Okay. And we're good to go. Good morning, everyone. Chair Judd Stein has a personal commitment this morning and we'll be joining us shortly. And in the meantime, she's asked Commissioner O'Brien to leave the meeting. So Commissioner O'Brien. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Today is Thursday, May 4th, 2023. This is public meeting number 450. And because we are doing this meeting virtually, we have to take a roll call. So I believe everyone is present, but Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. And Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. Okay. So I think the first item up Commissioner Hill is the meeting minutes. Correct. That is correct. Madam chair. And at this point has been my practice with your permission. I will wait till the end of the meeting for the minutes of the meeting. I'm going to take a roll call today. As I know, we'll have another member joining us. And just in case there was any questions, she may or may not have. With your permission, we'll wait till the end. That's okay. Sure. I will do just an administrative on my end. This was a meeting where I had a conflict in the morning and I joined late. It's noted in the minutes. But in the first page for the roll call, it looks like I answered here when I was not. So I think we just need to either note that I joined later or take that. Okay. Julie noted. Okay. Moving on to item number three. Administrative update director Wells. I think we'll introduce Dr. like them. That's correct. So good morning, everyone. Alex, I believe is on and that's saying. Yes, I'm on. There you go. You're on the side there. So I'm going to turn it over to give an update about Derby day. So all of our tracks are gearing up for Derby day. So I'm going to turn it over to the staff. I'm going to turn it over to the staff. They have increased security as well. Plain Ridge will be opening their outdoor patio for the first time this season. And they're going to have a live band. Suffolk is going to be using both, both floors of their facility. And Rainham is opening early to let people get in earlier. And all of them are taking different reservations for the different places and all. So it's going to be interesting to see what the. Handled for fan dual looks like on this year's Derby compared to last year's Derby with the addition of sports. Wait during, and their connection. To it that the commission approved a few meetings ago. So we'll. Keep you updated on that. The derby itself looks like. It'll be a great race. They allow 20 horses to race in it. It goes off right before seven o'clock. On a sad note, there have been a couple of injuries and deaths there over the last week that is very concerning to everybody in racing. They do do a full necropsy on the horses as we do as well in Massachusetts. Any horse that dies and they'll be totally, you know, they'll be able to do a full necropsy on the horses. They'll be able to do a full necropsy on the horses. Investigations on it. For the Derby horses, these horses are coming from around the country. And so the veterinarians in Kentucky will have. Talk to the veterinarians in the states where these horses are coming from. To make sure they know any works or anything about them. They'll be able to do a full necropsy on the horses. They'll be able to do a full necropsy on the horses. Veterinary examinations in the week leading up to it. So everybody's doing everything that they can. And there's a lot of protocols in place. So keeping our fingers crossed that we'll have a great day of racing that day with no incidences. Thanks so much, Alex. So that's all I have for this morning. Okay. I don't know if anyone had any questions for Dr. Daly. I don't know if I have any questions for Dr. Daly. So next item up would be item four on the agenda, the research and responsible gaming director, Vanderland and with a public safety report. Thank you, commissioner of Ryan and good morning commissioners. Before I begin, I actually just wanted to. Yeah. Yesterday, there was an announcement that the international gambling counselor certification board has been partnering with us to develop materials for their network of internationally certified gambling counselors, clinicians and helping professionals to use the research that's been generated out of Massachusetts. Specifically, it has developed a bit working to develop specifically tailored materials for this group. And it's just me is just such an excellent example of how we're prioritizing knowledge mobilization, getting this material, getting this important research and specifically the community driven research information out to a very wide network of individuals, individuals that can use this in their practice every day. You typically hear how there's a significant leg between when research is created. And at the point of time when it's actually you see it in practice or in policy, and we're trying to reduce that to the extent that it can. Just definitely out there. We also have a very exciting project that we're going to be sharing with you today. We have Noah Fritz, who is the principal investigator and lead with justice research associates. So today he will be sharing with you a public safety research report assessing the influence of gambling on public safety in Massachusetts cities and towns during the COVID-19 pandemic and in following up until just the end of last year. And it's specifically focusing on this report, focusing on the communities surrounding on core Boston Harbor. As I always do and for the record, it's section or chapter 23 K section 71 requires the Gaming Commission to carry out an annual research agenda. Within that section 71 is a specific piece where it calls the gaming commissions to assess the relationship between casinos and crime. For the past several years, we've been doing this in Plainville and surrounding communities and Springfield and surrounding communities as well as in Everett and the surrounding communities. So this is an ongoing commitment that we've had. This is the latest report specifically focusing on Everett and the surrounding communities. What Mr. Fritz will be sharing with you today is an analysis of changes in activities in the communities surrounding on core Boston Harbor over five distinct time frames during and since COVID-19, during and since the COVID-19 related closure. Findings include that overall, the area surrounding on core Boston Harbor did not experience significant increases in crime when compared to other areas within the region. The details of these findings though matter and that's why I will now turn it over to Noah. So I see that Noah has joined us. Noah, thank you so much for joining us and sharing these findings and your work with the commission. Good morning. Can everybody hear me okay? It's an honor to be here. Thanks, Mark. I really appreciate that introduction. I don't know if I can take over the screen. Want me to go through a PowerPoint or just present, but I'm prepared to kind of walk through the, the PDF that I sent that we sent out. So yeah, I think that that's an excellent slide deck. And so I would encourage you to, to use that as visual spread commission. I think I have to be allowed to share my screen, whatever the. Post is for the zoom meeting or the virtual meeting here. You know, for me to share, I have to have permission. David. Is that you? Yep. Let me see if I'm able to help on. Sorry. No, that's okay. I just think it's a button. You have to push and say, let everybody, all participants can share. Down at the bottom of the screen. I don't know if you can see the share button. It just doesn't let me share my PowerPoint. He's unable. Maybe Mark, you could share it and work with them. Cause I'm seeing in our settings here that we have who can share. It's selected that all participants can. So I'm not understanding why there would be an issue on that. Cause we don't have something. The only issue would be if somebody else was already sharing a screen, but that doesn't look to be the case. Do you want to go ahead and.  All right. The. My name's Noel Fritz. I'm a, been an active researcher, a manager of crime analysis. Christopher Bruce is one of our partners still. With our firm, a consulting research firm called justice research associates. He sends his regards. He still continues to help us gather the data. And I wanted to say hello for him. My other colleague is, is Steve Hick, who is a GIS geographic information systems guru. We've worked together for many years and a DOJ. A technical assistance program and with the couple of a, the Maca, which is the Massachusetts association of crime analysts and the international association. Chris Bruce and I worked together for over 15 years as executive board members, both presidents, vice presidents and past presidents together. We have affiliations with Arizona state university, university of Denver and George Mason university. And so it was really a, we're very excited about. Being able to get involved in this project and pick up where Chris Bruce left off in his previous reports. The purpose of this particular report was an eye toward the future. And we wanted to conduct analysis that took a look at the increases and decreases in criminal activity. Kind of over time, particularly those five periods. Before the casino opened the first time during the first opening during COVID closure, the restricted opening, and then since it's reopened again. And so that's kind of the lion's share of what we looked at temporally and spatially or geographically. And then it provided us an opportunity as researchers to explore methods, get familiar with the data. And it's a 90 plus page report. So it's pretty extensive, lots of graphs and lots of charts, probably more in there than we needed, but we wanted to include it as we looked at it. And then what we really want to do is build a partnership with the local law enforcement agencies to provide support to them, work closely with them, because of their perspective on micro analysis, both in and around the casino and how the casino might be affecting them, they're closest to the ground. And we thought that was important. So one of the things that we've been told is the development. There we go. I'm on the second, third slide, maybe. Okay. Oh, too far. Maybe the second side, the one with the ortho photography, the overhead view of the casino. One more. We can get to it. So we understand there's going to be a lot of development supposedly around the encore. And I think that's going to be something to look at. There's a number of initiatives. We've been told economic development.  So just wanted to kind of share that next slide. Okay. So our first report is really to set up benchmark, both the historical context and the temporal seasonality. Over time. And what we call hotspot policing. And we're using the crime triangle or routine activity theory, which basically suggests it's when victims and offenders and opportunities come together in space and time, and we're moving toward a model called risk terrain, modeling and crime pattern theory to basically help the local agencies think about, come up with strategies for crime prevention strategies and enforcement strategies to address repeat offenders or prolific offenders and really target the hotspots that seem to be most problematic. And there's a really good book on reducing crime that we have shared and we'll continue to share by Jerry Radcliffe. And he's a leader in the field for really helping area commanders and crime analysis develop those strategies. So next slide. And it's tied to a theory called crime pattern theory. Also routine activity theory. And basically it monitors. We're all routine. Beings or individuals. We all have patterns that we, we go about our day to day business. The three most common ones are where you work, play or live. And offenders are no different. And when our patterns overlay with their patterns, or we get a place like the casino, which is, we overlap with recreation. You see more opportunities for certain types of crime. We share what's called activity space. And in the pathways that get to crime, or also places that offenders can target potential victims, their vehicles, where they park, if they're walking, if they're on public transportation, things like that. And that becomes what's called a hunting ground. If you think about predatory animals, it's really where it was all borrowed from. Was animal movement extension, where they tracked where lions and tigers, you know, hunted their prey in Africa and other places. So geographers come to develop some software for that. And that's some of the stuff we're trying to take a look at is, how does that play out? So next slide. Our methods was simply to collect the data. Chris has done an outstanding job, not only this year, but in previous years. We have over 10 years worth of data, which is very unique for conducting research. The agencies have been very collaborative. We've collected, crime report data, call for service or, or, or like 911, computer rated dispatch data. And then we've got collision and OUI data for collisions and, and drunk driving that and the like. And it provides the opportunity then to the micro level, to be able to geocode that data and, and identify hotspots and what we call hexagon clusters, which the report takes a look at. And then obviously, we're going to be able to do that. Yeah. We're also, we're going to be able to basically look at some, some of the, some of the hotspots and what we call hexagon clusters, which the report takes a look at. And then obviously temporal analysis, we're using an application, but you don't have to use that one. There's other ones out there. Um, that are that are business. Intelligence software called called Tableau, that takes, let's look at data over seven, 14, 28 days. We selected seven days because of the tight window that the and kind of monitored that over that entire period before the casino opened. And you can see those dates there, but that was kind of our methodology, looking at mostly crime data, we'll incorporate call for service data in the future. Next slide. So we just wanna kind of paint this real quick, 10,000 foot view of crime. Clearly crime has been going down in the region, in the United States since 2013. There's been a 44% reduction in overall crime. It has flattened out in about 2017, 18, 19, obviously during COVID, things slowed down. And we have seen this kind of an uptick in 2022, about a 13% increase. These are those five cities, Chelsea, Everett, Lynn, Maldon, Melrose, and Saugus that we're looking at here, not the whole state of Massachusetts, but it's still a 36% reduction in crime since 2013. So to put that into a bit larger historical context, crime was already going down, and then to monitor the effects of a casino would be close to the casino, certain types of crimes. But we wanted to put that into a larger context. Go ahead, next slide. So we wanna take a closer look. We worked with Mark and his team to kind of decide what to focus on. And COVID-19 drill down was one of the key themes. So we looked at that over time. We did a micro analysis at a spatial level, literally at the city level. And then we created these hexagons, which I'll show one example later. It is a complex phenomenon, it's multifaceted. There's lots of things that affect crime. And unfortunately, it wasn't just the casino that closed during COVID, which would have been a great field test, if you will, but everything closed, bars closed, schools closed. So we really couldn't control for just the casino being closed to measure the effects of that. So George Floyd was in the middle of that. So it's very difficult from a causal standpoint to say this X caused Y, if you will, but we hope to develop some prototypes to take a closer look at some of that and provide