about the plexiglass divider obviously and Commissioner Cameron raises a great point. We're also worried about the protection and safety and health of the employees as well. But it kind of goes to probably where Burke and Bruce are interested in the security of the game of anything that prohibits the dealer from doing their job as well as protecting and maintaining the cards, the chips, everything that's out on the table. We have checked with a few tests and we are able to see everything with the surveillance cameras through the plexiglass. It didn't inhibit that. Yeah. But I mean, just in terms of the dealer reaching out to collect cards or dealer reaching out to collect chips or... The plexiglass actually goes in front of the patrons and there's a space about that far underneath. So it doesn't really inhibit the dealer from doing their job. I'm attempting to share the photograph right now. Can everybody see that? Yeah. Unfortunately, it's difficult to see because it's clear. Karen, I'm not sure if you can zoom in. There's a little zoom tool. Oh, hold on. It's a... You might have to put one white in the deep instead of two whites. Just bring it in and I'll let them... Is that better? I'm zooming. Can you see it closer now? Yes. Okay, I get a better sense. So you can see, like with my cursor, you can see that there are different sections for different players and there are barriers between players and then barrier between the players and the dealer right there. And there's another picture. You want me to pull that one up, Jackie, now? That'd be great. Thank you. One second. Yeah, I think it's important to note that a majority of the table is only exposed to the player, or to the dealer. The player really only has a section of the rail where they can stack their chips or rest their arms. Other than that, the access of the entire table is really up to the dealer, not the player. All right, can everyone see the second picture now? The players? Yeah, it makes more sense. Thank you, appreciate that. So and if we're talking about just the plexiglass between the dealer and the players, it would just be that front portion we just saw, correct? Just wouldn't have the divider scale. Right, interesting enough to look at that divider. If the people are sitting back a little bit, there is no protection. It's really not... Most of the dividers that you get will be further out. That was just a sample that Encore had. The ones they're going to order are actually longer. So, that's good. It really ends up to the... Is Brian trying? All right, I'm going to do this in order. It really, to your point, Commissioner, it really is up to the customer. If they leaned far enough back, they could talk to their buddy next to them. But for anybody who wants that protection, there's a good, like a wing between each side. It's almost like a clear voting booth.  But it almost is like that, where it's clear, and you can lean in and have complete privacy, or you could lean back and move your chair back and actually see face-to-face your customer, your phone. It will be up to the customer to continue to be vigilant and mindful of not scooting away from the table and looking at their friend. They actually have to be up on the rail. Right. Brian, what if... People play. Follow-up question, Brian. Why not require the plexiglass in the high roller area between the dealer and the players? What we want to do is offer options to our customers, and I think Seth said it as well. Some customers may not want that, may prefer to have their own table, their own table with some friends. Yeah, but the dealer has to be there, and the dealer has to be protected. The dealer would have a mask, and the customers would require to have a mask as well. It just seems like you're making everyone else have the plexiglass to protect your dealers, but in the high limit area, you're not as interested in that protection for the dealer. Well, we have it right now, staged for 50% of those games up there. I just don't see why the player would have that option since we're talking about protecting the dealer at this point with that one piece in the front. I think if you look at other jurisdictions across the country, almost all the way across the country, many do not have plexiglass or only have it on half of their tables and do not require masks. We would like to go the other way, require masks of everyone, of the employees and the customers, well as have sanitizer, as well as have those options for those customers that want an extra layer of protection. Yeah, I wanna echo what Commissioner Cameron said though, is just when you look at it from the perspective of the employee, they don't have the option. I mean, they can't come on their shift and say, you know, I don't wanna do it unless I've got the plexiglass. Yeah, I just, I don't see that logic, I'll be honest with you. I understand you're trying to give the patron options, but I just, it would seem to me in this case, you know, health of the dealers is really important here. Well, I will also note that that caught my ear and I think that we would just wanna note that right now, the logic doesn't necessarily extend. But I have to also say, if we apply that logic, which I am concerned, the obvious is the employee, we're not requiring plexi on the extended boards, like relact, correct? But we're allowing relact to be played, correct? Well, that's still to be determined, right? That's what, right, that's right. Thank you, Commissioner Brown for clarifying, that's right. But that would be right now, the practice is no plexi for relact, perhaps. Yeah, but limit the players. Limit, limit on players, not on Blackjack, either they're not separating. You would limit it to the sections that you have. The sections you have. But there's limits on really player number for every game in some way, correct, Bruce? Essentially, yes, but the ones for roulette and craps, it limits, and actually in here, it says three players for the dice games. For the dice games, it's three players per end, and roulette is three players all together. So, Gail, you see my point, why I went- I do, I do, but I think the difference is, it's not really feasible with roulette and craps, where it absolutely is feasible with the other table games, and I just didn't see the logic in requiring it if you're with a regular patron, but giving the option just because someone happens to be a high roll.  It says, Scott, it says, a download. Oh, I'm getting a lot of funny things, guys, up. You're back. Now I'm back. You're back. Okay, were you getting something as well? That was, Scott, and we all sat for a continued- I hope so. I hope so. I hope so. I hope so. I hope so. I'm sure- It's an IT answer, Scott. I'm sure. Kevin and Kevin, they're actually really busy on their other projects. Looks like we're back. There is a really major storm going on outside my window, if you've seen my distraction. So I was a little bit nervous over, that we might get disconnected, but it seems okay. But I think that we've raised, oh, go ahead, Ryan, yes. Yeah, Madam Chair, I think if we look at the way the state has looked at restaurants and how restaurants are going to be allowed to have an employee that has a mask, and customers that are going to not have masks on because they have to eat, we feel that if the customer has a mask and the employee has a mask and there's a separation of space and everyone's using sanitizer, that that would be a safe environment where they're safe for environment. That's right. And if I could chime in as well, commissioners, there's two aspects to these measures that we're talking about here. I think all three licensees have utilized medical experts to look at what are the key protocols that require, that are required to keep your patients and your employees safe and healthy. And that's primarily, that's based on CDC guidance. That's primarily masks, hand washing, hand sanitization. And many of these other measures are really patron accommodations to make folks feel comfortable that they're in a place, they're comfortable coming. And I would say plexiglass falls into that. And many would argue, guest temperature screening is all, they're beneficial but not absolutely necessary. And so that's why, at least from NGM's standpoint, we are offering that on some tables, but we don't believe it's, we need to roll it out throughout our company because of the other precautions we have in place. So I think throughout this discussion, it's what is necessary and what is, based on medical advice and CDC guidance, and then what is additional measures that are helpful, but that patrons appreciate and make the space even safer, but again, not absolutely necessary. Seth. I do think there's a difference though. When you're