersection called Four Corners. Whenever there's an accident at Four Corners, we say, oh, there was an accident at Four Corners last night. We know exactly where that accident took place. In Hamilton, we have a place called the Asbury Grove. Everybody calls it the Grove. Everybody knows where the Grove is in Hamilton. And in Gloucester, they have a beautiful area that overlooks the ocean that all they say is the back shore. And everybody knows where the back shore is in the city of Gloucester. So I have no problem thinking that the citizens of Everett knew exactly where this area was going to be when they voted on it and the language that they had in the ballot, that there would be some expansion in that area. And then when I heard testimony about the impact fee on expansion, clearly the city and Encore, and through them, the citizens of Everett, because they all got to see the HCA before they voted, before they voted, they expected that there would be some type of expansion in that area, not specific to the location that they are currently in.  I would think most people, not all, but most people would think, well, there's an expansion at a gaming facility, there's probably going to be expansion of gaming as well. I think that's what they think. I'm almost sure they do. My father had a little clothing store in Ipswich. When he expanded his clothing operation, there's nobody in Ipswich that thought it was going to be anything other than clothing in that expansion. So I think most people in Everett who voted, I think they truly understood what they were voting for. And the fact that 86% of the people voted for it, which is huge, huge. I wish I had those numbers back there. I would have been happy with those votes. And the amount of people that came in, we talked about it briefly. I think Commissioner Maynard asked the question about how many turned out 43% of the people showed up on a Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon, I shouldn't say exactly what I want to vote on this issue. That's a huge amount of people for a city the size of Everett. So my two thoughts, Madam Chair. One, I don't think we need to ask the city to go back and have another vote. I really don't. I truly believe through the process for public hearings that are going to be taking place, that took place with the planning board, MEPA, there's going to be plenty of opportunity for people to get up and say they're against this. And I think I asked the question, I didn't hear a lot of negativity from the hearings that have already taken place local. In fact, I heard nothing but optimistic and positive comments made that they want to see. And I actually did a little bit of digging and I hope you folks will just bear with me for one moment. There was a few articles that were written after the vote. And again, just please bear with me. This was a, we were asking, well, I wonder what the people of Everett are thinking and why did they vote the way they voted? Well, in one particular instance, the one of the constituents says, it's a wasteland down there. There hasn't been any development, said this person. Speaking of the former Monsanto chemical site where Wynn has proposed placing this project, maybe we can get beyond the image of being an industrial city and become more of a happening place. So we got from the mouth of one of the citizens at least and there was a few more positive and negative remarks, but getting back to where they think the location was supposed to be and what they were talking about and what they voted on, I think he pretty much put it out there for us that it was that area, not a specific place that they were voting on. So one, I do not believe we need to ask for another a valid question. I think it's pretty clear what the people voted for. And I think I heard a cost of 150,000 and that was on the downside because we didn't include the workers who are salaried. So that amount would go up even more. And of course we heard testimony about it could be confusing to other people. And I, if we want to get into the specifics of whether we want to have gaming across the street or not, Madam Chair, I don't know if this is the time for that discussion. But there have been some issues that this commission has brought up that I think this development would alleviate. Should we allow it? And by connecting that bridge, and that's been the key for me through this entire discussion a year ago, even when you and I, Madam Chair, went and looked at where the bridge would be, that's been the issue for me. And I believe by connecting it with some conditions. And we can talk about that. I would be okay moving forward with the development that's been proposed more importantly also not needing another vote. I think the city of Everett has been very clear what they want to see now. Sorry for the long witness. Excellent. That's where I stand today. Very helpful. And I think on the latter point, Joe, that would be marked up, that discussion would be marked up for another day as to the actual proposal should we determine that the local authorization issues resolve today? Exactly. We would, we still need to consider the entire project. Today, what we do today does not in any way approve that project. And Brad, if I, if I'm hearing you correctly, what you're saying is that you believe that the commission could allow gaming over there if you chose to without an additional referendum. That's an accurate statement. Is that okay? Right. Yeah. So very helpful. Commissioner Maynard, I saw you nodding your head. So I'm going to turn to you next. That's, did I put yours on? You know, no, that's fine. I, I think Commissioner Hill really captured the way I feel too. And, you know, I try to make decisions in the best way that I can, right? With the understanding that I can. And like Commissioner Hill, you know, I've been a part of a few elections in my life and including referendums and seeing them. And I think that the average voter when they walked that day to vote on that Saturday probably did contemplate an expansion, given the letter we got from Mr. Starr and that they probably did think of that parcel as being part of the, the colloquial Monsanto site. So I, I tend to agree with Commissioner Hill and I think that that's, that's the way I'm