greater scrutiny and assistance towards the public safety effort. Next slide. So this was the kind of the overall look. You can see pre-casino opening up, it's kind of was lower. When the 36 weeks that it was open before COVID closure, it started to climb, it jumped pretty high and then kind of flattened out. And then toward the end of that, it actually started dropping before the closure, which would suggest that the casino opening or closing wasn't the primary effect of criminal activity, if you will, or the quantity of events. And then while it closed, it started to climb again before it reopened. And that was a sign for us that basically said there's something else going on. I'd love to, we really thought we'd be able to take a closer look at some of that, but it did not go down and stay down. And so something that doesn't exist, the casino not opening can't be the thing that causes crime to rise. And then you saw it kind of peaked up during what we call the restrictive opening period. But about in the middle of that or early in that period, it started to drop again and then kind of flattened out over time. And then when it reopened, it climbed back up, but not quite as high on average. But since then it's flattened out of around the same as the pre-opening. Next slide. A little bit more detail here in terms of what those averages, those seven week averages look like in the five cities combined. The overall average was about 180 criminal events. Those are major part one type crimes, murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, auto crimes, larceny. So we focused on what would be considered street crime. And before the casino opened, it was about 173. The first opening, the average got up to 196. It did drop down to 153, but you see that climb again. And then during the restricted opening, it climbed back to 178. And now that it's reopened, we're at about 184. So it's just kind of this ebb and flow, but you can see it goes up as high as 252, 248, and as low as 112 during the closure. So it's really descriptive information for the agencies to start to put this into some kind of context, seasonality. And if we implement any strategies, we can compare that now to different averages or periods of time. Next slide. So then we look specifically at auto crime because that was one that significantly increased when it reopened. Everything else kind of followed that same pattern, but that's a national trend. And I wish I had a better explanation, but cars are being targeted theft from cars, that is items inside the car and what are called auto parts, like catalytic converters, airbags and rims and tires are being highly targeted all along the I-95 corridor and I-90 corridor up these coasts, but in California everywhere. We know that at least the catalytic converters are tied to precious metals that are being either exported. They don't ship the catalytic converter, they break the converter down and actually ship the precious metals. They are used in electronics. So there could be a tie to electric cars, the manufacturing, but they're not being bought and sold back on a underground market or back at used auto stores to make money. That way, like as pawn shop or rebind, we know that. So just an interesting phenomenon we thought the local communities agreed when we met with them, that this is something that is impacting them quite a bit and that we would be a target to take a look at. Obviously when the casinos open, there are parking lots or employee parking lots. They park on the streets and take some of the vans or transportation to get there and leaves their cars vulnerable. So strategies for that would be to increase patrols, maybe have better monitored parking structures, things like that. Next slide. I'm gonna get into this detail and I'll overwhelm you with numbers, but you can see Everett at the city that actually hosts the casino has not had a big impact when it first opened up and went from 17, almost 18 to 22, but with the reopening it's at 18, which is about the same number. So really in and around the casino, there was not a major effect. The driving force, at least in the region, is the city of Lynn who has its own issues and crime factors, some of that's poverty, some of that stuff that probably is the city furthest away from the casino, that is we would suggest without evidence that it's not the casino driving that criminal activity in and around Lynn. And we just wanted to point that out. You can see in the second table there that the percent increase in Lynn went up 35% where others either were going down or staying flat since the reopening compared to when it before it opened. So we just wanted to share that. We kind of did this deductive approach where we looked at the entire region, moved down to the city and then we got into these, what were called hotspots or hexagon clusters. Next slide. And then we ranked the crimes to give them an idea from a collaborative standpoint, they all had very similar criminal issues or criminal problems that if they work together to collaborate on any number of these top 10 crimes, they could do coalitions or task forces to focus on specific crimes because they all share the similarities in the type of crime that they're all being impacted the most by. And I won't go into detail on that, but that was to share with the local police departments and the chiefs and the crime analysis unit to begin to think about those strategies, possibly use mitigation funds to target some of these particularly auto crimes is one of them that we identified, but vandalism, graffiti, breaking into cars, things like that. And then theft from vehicle, those kinds of auto crimes. So next slide. We also see this as an opportunity to probably narrow our focus on specific crimes. And we've started some conversations both with the local communities and police departments about what are those crimes that actually might be closer, more closely related to the casino. So the auto crimes was clearly one, theft from auto robberies, what we would call street jump robberies where someone walking, like it's particularly Springfield will be a better example where they're coming from the train station or a hotel and walking to the casino, are they being targeted because of opportunities of proximity to where they're staying and where they're going to gamble? Maybe assaults related to domestic violence. Take a closer look at that if it has to do with some addictions or anger issues or domestic violence that's related to any individual who might be overspending or using too much funds, creating problems. I'll talk about door pushers and tub stealers in a second, but it's really about focusing on that journey to crime. One of the routes, the drunk driving is one Chris started to look at. We're going to take a deeper dive on that, but looking at shuttles and parking structures as well. And then Mark and I have talked about in the future and I think you're interested in maybe taking a closer look at human trafficking, a very robust and serious issue. And then what we talked about already, the vehicle tracking is a focus, kind of narrow our focus. Next slide. So there's a book called Mapping Murder. It reads pretty interesting, lays, he's out of Liverpool, but there's a chapter in there about Las Vegas. And there was a colleague of ours who looked at crime patterns in series. One of them was called door pushers. And what happens in casino hotels is they have a key, they're not patrons or they're not staying at the hotel, but they walk in like they are and they walk down the hall and lean up against every door, they bump it. And if it doesn't completely close, they use that opportunity to go in and steal items, steal computers, steal money if it's in their wallets, purses, things like that. So that's just an example of how there might be very specific opportunities by virtue of a casino being present or certain types of venues. The other one was Tub Steelers. And I stayed the last time I was up in the Boston area at Encore and they've solved that because all of their electronic gambling devices arc very close together, you can't reach through them and you don't use Tubs anymore. And that was what a Tub Stealer was. They'd make a distraction. One person would distract the person gambling and another person would reach through and steal the tub of coins, the actual money and then run off with it and get away with it. But it is an example how a very specific type of criminal activity is a result of gambling or casino activity. But what we wanna do going forward is to focus on conceptualizing very specific casino related offenses. So just to give you an idea of where we hope to go. Next slide. And we hope to jump and use a model called risk-terrain modeling which basically is risk and protective factors. And we're gonna break up the communities, the different cities, the larger area either into hexagons or you can see these triangles. And what you do is you actually go out and look at the other factors, socioeconomic factors that exist that might help us explain why one area is high or prone to crime and other areas are low and begin to share that information whether that's economic development or certain kinds of establishments, public bus stops. But if we can compare these locations, these hotspots we can gain knowledge about what's going on, what it's related to and then allow health and police departments to develop actual crime prevention and enforcement strategies to address very specific problems to reduce crime. We'll follow your lead on that. We'll follow the agency's lead on that. But this is actually something that was developed at a university by Dr. Kaplan. It was a colleague of ours. Next slide. So we created five hotspots or what we call cluster, hexagon clusters. You can kind of see on the map on the left, it's kind of small, but we did the casino and then three other clusters of hotspots. And we did a detailed drill down of what was happening in those areas. Again, around the casino was not the issue. Something called distance decay, which is most local crime happens. The further you have to travel, the less likely an offender is to commit crime. This is a, you commute to crime here because you go to the casino, but we didn't see that effect here. There are activities in, I can't quite see what's the lower city down there. Everett and then of course, Chelsea, close to the casino, but not in the heart of the casino. And then the hotspot in Lynn as well. What the RPRT concept is helping develop strategies to put police officers at the right place at the right time. So whether that's a time of day, day of week or in specific areas with a specific agenda or a specific strategy in mind to focus our target on preventing that type of crime or looking for specific offenders that might be committing those kinds of crimes. And it's tied to evidence-based policing. So right now these were the four areas that we identified. We'll come back and look at those in a year next year when we get the data updated and look for other developing hotspots as we go. Next slide. And we really hope to just build a collaborative partnership with the local agencies, the local crime analysis units. I have monthly or quarterly meetings with them, perhaps build some dashboards that allow us to monitor this more on a regular basis in kind of real time, if you will, provide training and technical assistance through the Massachusetts Association. I'm gonna be presenting this work and the software we used at MACA in the fall. And then we wanna be available for any of the analysts we've met with the Everett Police Department last time I was up there and begin to use. There's a publication where I'm an affiliate professor called Translational Criminology. It has nothing to do with language, it is language, but it's English language. It's taking complicated academic research and writing short articles that police chief police and different area commanders can consume and begin to use. So it's not so statistical or so academic written, but in a way that they can use it and apply it to the streets and in their operations. So I think that's it. Next slide, any questions? Thanks, Mark. Commissioner O'Brien, may I just say? Yeah, absolutely, I'll go last. If anybody else wants to jump in, Mark, after you, I'll wait. Sure, a couple of points that I just really wanted to make a presentation date early on. We have Chief Cronin from Malden joining us today, but we've also really focused on making this accessible and getting the feedback of other local chiefs and their crime analysts. And so our review process, as usual and typical, involved our research review committee, but an equal partner in this review process is making sure that we're sending this work out to the local agencies or the participating agencies to give them an opportunity to provide feedback. Was there anything that we were missing? Is there anything that seems like it's misrepresented? And so what's coming before the commission today included that sort of two-step review process. This final report or near final report was shared in a meeting that local chiefs were invited to a meeting a couple of weeks ago where Noah traveled up from Virginia, where his home is, in order to meet with those chiefs. So that's an important step that we've employed in this report, but we've also, in every report we've done. And so I just wanted to pass that along. So Commissioner O'Brien, I'll turn it back on. No, I don't know if Chief Cronin, if you wanted to add anything to the conversation before we move on to any commissioner questions, I'll take that as a no. Okay, sure. I was just gonna sort of add my own perspective. I was at that meeting in terms of when we put it out for comment before bringing it to the commission as a whole, but I wanna hear if anybody else has comments before I chime in again. Madam chair. Yep, Commissioner Hill. Dr. Fritz, thank you. This was a great report and a great presentation today. Anytime I can learn new terminology about something door pushing, which is something I had never heard about before. And now that's gonna stick in my mind for a little bit. Every time I go to a hotel room, now I'm gonna make sure that the door shuts very tightly behind me. But one, if we can go on your PowerPoint presentation, I think it was on page 19 that I saw on the presentation. What type of burglaries? I know you said car thefts and breaking into cars and things, but you had a separate subject matter on the term burglary. What are we talking about there? What type of burglaries are we talking about? Generally they're combined in both, they're not car burglaries, which would at least for the FBI, we use the standard codes for the FBI uniform crime report. Burglary would be either of a residence or a commercial burglary. So they're going into even a commercial burglary is not a theft when the business is closed. So at nighttime or on weekends, depending on the nature of that business, obviously residential burglaries is where people's homes are, apartments are, and people either entering or breaking in in that regard. If it's open, it's a convenience store, it would be more of a larceny theft category. And that's that other theft category, shoplifting falls into that category. But the burglaries are specific to dwellings of either a commercial or a non-commercial or a resident or non-resident, depending on different parts of the country kind of call it different things. That makes sense? Yeah. Can I answer your question? It does. And I have a couple more, Madam Chair. The robbery of street jumping, I saw that, but I don't think I saw a lot of data in the presentation. Can you just talk a little bit more about that for us? We didn't see it. And again, in Encore, it is surrounded by the refinery and a lot of non, I guess property that