talking about wait staff going in and being in that situation with patrons, they're not standing there in that close proximity for protracted periods of time. They're coming in and out, and they're going into other areas with different airspace, et cetera. So I do think there's a difference there when you equate to restaurants and to just echo Commissioner Cameron's comment about the comfort level of the patron, we also have to think about the comfort level of the employee and having spent years waitressing and having to go into a smoking section and knowing, well, I either take it or I don't get paid. I'd hate to see somebody in a position of saying, well, I either take the no shield table or I don't get shipped. So I don't know what the position is if someone says, I just don't feel comfortable being there without the plexiglass between myself and the players. Is it fair to consider at least offering employees the opportunity to use a shield in addition to a mask if they want to feel comfortable going into that environment? Is that something that has been used or practiced? Burke or Bruce or any of our licensees? We don't have any information. I don't think, Bruce, from our research that I noticed that the dealers are additionally wearing like the dental hygienists shields, but we could look further into that for everyone. Not that I've seen anywhere, Bruce. Yeah, yeah, it's more, again, getting back to the point being raised about making sure the employees are also coming at this from a place of safety and security. At least having that available to them is something additionally they could do to feel comfortable, whether it's dealing with that or dealing crabs or being at one of those tables where there's not a plexiglass divider provided. Can I ask a question to Loretta, Bruce or Burke or anybody? The numbers in terms of columns B and C, what does that equate to in terms of distance between people? That was more just mathematics based on total numbers. Right, I didn't know, but when you got to the table. You're not achieving the six foot. Yeah. But do you have a ballpark and what you could achieve? I mean, what's the ballpark? Do we know? No, we don't off the top of our head, no. Okay. I have a question for Brian. Was your expectation or what's happening in Vegas relative to High Limit having none of those plexiglass? Is that typically that, are those typically tables that have less patrons justified the nature of the game? Yes, typically a High Limit table that's a higher limit. A customer will want the table to themselves or want to just sit down with their friend or they want a private table. It's just not possible downstairs unless you're slow in a lower limit area, we just have more demand. So we felt like we wanted to have the plexi there so we could put more people and more patrons there in a safer environment. But it really, we want our employees to be safe too, obviously. Yeah, no, and you know, all of these is, we need to recognize that it's layered of number of things that we are putting on top of each other so that there's some minimization. I think I want us to get away a little bit from, you know, the precise of each one of these. I think that when we aggregate the dispensing of the hand sanitizer, the temperature checking, you know, the screening and communicating with all of these other measures, physical as well. And, you know, that there's at least in theory and over a total minimization aspect of things, which I think is appropriate. I don't know that we can hear you, Cathy. Can you hear me now? Yes. The silent chair is actually probably pretty effective. I think we just want to follow up on Commissioner O'Brien's question right before Commissioner Zuniga's comment. Just if we could maybe get a better sense of the actual footage between these gaming commissions, it's going to be an important piece of information for I'm sure public health experts to have as well to Commissioner Zuniga's point.  Xenos are opening across the country. We, you know, are committed to doing the very, very best here for employees and patrons. The idea of requiring, you know, consistent hand sanitizing and requiring masks that's already a good step ahead of other jurisdictions. What's interesting to me is that Plexiglas is seen as an option that's not necessarily from your public health specialist, but rather from something that's psychological. And I think that that's a, for me an outstanding public health question, would they require Plexi? They certainly have suggested that in the restaurant. At least the early phase two restaurant requirements, as I understand it, if you can't achieve between your tables, six feet different, so you must put up the Plexiglas. So I'm not ready to concede that it's not a public health issue yet and that it's primarily for the psychological benefit of the patron and not the physical benefit. So I think with respect to that issue, I can't say that the table games are trickier for me because they're not, it's not a universal practice across board. So I'm terribly aware of what Enrique is saying and that's why in many ways I'm wondering if a combination of enforced use of masks and sanitizer would actually meet a public health standard as well as the achieving, that's close to six feet social distancing is feasible. I actually wonder if they would prefer that over Plexiglas because of the need to keep Plexiglas clean as well, but I don't wanna really introduce that element because I'm presuming that any Plexiglas that's gonna be put up is gonna be sanitized. And I think the better analogy might be a supermarket than a restaurant where the Plexiglas, because that checkout person has to stand there with one person after another and it's a safety issue. In fact, a supermarket who wasn't employing that, they were sued and forced to do it. So the employees didn't feel safe. So I am, I still don't understand the rationale of we're gonna make, we're gonna have it at the lower levels. There's Plexiglas between the dealer and the players, but upstairs we're going to let the patron decide. And I just, I still can't follow that logic. I understand there may be fewer people, but I think from a protection standpoint for dealers, you know, I just don't understand. They say, oh, I'm upstairs tonight. I don't have it. If I were downstairs, I would. I just don't see that where you are requiring it at the lower level, I just can't follow that logic. So I appreciate Mr. Cameron's comments. And of course it's, I wanna make clear that when has indicated its level of use of Plexiglas, MGM has indicated its level, they both are different. And so we just wanna make sure that we don't assume anything about either. I think the use of Plexiglas we need to explore further and whether it's something that we mandate versus incurred, right? Sure, it's every other question. A says it's discretionary, B and C say it's mandatory. So it's really how we come down on these three categories. And I'm just saying I'm not prepared to take a stance on it because I feel like it's a matter of public health. I'd like to understand more. I don't know if others are more inclined to want to to reach a consensus if there's four or three of you who feel strongly that it should be mandated or encouraged, Gail, do you wanna? Yeah, I feel like, you know, I just, again, I do not see the distinction between I'm talking about just the Plexiglas now between the dealer and the players. I am fine with the option of certain tables between players having it and others not and that's the comfort level, but that dealer who stands there all day long or all shift long, I just think, you know, I just, I am in favor of say B where we require it between the dealer and the players. And so Gail, are you saying that you're gonna require both licensees to have your position would be on all games or just on one? We just talked about the games that were feasible. It really isn't. Right, so I just want to be clear that I'm not sure that the other licensee was planning on putting it on and maybe correct me around that there was gonna be optional, but you're saying it would be a mandate that you're not doing 100% of Blackjack. That would, this is up for staff. Right now it was not proposed to do it. We may end up with 100%. You know, I'm part of this isn't having my lawyer had on from a minimum standard standpoint, I'd rather maximum flexibility and then if our best practice we decide to go a bit above and beyond that, which is very possible. So we're still working that through. I believe we are gonna try to get every Blackjack table with Flexi, but again, with rather the flexibility from a minimum standard requirement. Okay, so that's Blackjack. And any other tables, other tables that you're putting on