going to vote if there's one call. Turn to either Commissioner O'Brien, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Skinner. I'm grateful not having gone directly after Commissioner Hill. I am not going to be as colorful as he was. Very entertaining for sure. But I also agree with Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Maynard. I said back in November that my decision would hinge on what I was able to deduce as voter intent. And I heard Attorney Starr today when he talked about not looking at the ballot in a vacuum, and I think he's right. And I heard Council Grossman's suggestion of a broader read of section 15, subsection 13, as more general to the gaming license itself as the purpose of the referendum under 23K. And I think he's right. And so based on the totality of the documentation and information presented at both the November 16th meeting and today's meeting, I think it's reasonable to conclude that ever voters casted their votes with sufficient information, including their own understanding of the lower Broadway District and the Monsanto site about what when in the city contemplated on behalf of the community under the terms of the HCA. That is that the gaming establishment may be expanded at some point in the future beyond the specific site on which the Encore property is currently located under Encore's existing license. So I'm satisfied with what has been presented by both Encore and the city, which by the way, through Mayor de Maria in his November 15th letter, enthusiastically supports the project, that the expansion site is sufficiently tied to the existing gaming site, that 86% of the people of Everett, excuse me, voted in favor of. So for me, there is definitely a level of practicality and reasonableness to interpreting all of this. And the counter arguments, I just don't think outweigh that. So I am also of the mind that Encore may be allowed to expand to the East of Broadway site without requiring an additional referendum. Very good. Commissioner O'Brien. So I know with more certainty that I am the one who is not in line with my other commissioners. I believe the statute inherently gives us the right to redraw the boundaries of the gaming establishment. I think that was absolutely contemplated. I think it's contemplated also in the HCA and in the ballot referendum. What I am not convinced of, however, is where the boundaries lie. And nothing that I have seen has given me the level of confidence that I need. That what is being presented actually falls within what was presented in that ballot. I pointedly asked the question in November whether the properties across the street would have been colloquially understood to be included in the Monsanto chemical site. And the answer was no. That was on the other side of the street. That the description mandated by the statute references Horizon Way, off lower Broadway the street. There is no reference to the district. If there was a reference to that lower Broadway district master plan, I would be in a completely different frame of mind. Because when I view 23K, and I forget who brought this up, this is not the cannabis statute. The municipality does not vote to authorize the entirety of the municipality to then decide where to put these establishments. It was site-specific. Plainville takes the same view in their submission. Not that that is any dispositive weight on this, but it was something that was informative to me. If evidence had been put before me that established for me that that was in fact part of the description that was in that back when this vote was taken, I would have absolutely no issue. I'm not opining on the appropriateness of the proposed expansion, what it would do. I think the plans for revitalization are fantastic for that area. What I am not satisfied with is any request that we say you can expand, but I still can't tell you where the end of the expansion can go. I am not comfortable with the, I know it when I see it response. And so for that reason, I do not feel that I've been given enough information to say that this is in fact included in the referendum. But more importantly, I still don't know where the outer boundaries of this are. And I don't think that what we're doing today is the end of the discussion, because I feel like this is going to continue to happen. So for me, the fact that that question can't be answered other than restricting to the Mancanto site, as the D transfers happen, and as outlined in the application to me, unless and until someone can give me the outer boundaries in the other discussion, I'm just not satisfied. Attorney Starr, do you want to respond to Commissioner O'Brien's concern without more definition? I know that it was Attorney Silverstein who did say, no, when you see it, how do we respond to that? Sure, when we when we look at the HCA preamble, there's some language there. I don't know if that helps. That I think is the best evidence you would have in terms of what information was in front of the voter, the recital that says in and around the project site. So I think that those terms in and around the project site are capable of reasonable understanding across the street is in and around the project site. As we've mentioned before, the description of the project site, the very, very rudimentary map that was attached does show a little bit of what's across the street. As I pointed out, it didn't it didn't mark the boundaries, but it does show the street. So Commissioner O'Brien, I hear you completely. I understand exactly what you're saying, and I have great respect for the questions you raised on November 16. I think I wrote down your four questions. I said it came from the commission, but they came from you. I did my best to answer them. I'm with the record as we could find it in and around the project site. Madam Chair is about the best I could offer. The commissioner, the ballot does say at one point, I know you mentioned in the top, it doesn't say lower Broadway master plan, but down in down on the face page of the ballot, not agreed, not up in the first sentence, but one of the bullet points down below where it's win commitment to Everett. It does make reference to the city's lower Broadway master plan. So the terms were there, and I agree with you, Commission