hasn't been developed. So, and there's not places where, and there's not like a train station in the Encore area where people are walking too. So when we looked at that, we did not see a great extent. We are now studying the Springfield region and we're anticipating that's a higher possibility, particularly in and around Springfield itself. And we do see some much tighter hot spots or tighter patterns in and around the casino there than we did here. But we wanna pay attention to that because we do think that is a specific type of a crime that patrons or people who are going to the casino, they've got covered parking, they've got security, they've got what are called guardians in and around the Encore casino. We did verbally after we talked to Everett, the lieutenant there talked about theft of employee lot. And maybe that needs to be improved for access or cameras. I think that was the only place they said they didn't have cameras. So that's kind of interesting that they're the protection. Now that's the casino's responsibility, but as a crime prevention technique, that might be something valuable because we did hear that verbally and that's something we could take a look at as well. How vulnerable are the folks that are leaving their car there all day on a, that's across the street the way I understand it, that particular parking lot where the patrons park underneath the casino and in a structure that seems to have some protective factors built into it. Thank you. And then my last issue, which I think is a huge issue for our commission and certainly individually for me is the human trafficking piece of this report. And again, I had hoped, I guess, I shouldn't say I had hoped because this is an ongoing report, but can you hit upon human trafficking a little bit more and data since it was open? I can hit on it. It's a very difficult crime to monitor because it's really a self-reported thing. The victims of human trafficking are less likely to come forward from a prostitution type standpoint. You can pick that up through the dark web or through things like Craig's list. And that's where most of the enforcement evolves around but it's not like someone picking up 911 and saying, hey, I'm a victim of human trafficking. They're intimidated. The victims, the women typically when we're talking about sex trafficking and stuff like that, it could be for other things in terms of labor, but it's a very difficult crime. Now, I think we have to improve on that because I think we are recognizing that nationally that it is a growing concern and there's more of that activity.  And we need to really do a better job of making sure we look for things that might lead us to better understanding that activity. And I wouldn't say I'm an expert on human trafficking, generally more crime and statistics, but that one is really driven by investigations, proactive investigations, or when you have something like someone shows up at a hospital, is injured, hurt, and then the investigation unfolds and demonstrates that there's a bigger issue or one person is willing to come forward through that investigative process. And there's more there than we see a lot of times. So let me ask a more direct question. In the research that you have done and the data that you've been able to collect, has there been a big increase in human trafficking since the casino has opened in that area? So loaded question. Yeah, I'm going to qualify it by with one key word and that is, no, it hasn't been in reported crime. Yeah, understood. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that the hotel or the casino isn't a place where some of that activity happens in and around, but it's not in reported crime. I know in Virginia, I have to check Massachusetts, maybe I'll work with Bonnie Mark. In Massachusetts, there are two new statutes, specifically targeting human trafficking for reporting and collecting an actual, prosecuting human traffickers. I'm assuming that's happened in Massachusetts, but I have to be honest with you, I don't know. I need to look at that. That would be a specific code that would fall under, and I think the federal government started tracking some of that. It's like the use of forest, they've got some legislation on that, but it takes a while to get agencies up to speed on collecting it and reporting it consistently and accurately. It's a very co-ordactivity. It's a delicate issue. It's a very co-ordactivity. And Madam Chair, thank you. And Dr. Fritz, this report, I can't tell you how helpful it is to us, and the great work that you did on this, and that ends my questions, Madam Chair. Thank you, Dr. Fritz. Thank you, Commissioner Hill, appreciate that. If I may just add, Commissioner Hill, there is a specific study proposed in the FY24 research agenda, so starting July 1st, that it specifically looks at human trafficking and its relationship to gaming operations in Massachusetts, for the very reasons that Noah was talking about. And as you're highlighting, it's a really important issue. It's really difficult to measure. And so we want a specific study that zeros in on that. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Madam Chair. Certainly. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Jordan wanted to say something, and I'll wait to close out. Madam Chair. Commissioner Maynard. Thank you. Dr. Fritz, I was looking at the risk-trained modeling and in the middle of that graph was liquor and bars, and that really caught my eye. And then when I was reading the study, I found it very interesting, the last drink portion of the actual PDF that was sent. Can you illuminate kind of anything that's going on there? And I noticed the numbers, you had the numbers in there. And then it's just ways on my mind, and I know that you probably work, obviously you said with other jurisdictions, we do have a 4 a.m. last drink call versus a 2 a.m. last drink call. Can you just speak to that potentially? Mainly that is something we will look at going forward much more closely. We did not do that in this timeframe. This is the first year, our first attempt at getting the data, looking at the data, becoming familiar with the data. In the interest of time, we weren't able to drill down on that. Christopher Bruce helped us with that section of the report. It is a very interesting piece of information, if you will, that can be used. We are using it in areas around certain intersections where they maybe get pulled over up in the Springfield area. So we are gonna do that there. We did not do that in the Encore study, unfortunately in the interest of time, but we plan to use that more. The risk-terrain model is really about targeting those places that have social characteristics, if you will, that would make it more prone to the risk of crime or activity. And that information, it's kind of like using Google Maps and looking at, well, where's the closest Starbucks? And you can map that out and see where those are. Well, that's where somebody's gonna buy coffee. The best analogy I can give you, or example I can give you, is I can take the entire jurisdiction, whatever that is, the region, a city, and map out where all the banks are, where all the ATMs are. And there are places in parks or in downtown where there's not a single ATM. The risk of an ATM theft or robbery would be zero. If there's 20 ATMs in a downtown city block at bars and convenience stores, the risk of an ATM robbery would go up. Now, if there's other protective factors, you can mitigate that. And that information, which isn't readily being used in most police departments, should be being used. And our mapping software has what's called business analysts, a lot of that's available, along with social characteristics, like race and ethnicity, businesses, median income, to begin to understand what are the protective factors? So there might be other information, not so much for the police department as much as for communities to think through redevelopment, economic development and stuff like that. Especially as you develop around the Encore Casino, maybe some thought about environmental design and traffic and roadways and egress and stuff like that. So, but at this particular study, we did not get the opportunity to look at or use effectively the risk-terrain modeling, but we're using it now and starting to use it now up in Springfield. That's very helpful. And that's part of what I was thinking was, I went to the Celtics game last night and the advertisement came on, come hop the bus after the game and go over to Encore Boston Harbor. It was probably not lost on anyone that, I can walk across the street in last call it was 1.32 o'clock in the morning, right? Over in the North End and it's gonna be later Encore. And so that's something I am interested in and it's good to hear that you're interested in it and thinking about it and going forward and I appreciate that. And I just appreciate the study overall, by the way, it's well done and like Commissioner Hill, I've learned a lot. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. That's all I have, Madam Chair. Okay. Commissioner Scatter. I'll just add my thanks to Dr. Fritz and JRA for their work on this report. It's a very good report. And I look forward to your findings relative to the other properties in the near future. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Scatter. So I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Fritz earlier when we were over in Everett and sort of rolling this up or comment before bringing it here. And I thank you once again for the work that you guys did and we're working with Christopher Bruce to keep this moving. I know there are a couple of areas we want to get more involvement, more data from some of the surrounding communities. We've had some that have sort of come in and out and some that were still working on establishing relationships, particularly some in the Middlesex County that are the surrounding communities. So we're trying to put effort on that to get more robust data when you're doing this. I do think this is particularly relevant where you're, you know, on core Everett, they've indicated they're going to be expanding across the street and they do own a large swaths of property that they've purchased up. So this is also a tremendous research opportunity in terms of you being here live as that unfolds and that gets built over the next, you know, five plus years as we go forward. So that I think is a pretty exciting opportunity in terms of looking at impact. Some of the stuff you've been talking about that normally you can't track, maybe we'll be able to do a little more impactful study on that. And just following up lastly on the human trafficking questions, commission help that you had and that know you raised, which is that is something that has been on. We have a public safety subcommittee as part of the one of the committees that we have here at the commission. We actually have a meeting at the end of this month, 10 a.m. on the 31st. A couple of items are going to be on that agenda. One is sort of a retrospective overview of sports wagering regulations, but another one is going to be circling back to human trafficking as a topic. As Mark said, out of that came the idea of adding that into some of the research agenda. And then talking about other ways to try to capture whether that is happening, not whether it's happening to what extent and what can be done. Because I don't think there's any dispute. There's an impact. The question is, as you pointed out, it functions very differently than other crimes. The location of the crime, maybe in the hotel, maybe in a hotel down the street or one community over it, maybe out in a car, it may be sending someone off to a private residence and then circling back. A lot of it is done as you said on the internet, on the internet, maybe dark web, phone calls, texts, that sort of thing. So it's a very different nexus to the casino commissioner hill than I think some of these other crimes you may think of as more sort of traditional in terms of investigative ability. So we've been trying to think of, and that's one of the things that we're going to be talking about on the 31st is trying to brainstorm with that group and their expertise. What are some of the ways we can look at more data? I know there was a comment before COVID. We set out a draft of the report in Springfield and a couple of the neighboring chiefs commented on optics in domestic type incidents at hotels in their communities. And there was some suspicion that a lot of times you would respond to these, and there was an indication that the parties involved didn't really know each other very well, which then led them to suspect you were looking at human trafficking possibilities. So that type of thing is what we're going to have to look at to really try to gauge as we go forward, how can we capture the impact of this? And how can we help negate and prosecute? And then just, I remember being in the AG's office when the AG's office at the time spearheaded trying to get the human trafficking statute in Massachusetts. It did happen in 2011. It's general as 265 section 50. And it very much models the other states and the federal statute on human trafficking. And there is a group dedicated in the AG's office to address those types of prosecutions, because they're very often cross jurisdictional across County. But that is absolutely also a priority of the subcommittee. Going forward. I know Mark has talked about it with you as well in terms of research agenda. So just to answer commission, also some of your questions and where we're going with public safety subcommittee on that to dovetail with the research. Very nice. Thank you. Yeah. So that was all I had. I see chair Jed Stein has rejoined us. So that's all I had. I'm sure Kathy, you didn't have a chance to. Watch that live given your distraction, but I didn't know if you wanted to comment before I turn the reins back over to you. My only comment is my apologies for, for not being able to attend. I extended those some. Apologies to mark yesterday. I'm looking forward to reviewing the recording. And thank you commissioner O'Brien. And I understand questions were asked. That's a wonderful. And thank you commissioner O'Brien for also participating in, in the process too. Thank you. Good meeting everybody. Thank you. I'm going to drop off mark unless you need me to stay on for a little longer. No, if I could just, just the last word in this is that. Noah and his team are working diligently on. These are the important things to remove. Looking forward to make sure that we're looking forward to, um, report examining, um, impact, uh, other safety impacts and Springfield is surrounding communities. So please be looking forward to that report. Our FY 24 research agenda and additions. The, um, scheme in trafficking also proposes. A study looking at. Plain. So we're not taking our eye out of this important issue. Commissioner O'Brien are we turning them to item number five. Yes, Madam Chair that's where we're unless we did also hold the minutes. Commissioner Hills request in case you wanted to make any comments on that so we do still have the vote on item two. Let's take care of that and Commissioner Hill that was very thoughtful. Thank you so much. All right, Madam Chair I would move that the Commission approve the minutes from the November 17, 2022 public meeting that included in the commissioners packet subject to any necessary corrections or typographical errors or other non material matters. And I do recognize Commissioner O'Brien, we've already looked into your situation and that has been rectified. Okay, I just made the comment that was I had a conflict that morning. And so I was listed on the roll call up front and then noted when I entered and so they were just going to address that that was my only comment otherwise I would second motion. Great thank you. Any other comments or edits. Okay, push our Brian. Hi, Commissioner Hill. Hi, Richard Skinner. Hi, Commissioner Maynard. I vote yes so five zero on the minutes thanks Commissioner Hill. So we're going to depart a little bit from our tradition of trying to have our executive sessions at the conclusion of our meetings and turn to an anticipated vote on an executive session given, I think some scheduling challenges. And I'm sure as you know, counselor Grossman has brought to our attention that he would like for us to get an update. So the commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with general laws chapter 30 a section 21 a three to discuss with respect to FBT ever reality LLC versus Massachusetts gaming commission as discussion at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the commission. We will need a vote or motion on that. If we would not we would anticipate returning. Thank you. Thank you. I move that the commission go into executive session for the reasons and on the matter that was just specified in the chairs recitation. Thank you. Any discussion. Okay, Commissioner Brian. Hi. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And I thought, yes, so five zero. I think this is where we will work to be transported virtually to our executive session meeting room. And then we'll have a screen that will alert the public as to where we are in our intent to return back. I'm not sure how long it will be, but I don't think it's going to be that lengthy of a session. So, there we go. Join our work. Thank you everyone. Sorry, I'll I have to redo and I did it wrong the first time so I gotta assign the people that need to go in. I'm not yet receiving any direction. Just give us just a minute. I just want to make sure. Yeah, just a minute. Sorry. I have to cancel the first room and I'm just putting people in the second one. So I'm just getting the list of a and K members that need to be. No problem. Dave, I just wanted to make sure we weren't missing something. Thanks. Okay, those of you who will have on my list going to the executive session have been assigned there and that room has been opened. So if you need to join the executive session, but you have not been added, please feel free to let me know and I can move you over there as well. Thank you. Hey guys, I think somebody's mic is still on just as an FYI. I think people start to make their way back. I think we have not quite seen a couple. Let's just hold on. Okay, we'll take a roll call and just, I'm not sure if I'm seeing commissioner. Oh, there he is. I am so sorry I didn't even think to turn my, I've been sitting here this whole time. Sorry. I wondered my apologies for not saying it was giving everyone a chance to breathe a bit. Okay. Because we are holding this meeting of the messages is gaining commission virtually look at our whole column. Good morning, commissioner. Good morning. Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. So we're all set and thank you to our team, the public for your patience as we participated in an early executive session this morning. We are now turning back to legal. We have a few regs to go through. I don't know this is Caitlyn leaving or I think that's right. That's right, chair morning. I will take the lead on the first three and then Carrie will join in when we get to 255 play management. So just to give the briefest overview, I'm going to talk about three, three regs that are back for you today. I'm going to talk about the two of five CMR 152 and that relates to the involuntary exclusion list. As you may remember the commission voted to move this forward in the emergency process. A while ago, a little while ago, and we are back today for final review and possible adoption on that. The next step we will have two or five CMR 222 that's capital investment and monitoring of project construction. This was discussed with the commission once, but that no vote was taken on it. So today we have it back for you with some revisions after receiving input from some of the potential cat to applicants. And we will ask, we'll be asking for a vote on that today. And then third we have 205 CMR 234 sportsway during vendors and this again, the commission voted on this to move this through the emergency promulgation process previously and it's back today for final review and possible adoption. And with that, I will turn this over to attorney commoners from NK. Good morning. Good morning, madam chair commissioners. So we're recommending just a few targeted changes to 205 CMR 152. The first will appear on page 137 of your packet. Everyone else set. Okay, thanks, Paul. So we're recommending four changes to 205 CMR 150203 criteria for exclusion. These changes follow in significant part from our ongoing conversation with the players association about ensuring that players and close to them are those close to them are adequately protected. The changes that we're ultimately recommended recommending are somewhat broader than those requested by the players association. In order to ensure both that a broad range of misconduct related to sportsway during is covered and to ensure that anyone who could be targeted for reasons related to sportsway during are covered. So there are four tweaks. And I'll take you through them as they appear on the leg. Next, 150203 one B has been revised to make clear that violations laws outside of 205 outside of chapter 23 K and chapter 23 and are covered. If the violation relates to gaming or sportsway during this would include criminal misconduct outside of the gaming and sportsway during statutes targeting someone for reasons relating to sportsway during. Second, we amended 150203 one E to add the words or spate sports way during to be clear that it protects the public interest in sportsway during, not just the public interest in particular facilities or platforms. Third, moving to the bottom of the page and start of the next. We added, we amended 150203 to see to cover conduct relating to sportsway during that poses a clear threat, but that is not proximate to a particular establishment or platform. And fourth, we added a new section 150203 to F that provides in effect that someone who violates the criminal harassment or threat statutes for reasons relating to sportsway during can be excluded. It may be caught that the last line of F to should say individual rather than defendants. One point that I want to make for pausing for any questions on these edits is that these provisions contemplate in many cases individuals being excluded for conduct that could be charged criminally. There's exclusion as a civil matter. The commission does not need to wait for a conviction, except on the one provision that specifically refers to there having been a conviction. And the commission does not need to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt the commission can act civilly on based on a preponderance of the evidence. If there are no questions on these revisions. The next change appears on page 141. This is really an administrative change. One comment we received made us realize that while there is a provision calling for the operators to be notified when somebody is added to the list. There's actually no notification when somebody is removed from the list. And that's, that's also important. The remaining changes are small technical tweaks to the discipline section on page 143. That's it, right? That's it. There are a few comments, which I'm happy to walk through and then start on page 147. In this first comment, Caesar's asked that we replace the requirement to review the exclusion list on a regular basis with a requirement that they review the exclusion with list weekly. We discussed this with the IEV and there are two main reasons that we recommend not adopting this proposed change. This regular basis language has proved workable for the last many years with the gaming licensees. Second, operators receive an update from the IEV whenever somebody has been added to the list. So we don't think there's a real risk of conflict over the regularity within which, with which the operator checks the list in the period between such notifications. The most important thing is that they be following those notifications. We then have a few comments from Ben MGM on page 148. The first comment expresses concerns about the self-exclusion list being posted publicly. We would also have those concerns, but this rag calls for the involuntary exclusion list to be posted publicly. The second asks that we specifically instruct operators to delete PII relating to involuntarily excluded patrons who are no longer involuntarily excluded. I don't think that's necessary and especially because we're in the midst of developing unified regulations addressing the use and retention of personal information. We have concerns with adding another freestanding provision. The third asks that we soften their obligation to notify the GEU immediately upon becoming aware that an excluded individual is present in a gaming establishment. There may be reasons that there might be need for additional investigation or fact-finding on their part. We do not recommend adopting this change. There may be good reasons. We fully acknowledge that there may be good reasons in particular situations not to take immediate action, but that's a conversation to have with the GEU once the GEU is aware. The fourth and last comment is a request for clarification in the discipline section which we adopted. And that is it. So I'm going to ask some questions for Paul on this wreck. Adam chair. Yes, I don't have questions but would like to thank the staff and and legal for working with the players association on this. It was going back and forth many times. I think the players association would like us to maybe have gone a little farther on a couple of these things, but understood under rules, regulations, laws, things of that sort and jurisdictional issues that we couldn't go as far as they may have liked. But I think the conversations going back and forth we came to a nice middle ground for both the players association and the mass gaming commission in regards to these regulations. I'm very happy to see the changes and more importantly, happy about the discussions that took place between the two entities. I have no further comment and think the changes are fine. Thank you. Anything else commissioners. I want to agree with, I just was going to throw my, you know, ditto after commissioner hills comments in terms of being able to get more input from the players association I know we all agreed that was important so just thank you to everybody who did that. I'll speak for all of us I think commissioner hill. I made a really important expression of gratitude so thank you. All right, I'm moving on to one to two. It might make sense to take a vote now if you're comfortable with that. Oh, because they're not interrelated. That's right. They're not. So commissioners feel we can move on this today. We don't seem to have any other questions. Oh, commissioner, go ahead. Oh, I was going to make a movement. Commissioner Brian, but I thought so was I but you, you lean forward and it's yours. I'm going to mute myself. Thank you. You can do the next one. I moved that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 152 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. And further that staff you authorize to take the steps necessary to file to require documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any questions or edits. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi, Mr. Hill. Hi, Mr. Skinner. Hi, Mr. Maynard. I vote yes. So five zero. Thank you, Paul. Taylor. I think we need one more. No, that's No, we do not. I stand correct. I'm sorry. The next strike up is 205 CMR 222. That's capital investment and monitoring of project instruction and I'll let Paul take it away. Oh, we're doing 222 next. Yes. Sorry. I'm off on my screen. I believe that starts on page 163 of your packets. Thank you. Before diving into the text of this regulation, I want to outline a few key points about our thinking, beginning with two key points about the commission's regulatory authority. The first high level point is that chapter 23 and section three, as you all know, requires that a category two licensee make a capital investment of at least seven and a half million dollars within three years after receiving a sportsway during license. There is at least one unambiguous mandate there. The investment must be made within the allotted time. The statute is otherwise silent on why the legislature mandated the spending, meaning the commission has some room to decide what the objectives for the spending are. This regulation is based on the idea that there are two. First, it's a mandate for category two operators to upgrade their facilities in exchange for the privilege of running a sportsway during operation and to ensure that the sportsway during operation benefits the benefits the Commonwealth. Second, it's a potential tool for economic development and making sure that the benefits associated with the issuance of a sportsway during license are fairly distributed. The second high level point about the commission's authority that I want to make is that the prospective operators are going to make representations during the licensing process about what their projects will be and how these projects which are enabled by the sportsway during licenses will benefit the Commonwealth. This regulation gives the commission tools to ensure that operators adhere to these representations and engage in dialogue with the commission when they need to deviate. Or to come up with the same idea from another angle. This is a valuable franchise in a highly regulated industry and the commission has the power to understand and be informed on how it's being used. There are, I'll highlight three other important considerations, neither of these lists are exclusive lists of things that the commission should be thinking about just things they think are most critical for understanding the substance of the strap regulation. First, as I said at the last meeting where this regulation was taken up chapter 23 and has almost no meaningful guidance about how the commission should oversee these capital expenditures. This is in contrast to chapter 23 K which contain detailed instructions, although analogs of the many of the mechanisms used in the 100 series may work well here. They are not mandated. Second, as the prospective operators pointed out, and as I think we've all understood, there is far less development money in play under chapter 23 and as there was under chapter 23 K. Third, and again as the prospective operators have pointed out delays in the build out of these category two facilities may not be as great a concern as delays in the build out of the casinos would have been because sports will be available throughout the Commonwealth with other operators in the interim. With all of that in mind, and as we said in the memo to the commission, we mostly loosened mandatory requirements compared to the previous draft. The first section is giving the commission regulatory options to be deployed as appropriate, such as the rights to be informed about design choices and weigh in and the right to inspect construction remain largely intact. The regulation does expect the operators to be updating the commission on a regular basis, although we've tried to pair back the substance of those updates so that they are manageable. And two other requirements have been added, or tweaks to ensure that category two operators are building out their facilities in a way that's consistent with their prior commitments. As we get into the regulation, there is no shortage of red line. I'm going to try to focus on the most important substantive changes. But