Flexi? We would not plan to have it on roulette or crops, all Blackjack style setups, we're likely gonna. And no poker right now. Correct. Okay, and Brian, with the exception of what you said about high rulers, we understand your position on that. Otherwise 100% on Blackjack tables or was- The games, yes, the same Blackjack style tables, that's correct. That has been your plan all along. And no poker. I think as Commissioner Stevings was suggesting, I think the face shield in addition to the mask, conceivably achieve some of the same option, some of the same protection than the Flexi glass. So I'd be interested in hearing if that's something that is being considered. I actually think that some people find a face shield to be confining and may fog up glasses. So I think the Flexi glass, which is a little farther away from a dealer, let's say, is maybe a better option. Okay, Commissioner Brian? I'm coming down on the same side of this as Commissioner Cameron. When I think about the employees, if there's a feasibility argument or some other health argument, I'm more than willing to listen to it, but simple, it doesn't seem to me to be a client choice, the safety of the employee. In terms of if it's feasible, I don't see why we wouldn't require it in the circumstance. Commissioner Stevings? Yeah, I'm almost coming down on the idea of, every Blackjack table is requiring some type of shield. But at the same time, I'd want the employees who are dealing those other games where there aren't shields to at least have access to a face shield. If by choice, they feel more comfortable wearing it, making it available to the employee. We want the employee to be safe as they're dealing as it's been pointed out. They're there for a long time, facing the same customers or a whole slew of different customers. So, at least making that type of PPE available to them if they want it, I think, would go a long way towards addressing everybody's concern. Can I ask one industry question first, Ann? Are all industries keeping crafts and let tables open? Are they keeping someone on closing them because they can't provide that protection? I think most of them have as an option, like a high roller came in and wanted to play. They would have available, not everyone's keeping crafts and let open. Just because of the sanitization problem. So that's where I'm having trouble drawing a line. And I don't want to artificially draw a line that would have a big business impact. So I need to understand not putting plexiglass on the other tables because it's not feasible to play the game. I feel like the risk to the, if it's not the equivalent of the dealers and the employees who are running the games are still high. So I just really want to understand, really the need or impact of the plexiglass. I very much appreciate enhancements like this. So I love that you're introducing it. I don't want to penalize you for introducing it. That's my main thinking. Because again, if it's really important, then we probably shouldn't have the Latin craps. But if it's with face masks and possibly, I respect Commissioner Cameron's description around the impact of a shield because I sense that's probably hard to work with. I know that hair salon stylists will be wearing shields regularly. So it's certainly they're being employed. But I guess I just want to understand the health. But I think I'm hearing three people would like to see, these shields are more plexiglass for blackjack. I'm not hearing anything with respect to craps and roulette. Then I'm hearing from Enrique that he'd like to keep, I think, calm A in flexibility. I thought we were tabling the craps and roulette discussion. We hadn't gotten into, like my comments were blackjack only because that's what we're talking about. I'm too. And so I would need to understand more sort of the protections to see if you could be on the others before we move into that conversation. Well, that, and I'm having a hard time just really on blackjack alone. If we're going to keep the Latin. So let's talk about roulette and craps. Relyne? Well, I'm not really, my first question was, what are these percentages of gaming positions translate to space wise? And we don't have an answer on that right now. So the next question really is, let's talk about the magnation of the game and cleaning and what the plans are there in terms of, is it visible? My hair is just so long. So that's some, so we're talking about distance as well as sanitization of the game. Gail, do you want to comment? Yeah, the other thing that kind of goes hand in hand is the position of the deal per se. I learned a new track. Did you know what I'm saying? No, you did. How to, how to, yes, put someone on you. So Bruce Band or Burke, tell me a little bit more about who stands, you know, the risk to a dealer in craps or roulette and players to themselves as, you know, as compared to a blackjack. I think at craps, you have a lot more, you know, people there, you have a box man, you have a stick man. Yes. You have the dealers on the other side. So you have a lot of personnel there. So not only is it, you know, a risk to them, but it's also an expensive game for the casino to run. So it has to be financially viable for them to run that many employees with it as well. So like I say, I would be surprised that you would get them running a craps game unless they had a higher roller to come in and play it. So you can tell me if I'm wrong, Brian or Seth, if you would run it for just like the average guy, I might be wrong with that. Roulette, you have one dealer dealing it and with three people right around the table, you might be in, you know, easier to do at that point. You mean in terms of distance? In terms of distance. Yes. Distance, it really depends what size roulette table you have because there are different sizes. You have a bigger roulette table. The spacing might be three and a half, four feet. In roulette, literally half the time the dealer could step back literally parallel to the wheel. It'd be more than six to eight feet apart and they do work the table. By that, I mean they walk up and down the table to assist with a bet. And of course to pay off a bet, someone on the far end they'll walk down and push those chips to them. But then they are more than welcome, I would think, to back up four, five, seven feet away from the action again. Then they have to muck the chips and everything else with that. So they're down by the roulette wheel head. So Rona, do you have anything you want to add on this? No, I think Bruce and Burke have a better understanding of those games than I do. So I don't have anything to add. And the game of craps, as Bruce was saying, the stick person is in the center of the game with his back to the main aisle of the casino and the players are traditionally right on his right and left pocket. So there would have to be some requirements of what kind of distance you would allow with the face mask. Then of course the base dealers, if you've ever seen a don't player, they usually nestle right over next to that base dealer. So, craps is a unique challenge. And I think we can provide a schematic of the distances. I think we have that of the player distances. Oh, you do have that, okay, great. I mean, I guess, Cathy, what I would have to add is that if your concern is to protect the employee and to relieve the employee of the responsibility of having to make the decision, should I ask for a shield? Shouldn't I ask for a shield? Should I take a shift at a certain table or not take a shift? Then your minimum standard should reflect that concern. And that may be to require more of the dividers. It may mean to start off at the initial reopening with maybe no craps, maybe roulette. But that's just what I'm hearing from some of the commissioners with respect to the employees. If you want to stay focused on there, minimizing the number of decisions they have to make, you can set minimum standards to do that. I just received a schematic of craps if you folks want to see that. Can you share it on paper? Sure, share it on paper. Okay, thank you, Sterl, for providing this. Is it up there? Yeah. Oh, I guess. That looks like roulette.  This is dice. Claps table. Here's the stick person. And down here would be the box person. Think it's the other way around. Sorry, I have it exactly opposite. Here's the box. Here's the two dealers. And here's the stick person. And these are some measurements you can look around to see what, this is on a 14 foot game. Craps is usually a 12 foot game or a 14 foot game. So the base dealers on either corner at the top, you can see if you put a patron here, that's five feet away. Okay, show me that again, Burke, please. Where the page, oh, that's where it says patron. Yeah. Yeah, so that looks like that's five feet away from our measurements. So I guess a patron right here, literally on the hook could be almost six feet from either player, either dealer, sorry, the stick. It looks like it could be feasible to have one or a party of two that know each other on either side of a craps game, it may be possible. Meaning the other one is just another question, which we can table, but whether there's gonna be guidelines on like restaurants, the maximum party, a party could come in and wanna take a table over maybe in high limits or something like this, is there gonna be a max? We do have that now, the restaurant limits are at six. I didn't know if that's necessarily gonna correlate or whether. Right, right, for restaurants we have it, but waiting for, see if we have that, yeah. Right. I'll make a point, just an offshoot of a point that Bruce Band made earlier, that as he was applying the feasibility to any one particular game, I'll make it about the overall operation. And I don't know that we're there yet, but I would be interested in as we layer each one of these requirements, if you will, or guidelines, there's at least in theory a tipping point out there, at which point there's unprofitable or unwieldy or too unwieldy or too much to do and to operate. And so again, I don't know that we're there yet, but that's something that's been in my mind as we discuss each one of them necessarily by themselves, there's an aggregate effect here that I think at some point we need to consider. I think that's fair. I think that's what I'm struggling with, Henrike, to make sure that what the right balance is. And of course, I just wish I had a little bit more information in terms of the science on the risk. In terms of whether we have a consensus on if we're going to require Plexiglas for all Blackjack without waiting for any further guidance, then we would want to probably give that because I'm hearing from Seth that that hasn't been in the cards right now. So that would be a plan that you would need extra time for. And if it's gonna fly through the high end rollers, which I know, Brian, you did, I want to be fair to both the licensees. Brian did indicate that their goal was to provide on all the tables, but then did note the exception, which of course we did note that it doesn't, regardless of who the patient is, we're concerned about the employee. But to be fair, I didn't want to note that when was going to extend it widely, the Plexiglas across Blackjack. So you might even be further ahead already on that Plexiglas. I don't know if Seth, if you actually need more lead time on getting that in place, Berk, you would want to say something. I have someone forward me a picture of a craft's table with Plexiglas. If anybody might want to see that. Sure. All right, here we go. It's not pretty. Yeah. Whoops. Did I just lose it? Yes, there it is. There it is. Can we just expand it? I'm trying to see what I can do with that. Thank you. Maybe the zoom. There you go. There you go. There. It looks like the dealer right here. Is that a dealer? Yeah. No, that's a patient. Here's a biter. Looks like there's a patient over here with their base and a divider. And it looks like they have room underneath the reach down, you know. It looks cumbersome, obviously. And the box person is sitting over here in between two shields for their base dealers also. So it extends out over the table, correct? Yeah, it looks like it's over the table. Now, Krabs is a game where there's a lot of talking going on and bets are verbalized and bets sometimes are not verbalized as clearly as they should be, which could lead to confusion, pro and con to the casino. So this could be... Past posting. Yeah, this could be a little tough at times for the casino to understand what bets are being tossed in when dice are in the air, chips are always flowing. Yeah. Commissioner Zunigan knows all about that. Can we know where this is? Yeah, Mohegan. This is Mohegan. It says at the top, Foxwoods and Mohegan's son on day one. Oh, yeah, I think that's a little... I couldn't see it. So I would be interested in hearing... I would be interested in hearing A, if they mandate it in Connecticut, and B, if we could talk to somebody, maybe one of the gaming agents there to find out if, in fact, there are issues as you're thinking, Burke, there may be. In terms of... Right, yes. Games protection, I think that would be a point of emphasis to find out information on that. I think there'd be problems... Connecticut's tribal, though, right? Yeah, we've been talking to Mohegan's son and Foxwoods, we'll give them another call. Yeah, we have a pretty good connection at one of the casinos. Yeah, I would be interested, before we make a decision on this, if, in fact, they mandate it, and how well it's working out there. I don't think they can mandate it, though. I'd say one of the fields... The tribe may mandate it. Being the tribe mandating it, okay. Okay, hold on everyone, because we are talking. We've got Brian, we'll put you on hold for a second, because I'm gonna go to my three commissioners, first, Bruce Stevens. Yeah, I just look at that setup, and some of those plexiglass pieces extending out over the table. Yeah, have somebody bouncing their dice off the plexiglass screen, and I'd be curious to see if it's mandated or not. And then, Commissioner O'Brien? No, that was my question, is when you were asking for the mandate, I'm thinking, well, they can really decide whatever they wanna do. So, I'd be curious to know the decision. What was the analysis that prompted them to think this was the way to go? That would be helpful. And then, whether it's mandated or not, just how they got there. And then, I'm not sure if another, Commissioner Cameron, did you have another comment? No, I expressed an interest to finding out.  Okay, Brian. Yeah, I'm just gonna say that picture is actually from Fox Woods. They decided to go that route. Mohegan did not. I've been to Mohegan since they've opened, and a majority of their tables do not have plexi, and none of their craft's tables have plexi that I saw. So, the two sovereign nations decided to do completely different things, and they're five minutes apart. Right. Interesting. It would be interesting to hear how their patron experience is, and how they're finding any challenges in terms of enforcement, of the gaming integrity. So. It was interesting. When we went to Mohegan, the customers had the choice to sit down at plexi tables or non-plexi tables, and it was about evenly split, actually, and they had the choice to sit wherever they wanted. So, I think some people are more risk-averse than others. Yeah, I guess I keep getting back to the employees, though. I mean, right. Despite having plexiglass, Brian, are they still limited to the number of positions per table? They did limit the number of patrons at dice. It was three per end, similar to what Bruce had mentioned. What about Blackjack? Is that three, regardless of whether you have dividers or not? I didn't see, but I want to say it was three for the ones that didn't have plexi, because they had taken the chairs away. That's what they indicated to Burke and I that they were going to do. Okay. Thank you. This is tough. Tough stuff. And I know you're all living it every second, and we've been chewing on it, but not with the ability to share among ourselves. So, we appreciate everyone's patience. It's the part of us being able to talk together. I think, Karen, I think I'm going to suggest and have my commissioners chime in that we note, I think some similarities that there's an expression about concern for the safety of the employees. Okay. And, but also looking at the practicalities of the use of plexiglass for at least two games, perhaps in the lab. And I guess I'd add that just understanding the health benefits of plexiglass. It all makes sense to me that more you shield the better. Though, but because of the expense associated with it and because of the patron experience, I think I just would like to understand, just it seems so obvious. I just want to understand that if there's any input on that we can get from our public health experts and from the licensees experts. It's interesting to me that, there was a line drawn at some point by the licensees. And then commissioners is, of course, weighing the cost, doing the cost benefit analysis, and want to be careful. In terms of going through each provision, it seems to us on Rike that each jurisdiction has had to go through that's in terms of their guidelines. They're quite detailed, giving prescribing on those, on exactly what we're going through. So. So I can just ask a question just for clarifications of what, make sure I'm hearing things correctly. Is that there are some angst about what to do with the table games, but it sounds as if there is at least the commissioners seem to be open to allowing less than six feet for the table games. It's just a matter of individuals playing on table games because of where the dealers position is and where the players are playing. It's just a matter of whether we're requiring plexiglass in or another barrier on top of masks. Am I hearing that correctly?  