as always, I'm happy to pause on any particular language or issue or question. Okay, let's look at those red lines. So these changes on page 163 to section one definitions are largely cleanup based on comments received from the commission from staff and from operators. I don't think most of it should should have a terribly large terribly large substantive effect. One question in my notes that the last time this regulation came up about the use of the phrase all of its affiliates combined in the definition of small business. That particular language appears to be unique to the commission's regulations, but I believe the point is to ensure the large businesses don't sneak through under the prescribed threshold by clever structuring trucks. So more substantive changes will start to appear on the next page in 205 CMR 3202. I'd like to start by responding to a comment on 021, which is not received any substantive changes but did but did receive a comment from random. I objected to the possibility of commission establishing supplemental guidelines. So I want to clear on how what this provision is intended for and through the purposes that it's that I understand it to serve. First it gives the commission the opportunity to provide additional clarity and writing on details that may not be addressed elsewhere in the regulations but that may not be substantial enough to require a full amendment to the regulations. Second, it enables the commission to establish internal operating guidelines governing things like inspections and site visits their regularity their contents. I think both such guidelines would actually provide greater clarity and predictability to operators so I don't. So I don't recommend adopting randoms request to delete this section. Pardon me. Somebody may just have not been muted for a second questions on that. I have one late to see if anyone else has one. Is there a concern that this could be changes that would cause them expense. Like construction already performed or. I can't remember what the exact concern was. They just, they don't want to be subject to our making changes that they rely on my understanding. That is a concern that random expresses throughout in this case. I think their primary concern is that additional guidelines will simply introduce additional regulatory complexity and and couldn't catch them by surprise. But I think the limiting language to aid the commission in its review and monitoring of each project is critical because that establishes that these are really because that establishes that these are not supplemental regulations. They're clarifying guidelines that help the commission carry out. That's helpful. Thank you. So the first real substantive changes to this regulation are to the project plans required by 205 CMR 2202 to first in paragraph a based on the request I think of both operators. The extensive list of stages that must be included in the project schedules and simplified direct to a requirement that the schedule be detailed and consistent with the operators prior representations. The commission can determine when reviewing the project plan, whether the schedule is sufficiently detailed to allow adequate oversight. The second substantive changes in paragraph B. We recommend taking out the requirement that the affirmative action goals be equal to a greater than the goals contained in AF administrative bulletin 14. Not because we recommend abandoning those goals but because we think in a particular circumstances here. Those operate those goals may be better. Maybe better to discuss adopting those goals through license conditions or through license conditions, rather than through an inflexible regulation. Here in particular, I know that random is represented that this requirement would be challenging for them because they already hired a general contractor and did not include those goals in that contract. I don't know what the commission will will make that representation and I'm not making any assumptions about what the commission will make that representation. Okay, but taking this out here leaves the commission, the option to take to adopt these goals through a license condition, but gives the commission additional flexibility in dealing with random. Thank you. I'm probably just queuing up what you'll take and run with which is I don't love the idea of it still feels like we're devaluing it when we do that. And I understand you're talking about flexibility but I would like to have a conversation about options. I know that they did that in anticipation of the statute and they have contractual obligations. I'm loath to change a statute based on one bad fact that was not our choice. So I'd like to have a conversation about it. I, I'd yield at this point to commissioners again or to take it from here. Brian, can I just ask clarifier are you so you are concerned about the fact that this, this graph does not tie to the. Okay, there's no there's not even a not to, you know, efforts and there's nothing like that it just removes it and then says and if you want to put it back in you can put it as a license condition which to me is a course correction too much in the other direction. So I'm wondering if there's a middle ground there that acknowledges the posture that this licensee is in, but also shows that we continue to value and want them to try to work to somehow incorporate this into their construction. Thank you. I echo commissioner Brian's concerns I think that because this regulation speaks specifically to project construction and design. You know, I, while I understand that the commission has the option to build in some di requirements into the licensing approval process. I think the opportunity to affect the design and construction of this project in, you know, a very positive way, when it comes to diversity is now, as we're considering these regulations so if we are. I mean, I respect the fact that during the license approval process for the other licensees, we did require an element of DEI and their hiring practices, etc. But this, because it's entirely entirely different aspect of operations I'm just wondering again where the middle ground is here to ensure that with respect to design and construction, you know, we are valuing the requirements that the requirement that we set set forth here. The other thing is just a comment I you know I do respect the fact that the contract has already been signed and construction is already underway. You know, but where there's a new regulation that's promulgated. You know that often serves as a basis for amendment of a contract and I don't see any reason why that couldn't be the case here again, assuming we can get to some middle ground as to what we expect as a commission. I do a follow up please. So I agree with commissioner scanner that there could be a possibility of an amendment of a contract. More specific I think I'm right. And this is probably one of the more challenging elements of the statute is that the $7.5 million investment has to be made on licensure. $7.5 million more construction that will need to be performed. And I think that there would be an opportunity for this contractor to find either through a joint partnership, a partner that would reflect our DEI goals, and certainly through the supplier diversity pipeline. I understand they may have that that general contractor. I always like the idea of a joint venture with an MBE or WBE or VBE. But if they can't do that, there's lots of opportunities for to achieve the goals. I guess I am because I don't know exactly what that. And that's what the person says to the extent that we all agree entirely with it. We could leave those those elements into a rag or through a policy and incorporate them. If we want to commit to the language because we never know when that's going to change commissioner Brian that's the only other piece I was thinking to your point like if we take that out. How can we make those goals? How can we make them our so that's just a sort of a thought is there's some flexibility going down but I do hear them saying they have some challenges because they've got their general contract but I also know that there's a lot of creative ways to achieve our goals and values I should say values that we've identified in the application process clearly already. Paul, did you get my point in terms of could we somehow leave in my right that the reason why you wanted to take it out is you didn't want to tie it to an external set of rules that might change or Well, and this is so responsive to commissioners gathers point the construction of this project and what this project is going to look like with the timeline that is going to be built out on the workforce they will use to build it to build it is one of the sets of representations that they will make during the licensing process. I believe random is included a proposed project design and a proposed project schedule in their license application. So, my thinking was both that this is that this is a less flexible external document to have this tied to could change around from under the commission's feet, but also that the commission would have plenty of room to be in with the applicant during the licensing process about what their construction workforce was going to look like as part of the DEI commitments that the commission expects applicants to make. I appreciate that thanks. I guess what I'm struggling with this as proposed, it basically says, you know, established goals equal to our greater than your goals that you publicly state to the Commission at the time of the application, and it doesn't give any guidance as to our expectations on those goals. So, I don't know if there's some other way to reference other prioritizations that we've had, and there is another cat to at least out there that, you know, just has not contracted with anyone yet. So, is there a way that we make clear it's not simply my goals are not to do it because I've already got a contract and I can't do it I'm being consistent now with that subsection of that right. That's not what I think anybody wants. You know, well we're acknowledging the reality on the ground but there also has to be efforts and to the chair's point to Commissioner Skinner's points contracts can be changed certain circumstances and laws change and or you know relationships with subcontractors I mean there are ways to address this. And so how do we do that in this to make it clear that we have, maybe not tied to a static document that we don't want to tie ourselves to but we show something more than what's in here right now. So one option that you would have you're not going to reference an external document I don't know whether there are other Commission guidance documents that could be that could be referred to here is you could add an adjective before affirmative action program such as you know aggressive affirmative action program substantial affirmative action program. You could also have an adjective before goals. If there is another Commission guidance document that you could reference it, we started with the NF bulletin because it was the document used in 205 CMR 135. But the Commission's obviously done a lot of work in this area in the intervening years and I don't know if there are other materials that we can draw on. If we published the past stats for the construction process for the other for the cat one licensees. And do we have a range that says that you know that would seek to, you know, equal the cat one construction numbers, and you've got all three of them there's a range they're all in different areas. It's not an answer we would have right in front of us today but I'm thinking of something else like that that lets them know this is what has historically been done in this process and so we would expect you to make efforts to get close to those numbers. And the language is I mean the language of subsection B is vague. And if we did not tighten that up now for purposes of promulgating this regulation today, when would be, you know what would, what would be the opportunity to do that. There's already an argument that construction is well underway and you know they're sort of trying to catch up with these regulations. However, they shape up in their final form so if we're not prepared to speak to this substantively today in terms of what the expectation is for goals and communicating our values in a way that is tied to the big action then when will, when, when will we be able to do that. I'll just jump in here on timing. You know if, if the Commission wanted us to, it sounds like you do want us to go back and take a look at this and figure something else out. I think we could hold the vote and bring it back on the 16th, which is not that far away. And you know at the very least the operators are the potential operators absolutely know that this is in progress and they're hearing these conversations so I don't think there's any issue with with a slight delay on actually promulgating. And we take input from them right commissioners. I was just, I was going to say, I mean, the last time we had these regulations before us there was mention of, you know, the concern that there was seemed to me anyway, a lot of pushback. Adopting these, these regulations are this particular, you know, section of the regulation and so absolutely will accept, you know, recommendations from any, the public are anticipated operators relative to category two. And I think that invitation has already been put out there just by virtue of prior discussion the prior discussion. Yes, commissioners can I recall your, your comments, then at that, at that meeting very clearly. So that message was delivered. You, you indicated how this is to us and I think I'm, you know, understanding that it just may not be the necessary specificity here. Right, meet our expectations, and also to make sure that our, our expectations are met so probably we need a little bit more time on this particular vision. Madam chair. Yes, commissioners sorry. If I may, something that I've thought about the entire time right that that we've been moving forward on this is really the mass port model. Right. And the mass port model is now being held as as really a standard across the country, not even here anymore and I think about the omni project. Right. You should probably explain that that I think you and I have background in that the joint venture models. Yeah, you know, it was essentially what Commissioner Brian said. They were pulling together subcontractors and from every piece of the bill right from down to up and you know the traditional model was give us some numbers right and meet those numbers and this was give us your best effort right. And I believe and I'm going off the cuff here I believe is around 25% on the omni project and really what mass port is is striving to do on all their builds, but it's more of a, it's a really really broad approach right it's it's it's turning the whole notion on the head that well once a minimum is hit, we're done here. And so, you know, something that I think I'm interested in from the public, also from anyone else is looking as you know how, how can we get close to that mass port model and what Tom Glenn and those folks came up with over there and then was replicated in other spaces and state government, but I think that's the gold standard, at least from my perspective. And I'm sure you can fill in better. Madam chair. I know that you also worked on it too. Those are good models. And certainly have been part of an important public policy discussion. That's why I mentioned the joint venture to like to see the map the table and not just in the, the sub pipeline so there's a lot of opportunities here. And the one thing is I do think that way. All of our applicants share, share that goal. It's, it takes a lot of intentionality and innovation and resources. I think that this commission has expressed its values pretty clearly. I see Derek has hand up before I turn to you Derek Commissioner Hill do you want to comment. Thank you so to answer some of the questions earlier, Commissioner Brian's question we actually do have white papers, and I think that mass for might have modeled off of us, which was modeled off of something that was done in Boston group, where we did bring together regional groups. We had a whole review process for any spend to see whether it would be part of the baseline or not part of the baseline for goals, and then we would actually go out and find additional partners but we also had three people assigned to that process three FT is full time assigned to that crystal is one of them Joe was one of them and Joe Delaney was the other. We had additional resources. It does take a lot of commitment to setting up these groups, it does take a lot of commitment to finding appropriate partners outreach to chambers outreach to every group there were every construction group I mean we were bringing forward the women and construction trades groups. So at the convention center where they were actually funding some of our efforts to do this. So, we do have a white paper out there we do have a process for doing this. It's just whether we want to take on the additional and do it to that highest level. So, the road maps there. That's that's that's another conversation for the Commission now on the funding and on the resources we want to put towards it. And we were very well recognized throughout this whole process for how the Commission did this, the intentionality of it, the review for any areas where. This could be an area where you take a look. If rain ham comes forward and says, we already have a contract underway and we think it should be excluded we can review that specific contract. We can review the sub goals aligned with it we can review the subcontractors aligned with it and we did that for each. Each one of the projects that came forward and there was a whole separate group that had to review those requests that came forward. That's what I said on those and we would actually go out and do our own independent research and see if there are other diverse for them to work with offices of supply or diversity we would work with other construction groups within the Commonwealth to see if they knew of diverse vendors that could help with any of these areas. And I guess my comment to would be the resources that had to go into it for building three cat ones from the ground up are not quite what they are with a foundation that's already out there because those cat ones are done on an isolated cat to possibly another isolated cat to that isn't before us right now and so I, I'm confident we could do this in a way that is doesn't require three FTEs I mean I know I remember going out to award ceremonies at an MGM where you had, you know WBE, I think it was electrical who had basically been involved in all three of the projects. And so they you know there's track records and there's no entities out there already that I think would make this, you know, easier than the war the tremendous work Derek that you and Jill and Crystal and Joe had to put in I remember attending some of those meetings at the tail end when you guys had done the lion show already. But the fact that we do have the white paper and we have the stats if we go back to look and see sort of the goals and what they actually were able to do in the construction phase to me that would be helpful in getting specifics on this as we go forward, tying it to something more specific. So they have a sense of what we're hoping to see. Absolutely. One last comment, speaking to the adequacy of the existing resources that we have available currently to really dig into these issues. I want to defer judgment on on that question. Derek first if you could provide the right paper that you referenced. I think that would be helpful but then also I want to be sure that we are recognizing that, you know, as part of the licensing process for our existing category ones and category threes, we did place tremendous emphasis on their internal hiring practices, as well as their diversity vendor practices. And so, you know, I do want us to eventually, sort of rather than later, build out a process for ensuring that we are holding the operators accountable for the promises they made during that application process and on which their license was conditioned. So, I look forward to further discussing this particular point relative to resources I know we do have our new diversity staff coming on board in the next week or so and so I'm very encouraged by that. And hopefully it I'd like to see this particular question and issue be presented as you know her first one of her first charges. I mean other comments. Okay. We'll look for input from the public and stakeholders and then commissioners if you have further ideas let's make sure that legal hears from you. And, well, I guess I would just encourage that the scale. Commissioner Brian's note, not the scale here is quite different than the catalog. But our goals can be scaled appropriately with respect to this, these particular projects. So, I'm not sure if you predicted this discussion but here we are. Want to continue anything else on this point commissioners. I will say only that Commissioner Skinner and others I did hear you loud and clear at the last meeting. And I've also been watching the category one in three licensing processes and if I thought there was any risk the commission would not be prepared to have a robust conversation with the applicant during the licensing process. This, we would not propose this change. As there's one more general point I would like to make about the nature of the project plans and the commission's oversight authority. Both prospective operators asked that the commission's construction oversight authority be limited in certain respects including in the project plan to the sports wagering area rather than the entire facility. I don't recommend that here. The sports wagering license is what enables the entire project. So the commission may reasonably consider the entire project while deciding whether the license application benefits the common well, which means the operators going to make representations about the entire project and the commission has some stake in the outcome of the entire project. And also, including the entire project in the project plan allows investments made on non sports wagering aspects of the project to count towards the seven and a half million dollar capital investment requirement. I think I assume the prospective operators would prefer that and if you closely read randoms red line that is in fact how randoms red line worked. This section establishes when an operator needs to submit an updated project plan as currently drafted this section requires the operator to come back to the commission if circumstances change such that the operator expects to run late on their their minimum making their minimum capital investment, or if in general they find themselves in a position that's inconsistent with representations made to the commission. We remove the requirement for the operator to come back and obtain a revised project plan if there's any change in the method of construction. Based on the conversations we've had and in light of the size of these projects, I don't think there's interest in imposing detailed oversight of the methods of construction here. I should note, as you will see in a moment the commission retains authority to inspect to inspect construction. So, oh to four addresses reporting. The last version of this regulation had a detailed quarterly reporting requirement, both prospective operators ask that that requirement be simplified or eliminated. I don't recommend that to our minds it's better for the commission to know what's happening on a regular basis so that any problems delays a risk that an operator might not make these seven and a half million dollar investment or might fall seriously short on its affirmative action goals can be addressed early on and delicately rather than late when they become serious problems. However, in deference to the size and the comparative lack and the reduced urgency of these projects, we did make the reports less frequent less detailed and somewhat more nuanced. So the requirement is now to report twice yearly while the project is ongoing. And these reports have a few components. First under subsections a one and a two is a requirement that the operator give the commission enough information to judge the operators progress towards the $7.5 million capital investment requirement. This requirement naturally lasts only until the operator certifies to the commission satisfaction that that capital investment requirement has been met. So subsections BC and D address matters that remain important even after the minimum capital investment has been met. Subsection be as a requirement of the operator give a report on the status construction. These, the changes that we're recommending to this make it modestly simpler than the status report required under the parallel provision into a five CMR 135. Subsection under subsections C and D is there is a requirement that the operator reports on the demographics of their employees and subcontract and talk to the commission if their performance is lagging what appeared in their project plan and their original application. The only substantive changes to these provisions is that we've dropped the word detailed from subsection C with the understanding that the commission can always ask for more details from the operators. So moving on to paragraph 025 random asked that we cut out. I have one question and forgive me if I'm missing this. That's going to be addressed. This. That it doesn't address ongoing capital investments like under 23 K correct. That's correct. So, in some section five, we cut out the second sentence based on random suggestion. We, that's not because we don't think the commission will want to know about permanent appeals we just don't think it's necessary to enforce that by regulation. In the unlikely event that the operator failed to communicate with the commission following an appeal you would learn about that appeal the next by annual report. Moving on to design review 205 CMR 2203. We heard some concerns from the operators about the commission intervening in design review. The approach that we eventually took here is to give the commission the option, the option to be informed and participate in these steps, but in deference to the fact that these are smaller projects, not to overrule the operators on their, on their own. So taking these changes in order. We took out the language in paragraph one, because we think it contemplated a more formal ongoing design review process than what should be reasonably expected with respect to these projects. And in one B, we took out language about the commission's right to request samples and building materials and furnishings. That's less important here than it was in the luxury casino projects. And in one B, we took out approval from the phrase review and approval in order to clarify the commission as well. I like precious scanner. I'm just a question. I'm back at. Well, I just lost it. I'm sorry for the appeals and the language that was removed requiring the licensee to notify the commission within 20 days of filing. I think he said that that change was proposed by ranium. Is there a reason why do they object to that language. I don't remember whether there was a specified reason I remember seeing it in their red line proposed regulation without recalling whether there was a reason like, I can check on that if I have a moment. I assume that they, I assume that they simply don't want another mandatory obligation to keep track of. And I removed it only only on the assumption that they will be highly communicative communicative with the commission about the status of their project and any litigation would interfere with construction. And that's because it's required elsewhere in our regulations. Pardon me. The biannual report requires a status reports. Requires a status report on the state of construction and if they report six months in that they haven't been able to build something because they're in land court. That will be quite clear to the commission. The commission, if I also think that the fact of the commission. I think the fact that the operators value their working relationship with the commission will mean that they're communicative about these sorts of things. In terms of the ability to review design. Kind of appreciate the operators concerns here. And also appreciating fact that we know that with respect to random constructions underway. We want to always make, you know, encourage and expect compliance. And I just, you know that there's a requirement that 7.5 million has to go after our license. But when we say such final design package to be in the form ready for use and creating construction bid packages. Is that is that helpful for them or is that possible for them and then the other, you know, more of a general statement is that. I'm assuming the general statement of the commission may participate in any design review process that that would require the commission to vote on on that before we before the team starts taking a deep dive on design. Well, I'll take those questions out of order. So the commission or its representative may participate so the commission can assign somebody to participate in a design review on the project. But I think the real answer to your question is that there is still a requirement in the project plan that which is reviewed and approved by the commission that the operators submit a design an initial design for the project. The assumption is that that will be consistent consistent with or, you know, the assumption is that that ought to be approved if it's consistent with what's in the operators license application application. Yeah. And the commission of course will have the chance to review any design materials that are in the license application. So you know, inform the commission's review of the license application. The design to 2020 threes design review contemplates later stage, contemplates later stages of design issues. So to take your first question, your little outside the bounds of my construction expertise but I will say that we ran this regulation by Joe Delaney. And he was comfortable that these were tools that the commission may or may not ultimately want to use but that there was no problem with giving the commission these options Caitlin is that a fair representation of the conversation. Sorry, could you say that one more time. Yeah, these were tools that the commission may or may not ultimately choose to use but that it was fine to give the commission these options. Absolutely yes. So we'd all convene back before Joe has to take a deep dive dive in any design review. Right. Yes, we'd make some affirmation. And so if I'm 22204. I think I'm just a net on on subsection three, just I think you're going to catch it looks like we just face me or with me to it. There are very very few changes here. I don't want to run too few, but as the as the as the perspective operators commented on the section I do want to say a few words about it. These are the commission's most general oversight tools. It's the right to physically inspect the facility it's the right to have access to construction documents. So both operators asked this authority in effect to be limited to the areas of the facility implicated in sports wagering. For the reasons that I discussed when we were going over the project plan we do not recommend accepting that at us. I also see one other knit, which is that the word