I'm not there yet. I'm not saying no. I'm just, I'm not saying that I embrace that. Okay, and I'm the same way. I'm not, you know, I'm really wondering if, if we really are concerned about people playing around games and some games don't have plexiglass and we're only comfortable if there's plexiglass and should we not, should we ban those games from the time being? So I just don't, I don't have enough information on, Blackjack seems to be, there seems to be, as Loretta says, some kind of a minimum that perhaps we can all get comfortable with even though the licensees may not love us for it. If we all have plexiglass around the dealer, all dealers, we might be comfortable with that. That's what I feel like that's a potential consensus. Enrique, what do you think? I think that's a fair characterization. I mean, it's not, you know, it's not unanimous but it doesn't have to be. I think, you know, again, I begin to worry about the workability overall. If we're really concerned about any one instance about transmission, let's face it, we should consider whether they should reopen at all. And so what instead, what we are trying to do, I would suggest as you did earlier, is to layer as many protections as are feasible to minimize the overall, you know, the overall risk. But as somebody who's done and thought about a lot of risk management in the past, we're not gonna bring down the risk to zero. Let's just face it. And that's true for every other industry. It's true for every, for the state, what the governor is going down, you know, must be evaluating. And so, you know, what we're left with is the workability of each one of these. And I'm not suggesting that we're made with the reach to a point in which any one of these is unworkable. I think it's all a matter of, you know, ultimately the cost-benefit analysis. But I guess that's my point. If I could ask the licensees a question, Seth and Brian, what it would be the lead time to order, you know, if you had to order more plexiglass, what kind of lead time are we talking about there? Well, it's in very high demand right now, as you know. It would be, we would need lead time. I don't know exactly how much. I mean, we're having some installed now. The reality would be that we probably would have to open with less than we'd like to. And as we're able to roll out additional plexi, be able to open those additional games. Because I, but I can't pinpoint it exactly time, Karen. And I did want to make one other point, you know, what I'm hearing a lot of, and it's very fair concern, we have it as well, is to focus on the health and safety of our employees. I know we as MGM, and I'm sure Penn and Winner similarly situated that protecting our employees and their health and welfare is a top priority. So, you know, we perhaps in the meantime, after this discussion, we can provide additional information about the measures that we do take with respect to employees. An example, in Tunica when it reopened, there was no requirement of plexiglass or face shields. We offered face shields and made them available to all of our dealers in case they'd feel more comfortable with them. Very few, if any of them decided to use those, but we had them available. And it goes back to my theme of minimum guidelines and best practices and flexibility to, I think, Commissioner Zuniga's point, a later approach. So we, I'll find out and get to the commission to staff any such measures with respect to employee, you know, options for employees and what our policies are around their comfort level because it's something we deal with every day and we're very committed to. I'd like to clarify too, the states that mandate plexiglass for even the blackjack, I just would like to understand that. And I think it's important to realize that we are one of the highest states when it comes to our numbers and the cities in particular. So something required at another location may not be exactly the model we want to look at. We need to look at this particular state and region and take as many precautions as possible. And again, it may well be that this will be resolved by the state. Again, not unlike our last discussion, it's the lead time that's, I know, difficult. I think the lead time is probably more of an issue if I'm guessing right, MGM right now than when. So if you didn't, if there was a supply issue, it would probably mean that you just wouldn't have as many open tables at the beginning if that was an exception. So good. Okay. So what I do also, what a comment on the, you know, I'm hesitant to rely solely on, we offered a protective piece of equipment and it wasn't widely asked for because there is sometimes a stigma to asking for it when it's not mandated. Maybe you don't want to be the person with the face shield when everybody else doesn't have it. So while I can understand that may be the experience, I also think we do need to think about sometimes minimum uniformity just eliminates any risk that someone isn't going to ask for something they need or feel comfortable with them wanting. So for efficiency purposes and moving this discussion along, it sounds like for both table games and for slot machines, we are looking to go back to the governor's advisory board and or any other health officials to get that answer. Is six feet, six feet or can it be less than six feet if there are other protective measures in place? That's really the threshold question I'm hearing from you as commissioners, am I? And then the next one would be if it's less than six feet and because it's unlike slots where you're looking at a machine rather than interacting more closely with a dealer and other patrons, is a mask sufficient to protect or should plexiglass be used or not neither is sufficient? Or does time also weigh into that? I mean, it may be they say plexiglass of masks, you can go 10 minutes and not worry about a thing. You get past a certain point and now you have a problem. Okay. Yeah, and that's, and at these table games, you're gonna be there as you pointed out or commissioner Cameron, commissioner very well. Okay, because it seems as if with the social distancing, we need, you're looking for that further clarity from on that group of questions before you can really move forward. Our licensees won't be able, if it's six feet, if it is six feet with masks and it must maintain six feet, it does not sound like it will be feasible to really run any table games. Am I right? I'm seeing on the heads of me. So. I would probably say so, but, you know. And I'm seeing the same thing I'm making. It just wouldn't be feasible. There's no way to get six feet with table games. Well, then what about Rhode Island and Mississippi that have the six feet rule for the slot machines? Bruce and Burke, do you know what they're doing with table games? Not totally, but they do have table games, want to understand. Are you sure that Rhode Island has table games, Bruce? No, not a hundred percent, but I'm pretty sure. I'm really meant to check that last night and I have to say it, I just didn't. Is Patrick still on the call? Rhode Island, Rhode Island has table games, yes. Open now. Oh, open now, okay. I know they have them, but I can't remember if they decided to keep them shut down. Does anybody have that? My notes say Mississippi has a three chair max on the blackjack style tables with the corners and middle seats remaining at the table and other seats from the other seats removed. Okay. And Rhode Island? Westie just texted me that Rhode Island does not have their tables open. Yeah, that's right. Okay. So, you know, there we have another comparison. So, there must be some information out there to help us understand this better. All right, Loretta, I'm gonna have you help me in terms of social distancing on table games. Do we have any outlier position? Well, it looks like we covered all of that. Should we go back to them to our overall occupancy issue? I think so. I think we've worked our way through slots and table games and then back to page three on the occupancy. Page three. Yeah. Alrighty, because I think Mr. Stevens, you had raised the valid point that when we're talking about occupancy, now that we've gone through the exercise we have, we do know that there are going to be less players just by virtue of, even if we make some fair assumptions, we know there's gonna be reduced players. And if we make the assumption of, let's just say for the sake of today's discussion that it is every other slot machine. So let's say it's a 50% reduction in slots. We can have some kind of a reasonable discourse. In terms of table games, I don't know how you figure that out. No, a third or something. But I think we can turn to our licensees to help us because you've been thinking about this long and hard. So in terms of occupancy, Loretta, why don't you just go through it again at a sort of high level and then we'll start our discussion. Sure, so at a high level, the A column relied on building code occupancy levels and calls on you to set a percentage of the building code occupancy level for the gaming floor. We've got some of those numbers in the footnotes. MGM's number is 7,480. PPC and Encore may want to update their numbers. I'm not sure if you have updated numbers. You saw this chart the other day and if you do wanna update your numbers, I suggest doing that poorly now. So Loretta, sorry to interrupt you. If we could get back to you on that tomorrow, we're just having an architect look at it and make sure that it incorporates the traversing areas as well. Okay, same with you Lance, you wanna get back on that number? Same for us, yes, please. Okay, so the numbers that we were working with are reflected in the footnote. The percentage level offered in column A is 50%, but obviously you could use a different percentage we'd have to consider if you use this formula, the employee levels as well, which then the licensee could extrapolate when it's counting guest entries and their plans are required to address that, you know how they would do the accurate count on the guest entries and how they would manage the queuing for entry and what they would do if they reach occupancy level and potentially need to turn people away. The B and C levels rely on a percentage of the number of gaming positions which takes into consideration both slots and table games depending on what formula you use from columns B and C earlier, you know, plus an additional percentage of what was offered here was the 25 and the 10% in columns B and C respectively. Column B talks about an optional reservation system with the idea that that would help for planning purposes. Column C calls for a requirement of a timed reservation system. And I know the licensees do have some thoughts about the requirement of the reservation system. Which we addressed in connection with the earlier discussion on time contact tracing. So commissioners who, if you have a position or do you wanna hear from the licensees first on this? It looks like Gail's suggesting a ladder, like the ladder here from the licensees. Okay, I'm trying to unmute myself. Yes, I would like to hear from the licensees. That would be helpful. Licensees, can I impose on you? Lance, now that we've gotten to that table game discussion, can we start with you? Sure, yeah, I don't know that we have a strong preference, I'm sure, between the difference between the two calculations, you can still arrive at the same number just because you're doing the ending positions times X or if you're doing simply a percentage of capacity. I will tell you that as I understand it, I believe certainly the majority, if not all, jurisdictions, as I understand it, though I certainly may be wrong, are deferring to capacity and taking the eight percentage of building capacity. That said, don't necessarily have a strong preference, I think you can get to the same place using either calculation. I'm sorry, the only answer, I couldn't quite hear your final statement. So they are not doing the occupancy based on the building code, but rather the gaming positions. No, they are, they are deferring to building code and building capacity, yes, yep. And that is our understanding as well that most of the jurisdictions have gone with the building code occupancy. Our concern about making it, tying it to the gaming positions is if you include employees in that right now, we might be over at the 25% even. Because so many employees are gonna be on the floor, we're gonna have security, increased security. We obviously have, our games are spread out, I think more than some other jurisdictions. So we've got a lot of free space for people to circulate within that. In terms of the reservation system, we've got- Can I just, before we do that, could I go to Seth on just the GM's position, thank you. We much prefer the, based on building code, it's more consistent with what we're seeing in other jurisdictions. It provides enough cushion to accommodate household guests, which we see a lot of, say couples who come and one person's playing and the others is there. We wanna be able to accommodate that, which, so if you're looking at 25% on top of available positions, if you look at guests kind of on and off the floor, plus employees, it's much, much tighter. We'll probably come under on almost a daily basis. I presume every day come under 50% of our building code with our limited operations. But again, it gives us that flexibility to adjust. It would be much, much more challenging because we're gonna have to control by the way. And I could be more of an issue with MGM than the other properties, but I think it's similar. To control the floor capacity, we're really gonna have to control access to the facility because we have a carpet tile once you're in your in.  That's how you're gonna control how many people are on the floor. We have no other real way of doing it. So it's important to have that, the cushion of the building code capacity numbers. Or else we think we would probably need a higher percentage on top of the gaming positions. Questions, commissioners? I had a question about the number. I know, so MGM's number came in as, is that the entire gaming facility capacity? No, that's just the gaming floor in the southern market. And so the other two numbers, Loretta, what are the ones that we're looking at for PPC in Hongkong right now? The numbers for PPC that came in and Joe Delaney helped with the plans and I think in discussions with the licensees as well, or without any of the food stations. So PPC was just gaming area at 5783. And Encore at the almost 17,000. So those came in from the plans, from the architectural plans. Okay, and then in terms of what's being carved out to add, that's just the seating areas that would be open or any restaurant seating area. My understanding is that the open seating areas, not the restaurants. Okay, so I just wanted to clarify that. This is not theoretical restaurant space capacity. This is actual space that would be open. That's my understanding. Okay, okay. Questions, do we have any disagreement with the proposal from the licensees to rely on the building code occupancy rate? I'm just not sure. I mean, if you don't, if you have less, it depends on whether table games are open or not. I don't know. To me, yes, you can have other people, but if you have less gaming positions, and part of that space based on that, I'm not so sure that 50% makes sense to have that many people milling around, if there's no food being served. I don't know. I'm not so sure I'm there and 50%. So can we do this? What if we said it's the percentage is still up for discussion, depending on the other? Or is that too vague? It will be based on occupancy rate. I'm hearing what you're saying, 50%. Yeah, that assumes everything's. Yeah, I guess the question would be, is there any realistic possibility you're going to get any new information that would change your mind in the next X number of days, or is this basically it? And do you have anything you're going to have? I mean, the point is that if table games are not part of the overall, if they're not running, then you would have more people who are just milling around as guests or patrons who aren't even gambling. And of course, that's a concern because if they can have a drink and then they start to gather. The only thing I would add, if I could, is one of the ways we will control social distancing and the six foot rule is through access and building capacity. And so just because 50% of, in our case, 7,400 doesn't mean on a weekday, on a Tuesday, we would have, we would let 3,700 people in the building that would be very crowded and we wouldn't be doing social distancing. So we're committed to controlling our capacity to allow for social distancing based on what we have going on. I think at some point we just have to have an upper limit that we're often going to come in much lower than that is reasonable and allows us to have guests, employees during the busiest times where we would still be doing social distancing. Eileen, would it work? Oh, go ahead, Jacqui. Sorry, I agree with Seth. I think it's incumbent on us to