approved should be reinserted in paragraph one should say the approved project plan. So 2225 needs a little bit of context the previous draft of the regulation a bonding requirement where the bond was to be released when the operator certified that it had reached the final stage of construction. That certification process was laid out into 225. I think he suggested that the bonding requirement be taken out, as did the perspective operators. We adopted that recommendation, but we think it's still useful to have the commission officially sign off both for its benefit and for the operators that the seven and a half million dollars has in fact been invested. So we amended the certification requirement that we have in 225 to become a certification that the required investment has been made. When that certification is approved by the commission, the operators by annual reports no longer need to report on their progress towards the seven and a half million dollar requirement. And they are no longer sanctionable for failing to make the investment. So 226 addresses grounds for discipline. When we last brought this regulation forward, the commission asked for there to be presumption and subsection one that a license would be suspended or revoked if the operator failed to spend the seven and a half million dollars within three years, but to have some flexibility if the failure was due to extraordinary circumstances, or if there was another good reason to pursue different discipline. We adopted those two changes here. Now, the provision now states that the operator shall be subject to discipline unless it can show that its failure resulted from extraordinary circumstances. And the disciplinary action is presumed to include the suspension of the revocation of the license, but the commission may impose other or lesser discipline in its discretion. Thank you, commissioners. I think I see I'm nodding heads. Paul, I went to pick up on that title I thought you were going to the next sections. I was giving you a little heads up as I'm scrolling. Thank you. So, with that you're moving on to now. Page 169 and subsection to 2206. So the reason we took this list of examples out of subsection two is we just decided that this was simpler with and consistent with our drafting practice elsewhere without affecting the commission's disciplinary authority. I'll note for the record that Rainham recommended eliminating subsection two in its entirety. I don't remember whether they explained that in their letter but I assume that's because they recognized the commission's reserved disciplinary authority into a five CMR 232. Moving on to 2207. At the last meeting where this regulation was discussed you asked us to incorporate the specific costs from 122 that are to be included or excluded. We did that here. This should all be consistent with what Todd walked you through at the last meeting. So, as we discussed some of the includeable costs in 122 were specific to MGM and Regency, due to particular financing issues in that region. We put those on the excluded list here. The their inclusion and Regency was something of a special case. And although Rainham has asked for these costs to be include a ball. That's an explanation of why that special that special treatment should extend to the construction of these sports wagering facilities. We were also asked the last meeting whether simulcasting equipment would be included on after some consideration, we excluded it from paragraph 2207 to G. I don't believe either perspective operator asked for it. We tend to think that replacing or upgrading simulcasting equipment is probably not what the seven and a half million dollar capital investment is meant for. In the exclusion list. I'd like to draw your attention to bottom of page 170 and the top of page 171. So the two. Pardon me, these are all these are both on page 170, even I'm losing track of the red line at this point. 2207 three a and B. Unfortunately, one of which appears before the deleted paragraph for 2208 and the other one which appears right under make it even clearer as promised that free licensing expenditures would not count. There is one nuance here that I would like to draw your attention to under three a expenditures can count start counting from the moment that the operator applies for the approval of its project plan. So long as the expenditures are ultimately consistent with the approved project plan. So this is a fairness measure that allows the operators to get a slightly earlier start on meeting the capital expenditure requirement, as long as they understand that that element of the work will be made will be done at risk. Really. So is that clarifying what I was alluding to so that they can start making expenditures now toward that 7.5 before nice and sure I might misinterpreting they can only make expenditures post license sure, but they can start making expenditures as soon as they have applied for approval of a project plan, provided that the expenditures are ultimately consistent with an approved project plan. But for instance, random has submitted its application. So anything they're doing right now, they're getting credit for the 7.5. So they're at risk if we don't approve. Nothing nothing counts until a license is awarded. Okay, the misinterpreting this I'm so sorry. I am too though I miss the practical effects of the language that I think it's if I'm understanding it. They don't, they can't put anything toward it till they actually have the license approval. They can however at that point, have their project plan and consistent with that project plan start sort of keeping calculations and if it's consistent with the project plan. Then that can go toward the total, even though we haven't necessarily signed off in the details project plan when they go forward. Is that accurate Paul. That's correct. So there's a sort of a hard starting point of license issuance, and then there's sort of this yes preceded your own risk but if they're consistent with a project plan they know is what we're kind of wanting to see, then it's a sort of a safer calculated risk to the expenditure because they know it's likely. Certainly, and especially because I understand random is submitted many of the materials that would be included in a project plan with its license application. I anticipate that rain and we'll be able to submit a project plan application quite promptly upon approval of its license, should the license be approved. Adam chair. Yes, commission. Can we go in reverse a little bit back to a discussion and I'm just trying to understand it it's 2207. Sorry, sorry. Catching up. That's good. I'm trying to understand why Samuel casting equipment and upgrades would not be included. I am not understanding why people would think that wasn't part of the costs associated with calculating the capital investment. That's a I would actually think that's a big investment for a category to but I can be convinced otherwise. Legally I would say the commission has discretion either way this is a policy choice for the commission. Yes, I was the one who raised that issue last time, Commissioner hill and I, I'm really glad you asked the question again because I thought I heard Paul give an explanation why just a few minutes ago, a short reason. And I'm not understanding it. Did we have a discussion with Joe about it. I would think you would include it so I'm trying to figure out why we're not. Presuming it was something to do with how you interpret capital if it's not. Then, and it's policy I think then we should maybe revisit it right. Yes. I don't know how others feel but if I was building my house, actually technology would be part of the cost of that. I think it's even more, but, and especially with what we're doing here because we are the law does require them to move to a new location and the simulcast thing is the link to this entire effort. That was what I think he was last time, which is huge technology. I don't think it is but even if it's not huge, you know, I just thought it would be in that list. I think I interrupted Jordan and I apologize for that. No, I think actually, the chair just touched upon what I would have a hard time. What I need to think about is, are we divorcing the sports wagering piece from the summer casting piece and how much are we divorcing that given that the one is how the others link. I mean, part of me says, I think it's supposed to do with capital expenditures dealing with sports wagering. Right. I'm going here thinking this through. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I just wanted to jump in on Commissioner Maynard's point, I agree with that and not to say that, you know, we can't discuss it and figure it out to the contrary, but I was of the same opinion and just at some point, I noticed that attorney Grossman has turned off his microphone so I would love to hear what he has to say when everyone else is ready. So, so maybe we should go back to the top line for the purpose of calculating capital investment for category two sports wagering license. Is it doesn't must it only be tied to sports wagering per se. Not necessarily I think actually you all hit on the exact point I was going to make and I guess I would just maybe sum it up and reiterate it what everyone has said which is the only requirement in the statute is that they make $7.5 million and there's no further guidance as to what that means exactly. So it's entirely up to the Commission to make that determination and to Commissioner Maynard's inquiry. Is it supposed to just be related directly to sports wagering operations. Are you more concerned with what the building is going to look like physically, or are there other matters that you may find relevant to the calculation to include them. Now I would I would submit that simulcasting is certainly related. You can't argue that it's unrelated it's the nexus that gets them here. So I think it is all really a policy question. There might be outer bounds to that if they told you they were going to spend $7 million on simulcasting equipment and then the building itself was only going to be a million dollars. Maybe you have concerns with that. So this is all the balancing act that I think you're doing right now is figuring out what should be included and what should be excluded and that was the exercise that Commission did when the initial list was compiled many years ago is making policy decisions. And of course, ultimately the cost should be associated with capital investments and improvements to the property and not other things but that's why things like legal expenses were cut out. Because that doesn't go to the value of the building and its contents and things like that. But simulcasting equipment certainly falls somewhere in between there so I think that is ultimately just the policy judgment that the Commission will make. I personally think it should be included and I go back to if you're going to be redoing a state building, the cost of technology is part of that cost. I know, you know, you brought up the percentage you know, 6 million for simulcasting 1 million well I would have a problem with that, sure. I don't know how everybody else thinks and actually I don't know Derek is still here, but I know he's had some experience in his past life, regarding repairs to buildings and things of that sort I think. Before we do that. Commissioner Hill so I the other question that I have is, there are also accounting principles right and tax principles in terms of what capital investment and not so there's sort of that question and then within that, where's our discretion, and where do we want to put it. And I know I like in this more to slot machine, right, that if you know rental versus purchasing and upgrading a slot machines that sort of thing so and I correct me if I'm wrong but my memory is those are treated as capital expenditures and the capital investment requirements for the cat wants in the cat to right. I mean, I mean, in O2G, which is the first full paragraph and page 170 you will see that the purchases of equipment including sports wagering equipment is covered. And if the commission decides that simulcasting equipment should be covered. It's very easy fix to insert the words or simulcasting after sports wagering. It should be at our discretion because to your point, Commissioner Hill, you know, maybe we don't want to approve six on the simulcast and one on the sports, you know, maybe we want some ability to say you know that's over. That's overly emphasizing simulcasting, as opposed to sports wagering here. Just a thought. Yeah, good that. Yeah, Derek was nodding his head that I was going to ask the same question that Commissioner Brian asked me of capital investments they do have to. We have to meet the counting principles but I think of the simulcast equipment is being it right there mostly. So, so it is some of its it some of its actual terminals, however, you know with a new building, you can roll all these things into it and it's so accounting principles would take place and says anything to put that building or asset into its place and be used for its intended purpose can be capitalized and can then go into a depreciation schedule. However, if the entity has a different way and they want to treat each one of those machines as a separate asset they can do that too because it would be a capital depreciation lifecycle of how many years are doing it doing it over so as far as and this is what we talked about the first time around as far as a capitalized asset discussion I think all these meet it it's more of a policy discussion as to what you would like to what you would like to include and whether you're going to distinguish between those two separate laws, you know the 128 AC or 23 and but the fact that you have to have 128 AC for 23 and to take place brings a pretty nice picture that would give you that ability to put all of this under one one construction cost and treat them all as the same and it's an amenity right it's a nice amenity just like a restaurant would be at the at the hotels and at the casinos. Okay, so Commissioner Hill, you would like to see included. I personally would, and I think it's appropriate, actually, and again, I can be convinced otherwise but so far I haven't been. And to the extent we reserve the right to review design I think that any category two applicant listening understands that we've got at least couple commissioners who are saying, you know, exercise judgment over sports wagering and simulcasting and making it the property that's going to actually not only meet our goals but probably profit them the most. Do we want to include it do we need to include it with some cautionary language. Commissioner Skinner and see maybe nodding I couldn't tell. I like the idea of adding the cautionary language I think Commissioner Brian alluded to that. Okay. Certainly five with me. Yep. Commissioner Maynard. I'm fine with that and the more I'm sitting here thinking I'm thinking to myself, it's in the incentive of any potential licensee to spend the money necessary to make sure that they have a world class facility to offer sports weight. So, very confident. Okay, so I think you've got guidance on that. Commissioner Brian you also. I was just going to joke once again you have my sense of cynicism on one end with Commissioner Rainier top. I'm sure we'll land somewhere right in the middle. I have to say I'm aligned with Commissioner Maynard on this one. But I like that you know that's what keeps us very well balanced as a commission. Okay. Anything else commissioners I think we gave some guidance to follow on that. All right, shall we continue back to where we were. Sorry about that. No, no, no, that was good. Before we move on from that point entirely, I'll simply say that we may need to give a little bit of thought to how to