monitor the social distancing once people are in the building. But what we're trying to also provide for is if someone, for instance, wants to eat at one of our restaurants and traverses the Casino floor to get there, that once they're in the restaurant, they wouldn't count for that, but all that access into the Casino floor would count towards that. We're looking at implementing a system throughout surveillance to count people. So we anticipate that the accuracy should be quite high. Is there a simple math calculation when you look at 50% and then you look at the square footers of the gaming area, how many feet between everybody there would be? I mean, can we just do a simple math that confirms 50% would give you plenty of space? Actually, we have a meeting for them to do that tomorrow. Okay. Yep. I understand some people would be in a group, so some would be clustered safely together. Right. But it sounds like Eileen, just to see if there's a simpler way, it sounds like if that is in fact the case and there's enough room with 50%, you'd be okay with that, with the caveat that if there are no table games that we would put in there that expectation would be that percentage would be reduced. That how you're feeling? Well, it's mixing the two though, right? Because the, and I welcome anybody else's thoughts, but part of it is assuming, if not full capacity, close to, I mean, no one has poker, but for the most part, everyone's trying to get at least some or most of their table games going. Yep. My concern is the milling about factor if you don't have that, whether that would adjust that percentage down for anybody, even though I know that reference point is coming into the other two categories as a calculator that's not relevant to building code occupancy. I mean, I think that's something that could be monitored. My guess is that they could, and I don't know what the science, the one thing I've observed in grocery stores is that, you know, they reach some point, I don't know whether they have a... It's 25%. Whether they... I think it's 25%. Whatever it is, and then they manage the crowd, of course, one comes out, one goes in. But at any given point, you may be at different contacts, you know, once you're in. And I think that should be part of what's given to licensees here. You know, the notion that, depending on what ends up happening with the games and how many people end up either going to a game or going to a restaurant because there's no availability or there is, or whatever the case may be, that if they see a lot of congregation in the corridors, let's say, because there's not enough gaming positions available, that, you know, that in order not to get to that point, they start limiting access, which keeping to the point of a particular overall cap, I don't know, it makes me wonder what might be the science behind that. But I look forward to the information that they're meeting tomorrow on this. Yes, and I think we can qualify it enough to say 50% or whatever number is achievable where the social distancing can be maintained.  In other words, 50% of the occupancy level sounds just fine to us right now, but as Enrique points out, how the patrons convene and what it looks like, if that number is too high to maintain social distancing, you're gonna have to make adjustments. So it should be, there should be a kind of a condition. It's a conditional provision. I know the restaurants have to keep tables, you know, six feet away, et cetera. Do they have overarching capacity percentage too or is it just purely based on like spacing? Brian's shaking his head. No, Brian, do you know the answer to that or? Yeah, it's six feet. There isn't an occupancy. Jackie, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's just six feet. Or if you can't maintain six feet between tables, you must have a six foot high plexiglass, right? Okay. Retail has a limit. That's retail is at 40%. 40, okay. So that's why they're actually monitoring the number of guests. So perhaps, Loretta, we can do something that gets with the language that gets to the concern, which is that the 50% of the occupancy level work provided that the licensees maintain, you know, and work to enforce the six feet distancing. Cause it's kind of, it's just very hard to, it's hard to imagine how having the flow of the patrons is going to work. It's going to be a challenge for the licensees. You know, if they have the six people clusters who came in together, that's one thing. But if the three of the clusters start to convene, you're going to have a challenge and it's going to be up to each licensee to work to separate them. And I guess not unlike when they first opened, they made a lot of adjustments to the gaming floor, the mix of tables and games and spots. My guess, I can only guess that there's going to have, there will have to be some period of time to adjust people coming at the times and the games that they're preferring. Karen, do you have enough on this one? I think we have kind of a consensus on this point. Yeah, okay. Again, we're not voting today. Where we have many issues. Planning sanitization, Seth, I've been practicing that word. So have I. Yeah, I stumbled over every time and it was so privately pleased when I heard you too. So on swaths and then you have it also with respect to table games and we'll just assume that plexiglass will be used when we're thinking about, in some context, let's assume plexiglass is part of the overall plan when we think about sanitization. So Loretta, do you want to walk us through this? Slaughts and table games? Sure. So column A differs from B and C and column A talks about sanitization being required at a minimum level frequently and at regular intervals. Column B expressly is of every four hour requirement and column C is expressly every one hour requirement or when the chair turns over to a new player. And I believe the other items in column A, the other three bullet points carry through to B and C and there's a difference in C on signage reminding players. So making wipes available to players and C add signage inviting players, reminding players that they can clean the chairs and area themselves as well. We did already have highlighted a potential supply issue with the wipes and I think we talked about today the question on the requirement of a log that a detailed log of every machine would be not a good use of resources but a requirement that generally cleaning shifts and zones cleaned could be logged but on a per machine basis was probably not an efficient way to go about it. So just as a premise, a reminder that we've been told that interestingly enough sanitizer for your hands it seems to be more readily available with also reminder that we do have Massachusetts companies that are kind of pivoted in their businesses that are making these supplies. So we want to honor that as Commissioner Stevens pointed out but you are short on wipes. If I were to go into the casino and I hadn't seen when it was last wiped down and there's no wipes available, could I ask to have it wiped down? Yes. I know it's good. No, you're not. Yeah, I think you could and there's additional, I mean, EBS is they're cleaning regularly. There's obviously disinfecting solution that EBS is using and so the short answer is yes. You'd have to find a person and they'd have to make the request but yeah, we wouldn't accommodate a customer request to wipe down a machine. And likewise, well, you know, unfortunately, we've been in a position where we've been able to source wipes so we will make wipes available. But of course, any of our customers could ask for assistance in wiping down a machine at any time. We're also gonna have a system set up where it alerts our PAD, which I think is the EBS to come and make sure that they rotate frequently through and the time is there to wipe down machine. I'm more concerned with the turnover than necessarily an hourly clock just because if it's slow and nothing's going on, I don't see the point and make people wipe things down when nothing's happened. It seems to be the contact that's the issue. So, you know, a combination of regular intervals and at no event later, you know, and when a player turns over a machine turns over seems to be a more effective guideline. And Commissioner O'Brien, I think that's something that we've learned from Las Vegas and our experience there is setting an hourly time limit. In some cases, it's too much and in other cases, it's frequent enough. Right. That's why I asked my question because I figured if I sat down and thought, I don't know, but if it's every four hours, am I in an hour, two and a half? You know, I'm sure many people will try to bring in their own wipes just like we do on airplanes now. But I just wondered if