structure that cautionary language. This reg as designing doesn't contemplate the commission approving or disapproving certification that the expenditure requirement has been met based on how happy the commission is with what's been spent on what. We might think about a cap on the amount of simulcasting equipment that can be counted or we might think, think about that information being highlighted to the commission earlier in the review process. Maybe the mechanism might be something other than simple cautionary language. Am I right though that the idea really extends maybe be even beyond simulcast. With respect to the overall project right, could we do some general language it's not necessarily tied specifically to simulcast so am I thinking about it incorrectly. Well I was actually if you were going to tie it to simulcast is there a percentage in the project right saying no more than x percentage. The other you wouldn't be tying it to a dollar amount, it's more a relative to the project itself, and it could be a pretty high percentage. We could certainly work with that. Yeah, something like that. Yeah. Although I always worry about that in terms of unforeseen consequences right. Right. We can work with it. And I'm sure the operators, the perspective operators are tracking this conversation and make make them through with suggestions the next few days. Right. So I actually have very little else to say about the regulation, just the 2208, which you will see on the same page that you're currently on has been removed again based on Joe Delaney's recommendation, which was consistent with the request of the operators. Maybe we may be momentarily without chair, but I'll pause to ask whether there are any questions. Any further questions. All right. Caitlin. All right, so we will take this back and bring your revised version. Make every effort to get it back to you on the 16th. The next reg in line is 205 CMR 234 sports wagering vendors. This is up for a final vote today. And I'll let Paul take it away. So this regulation picks up on page 200. And we'll see that there's some red line here but it is actually misleading. This is all red line that was adopted by the commission and class meeting. We are not recommending any changes to this regulation at this time. We do have a handful of comments from the operator and not note page number in my notes. So he'll give me a moment to find that. I can direct you to it on page 222 of your packet. Everybody fine. We don't recommend adopting any of these comments is the upshot. These are a number of the kinds of comments that we've seen requesting that the commission limit its own regulatory authority delay the delay. It's delay operators obligation to provide information. And while I'm happy to walk through them individually, and I'll add that none of these address the last round of changes to 234 these all address matters that have been in 234 since early on, at least since the first final adoption, perhaps since the the emergency promulgation. So the first two comments asked to limit the the bureau's ability to require possible vendors provide information we don't we don't advise that for the same reason we wouldn't advise that the respect to the commission and bureau's authority to obtain information about anything. They asked to replace immediately with as expeditiously as possible. I believe that comment is on a section dealing with separating from problematic vendors. We think that should be done. We think that should be done immediately. And if there are particular issues, they can work with the bureau and be in conversation with the commission about it. We've seen requests like this request for the commission to handle confidential or sensitive matters confidentially or sensitively before. As always, you know, there are constraints imposed by the open meeting law and the public records law and the commission does have approaches and tools to address confidentiality concerns. That's the reason to add this language to the regulation matters can always be dealt matters can always be dealt with sensitively as they come up on an individual basis. This edit to change these two edits to the kinds of changes the division of licensing can make to forms. Please understand the nature of the regulation, the division of license of licensing changes the form itself. The comments are premised on the idea that the division of licensing would change the applicant information on the form, which is, which would, which is not how the regulation works. Finally, they're asking for essentially a pure period for the division for before an vendor application is administratively closed if they fail to respond to a request from the division of licensing. The division of licensing has, you know, the judgment to decide whether to administratively close an application on failure to receive information. We don't need to insert a formal, a formal pure period, or introduce the confusion that would be created by using the reasonable time language that they propose. Any further questions. Nothing new here. I realize that on the last one we didn't take a vote. We're also on the other two right. I know this. No, you took a vote on the first one. We're not we're explicitly not taking a vote on the second one. We're going to bring it back. And then we're ready and need to act on this one today. Okay. Commissioner Skinner. I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement and the draft of 205 CMR 234 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. And further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to follow the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any further questions or edits on this. Which are going. Hi, Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Yes. Hey, yes. Commissioner Skinner. Commissioner Skinner. Right. Commissioner is it's 1254. I know. We're trying to work through Commissioner to accommodate commissioner Brian the best we can. But I do respect anybody's need for a break. Continue. I can get through this next set to 55. the GPAC meeting right after this. Commissioner O'Brien has a department around two. Michelle O'Brien, I know that you might be able to continue mobile. Is that what your plan is? Yeah. Yeah. What I might do is go mobile a little earlier. So I just get to where I need to be. It can be stationary. Gives me a little extra time on the other end. Yeah. Certainly wait to accommodate commissioner O'Brien. Yeah. I need to leave probably about 45 minutes, half an hour before you guys do, but I can stay on. I can try to maneuver it to stay on as long as possible until you guys end at three. Thanks. We are navigating a little bit of scheduling challenges today. Alrighty. Play management. Good afternoon, madam chair and commissioners. So your next regulation today starting on page. 255 of your packet is 205 CMR 255 of the play management regulation. You did see this regulation in January. You had a lengthy discussion about it, particularly related to notifications of upcoming limits. We've made a number of changes to the regulation as a result of that discussion in January. And I'm going to turn it right over to Annie Lee from Anderson and Krieger to walk us through the updated regulation. Thank you, Carrie. And good afternoon, madam chair and commissioners. So as Carrie stated, this regulation has been revised following the discussion that we had in January regarding this regulation. Specifically it was revised to pare down the things that we heard from operators as well as GLI might be technologically difficult and perhaps might have unintended consequences that could undermine responsible gaming rather than promote it. And so with that, the edits and the red line that you'll see here today are made to reflect those comments. We haven't added anything new to it. And so the red line shows primarily that we made edits to this regulation to versus Carrie mentioned to remove the section regarding notifications of approaching limits to remove obligations imposed on sports wagering kiosks and to remove notifications that would apply to net loss, a max deposit, as well as an account balance. We also inserted clarifications to make it clear that these play management would be available, would be made available by all operators who allow, which allow individuals to maintain a sports wagering account and also that if individuals seek to make any sort of limitations more less strict or to unenroll specifically regarding the max bet, the new limitation or their unenrollment doesn't take effect until the next business day and after the individual reaffirms modification or unenrollment. So if you want to loosen the restrictions that you've set for yourself, you have to wait at least for the data to finish out and you have to reaffirm that you want to loosen that before it takes effect. And so as I said at the beginning, we haven't added anything new. It's mostly to reflect that the comments that we've received from operators is GLI sort of regarding some of the feasibility as well as the unintended consequences of what we previously put before its commission in January. So if there are any questions, I'm happy to address them. I have a question for you. Yes, please. In subsection A of section one there, does it add clarity to add the word single before wager? Just to distinguish it from subsection B, which talks about cumulative dollar amounts. I think as you've proposed it, that the addition of single I think makes sense to me. I don't see any sort of problems with including it. Okay. And then where it talks about in subsection B, a wager over a specified cumulative dollar amount, to me that reads as the limitation not being in play until after they've already exceeded the limit that they've set. So I would propose removing the word over, right? Because I think that would kind of defeat the purpose if the length, if the interpretation of this is that the limit not take effect until after they've already gone over, right? The point is so that they will not go over. Yes. Yes. So let me clarify. The idea here is that you set a budget for a day, week or a month and then this limit would prevent you from going over. So if, for example, I've set a week's budget of, you know, $50 and so far I'm at 49. I could still bet $1 and still be within my budget. It would stop me after I go over that 50. But if I'm at $1, 49 of 50 already wagered and I attempt to place a $5 bet, then it would stop me because that would then take me over the cumulative dollar amount. So it's not that you have to cross the budget in order for it to kick in. It's that it stops you from going above that budget that you've set. Okay. And this language does that. We're sure. Because I was a little caught up in that word over. I'll confess that as the drafter of this regulation, the language makes perfect sense to me. But if others are having a sort of the same interpretation that you did, I'm happy to take another run at the language. All the lawyers in the room smiled with that response. Okay. So, so, so there's the limitation on placing a wager that goes over what they've already set as a dip daily, weekly or monthly limit. Yes. So I think that the, the over a specified cumulative dollar amount is meant to be a modifier to placing. So you can't place over it. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I just need, I just needed to read it again. I guess in public. No, that's okay. I can totally understand if that might have happened. I might be a little too close to this language to be able to think about the different ways to read it. How do we do that? If we're talking about the same language, I think that's important. I mean, we have to do this in public all the time. It's what we do, right? Yes, as opposed to private. Well, we were sorting it out with you just now. Okay. I want to keep on walking us through a little bit. On the, on a high level, just so that any, we can see what you're thinking is. So that same language is, again, sort of appears in section 2, 1, C. Again, it's the idea of the budget for your deposits. And so this time, you know, if I set a budget of $100 for deposit over a month, and I've only deposited $99, I can still deposit one, but if I want to in a single deposit move, you know, $10 into my account, it would prevent me from doing that because that would again exceed the budget I've set for myself. Yeah, so this one here, to me, seems more confusing because the limit is on depositing an amount once the individual has deposited over, ready. I mean, I get the intent of this, but I think this reads, perhaps, that the limit doesn't take effect until they've already deposited over a specified cumulative amount. Am I the only one that reads this that way? Possibly, I'm not into the individual sports major account once the individual, right? So the phrase once the individual has, during a day, week, or month deposited over, so it suggests that they have to go over before the limit kicks in. What if, I guess, would it make more sense to you if we perhaps amended instead of over of up to a specified cumulative amount? So once the individual has, during a day, week, or month deposited up to a specified cumulative amount, or we could just make it a deposited a specified cumulative amount and just strike over. Yeah, I think that the latter makes more sense, but I think it could work either way. Okay. I mean, if we strike over in C, I think that language amendment could also be made in subsection B, so it replacing a wager once an individual has, during a day, week, or month, wagered a specified cumulative dollar amount. That's certainly clear to me. Okay. And does that work, does that amended language work for subsection B as well? Just removing the word over from that? Yes, that's what I just read out, was to suggest that if we remove over from subsection C that we do the same for subsection B. Okay, I missed that. Thank you. All right. Sorry, I missed that clearly. I was still in my thoughts. No apologies necessary. Want to continue on? Happy to. And so one change that we did make in section three, subsection two was after conversation with our operators, we understood that perhaps it might be most effective to have reminders to enroll into play management on a quarterly basis rather than a monthly basis. A monthly basis might be too frequent and it might, has a risk of annoying patrons, but annually doesn't seem like enough, quarterly might strike the sweet balance because it also aligns with the advent of new sports seasons throughout the year. And so that's, that's the intent behind changing it to quarterly here. As I described earlier, we also made a change in section three, subsection five to clarify that when a person seeks to loosen the limitations that they've set on themselves, it's either if they've set sort of a time limit, you know, the day, week or month limit that time has to expire and then they have to reaffirm it. If it's just on max bet limits, then that loosening won't take effect until the next business day and only after they confirm again that they would still like to loosen or unenroll from the limitation. If there are no questions there. Yeah, so Annie, I guess my only, my, my reaction to the monthly to quarterly, I don't like to me, I don't think monthly is onerous, but I don't know how anybody else feels or I see Mark and I don't know how that team feels about it. It doesn't seem onerous to once a month be reminded of an RG tool. Monthly is consistent with the play, right? And play my way, right? So I would like to keep the monthly myself. Madam chair. I actually was going to unmute right before Commissioner O'Brien did on this very issue. I see absolutely no reason to change it to quarterly. And the amount of information that operators give the consumer during a month is incredible. So there's really n