somebody was particularly concerned could they have, you know, some people are gonna feel comfortable just using their own hand sanitizer. You know, that's enough for them. But the accommodation could be made because otherwise the hourly thing sounds a little bit arbitrary to me. I would agree. I would think just, you know, for the patrons use, if they wanna wipe down the machine themselves before they use it or use a hand sanitizer is fine. And I guess I'm expecting our licensees will have enough folks on the floor to keep an eye on when a machine is being vacated or a patrons leaving machine that they can give it a quick wipe down before somebody else uses it. I also think the log is a little too burdensome and I'm not quite sure what information it would get. I think it only makes sense when you have a timed protocol. I think if you're not gonna do that it doesn't really seem in the log sense. I guess the only thing a log does though is a person knows they have to verify that they did it. So they do in fact conduct that cleaning. So even if the log is every four hours and I really, you know, I know Seth you said there may be an issue with enough wipes but I think the way it's worded here is sanitizing wipes to be readily available for guests wishing to wipe down. I mean, it would seem to me you'll just make your best effort to get those wipes out there and people will see them and use them as they see fit right in between. So I'm comfortable with here. I'd love to hear more about the log though because I do know log helps. Log helps do help people. If you know you have to sign for it you're going to do it kind of a thing. What were the thoughts on that? I understand an hour is very burdensome. How would a log every four hours be? So I think the issue with a log was just ensuring what you were looking for, clarifying what you were looking for. So for instance, we do think it would be overly burdensome to have a log that's attached to each machine and have some kind of. Oh yeah, no, correct. What we could do is provide, you know here's the cleaning schedule, here's the rotation, here's the zone and I think that can be, we can achieve that. Yeah, that's right. Right, so that person who conducted the cleaning say a few times on the one shift would have to then kind of certify that they did in fact do that cleaning. That's fine, yep. Yeah. So are we leaning towards something like a column A but say at regular intervals but no less than? When a player leaves a machine or a gaming position? Well then that, so that's a different, that would be different, so either. Yeah, I'm kind of almost going to extremes, I'm almost merging A and one little bit of C in that. I'm sorry? I'm almost merging the regular intervals in A with the reference to or upon a player leaving. Yeah, so that the interval is measured when the player leaves as opposed to it. Is that how, Gail, you just- Hard to keep track of though. I mean you have a cleaning person trying to observe a whole batch of slot machines and somebody, you know, you have people who like to move frequently, they feel like the other machine's gonna be, you know. But I just thought they said they had a- I thought they said they had a, I mean that it triggers when the slot turned over. If someone gets our- No? Ryan, do you want to explain the way the system works? Yeah, it's basically a timer for each zone. So when, if you were on a regular interval every hour it would alert you that zone A at 10 after needs to be done, zone B needs to be done at 20 after and it just continually pings your unit that's attached to your wrist and allows you to remind you to go clean this area at this time, at this time, and it keeps you on schedule. It does not- Oh, it's not device-specific. Yeah, it does not have the ability to tell you when somebody gets up. Right, that's what I thought. So that would be very difficult. Yeah, which is why having the wipes there for the individual user is a lot of sense. Yeah. Well, what we're hearing is that there might be a wipe shortage. Let's assume if there's a wipe, there's not, if they have wipes available they put wipes out. If they don't have wipes available they would at least, if somebody wanted it to be wiped down, a request could be made. They're not going to say no to that. But what about turnover? How often do we want to know that the home machines were sanitized even if there were 15 players or two players? Is it based on an hourly rate or is it based on usage? It sounds like usage with a very hard monitor. Yeah, I can imagine scenarios in which usage is very hard. I mean, I can also imagine on a slow time that it would be feasible. But I think it's unwieldy to try to require every turnover. I kind of like this. It's even going to change per section. So some sections are very busy and some sections are not busy at all. So it would be very difficult to manage. Yeah, I kind of interested in Brian's notion of the timed cleaning of each section. And, you know, invite staff that if they see a patron get up and leave, that they go over and clean that machine. Your commissioner Cameron's point of giving them the responsibility to have to track every player. But if they visibly see somebody get up and leave, go get a quick wipe down if you see the patron depart. So to the licensees, would your plan that you're submitting to the Gaming Commission as part of this sort of indicate your cleaning plan to that level of detail? Because if that's the case, maybe for this process, the protocols, it would be enough to put the requirement under column A frequently and at regular intervals, but you're still approving the plan. So you could still look at the plan and make sure the plan makes sense for the property. Would that help doing it that way? Anyone? That sounds fine to me. And I just, again, I just would love some clarity on, I don't know that we heard from Lance about availability of wipes. So we're good with wipes. But what we're struggling a little bit is the touchless hand sanitizer. And so file it all on the PPE accessibility. But unlike MGM, we have been able to procure wipes. I guess also unlike MGM, we've been unsuccessful in procuring touchless hand sanitizer. That's interesting. Yeah, so it sounds like, and Seth, you tell me, if you can get the wipes, then you're going to make them available, right? Yeah, absolutely. Or are those who choose to use them? Absolutely. And we have some wipes, but we're using them first. We're not confident that we have enough to make them readily available to all patrons at this stage. We have a limited supply and we continue to try to procure more. If we can get them, we'll make them available. Let's also point out that that doesn't mean that just because they're available, the machines are going to get wiped out. Patrons will choose to do it or not. So I guess really the underlying issue, we have to help the licensees with because we care about some level of knowing that they'll be sanitized as somewhat of an arbitrary decision around intervals, unless we do something very concrete, which is every time somebody vacates, you have to wipe it down, versus something based on no less than a certain number out. And... Oh, could you do some combination of no, in any event, no greater than X as sort of a generous gap, and or individually wiping down any use seats in terms of you have some, and maybe this is not workable for you guys, but there's a gaming table where two seats were used. That was it. There's no point in wiping everything down other than what was used or is that too cumbersome. I think on tables, that might be a different analysis than slots, because that might be that they, when they turn on her. So should we just stick with slots right now? Or is that what you were thinking? Because I feel, is it the same plan no matter what I've reported? Well, you have the benefit of having a dealer at each table and a pit boss at each table, so more eyes on the table than... They might like down more, right? That's my understanding. So if we could just stick with slots for a second. It sounds as though the group cleaning makes good sense. What are other jurisdictions doing? Is it basically every four hours? Or is it basically every hour? It varies, and I think it varies between the different licensees in the jurisdictions. So, I think as we're learning more, we've learned that one hour may be too frequent, and there was a lot of wipe down of unused machines. But I think it's some combination of training our employees. If you see someone get up, please go and wipe down that machine. Otherwise, do a regular rotation. Right, I've seen that as well. I think Indiana has... They have something interesting of no fewer than a ratio of one dedicated cleaner for every 50 positions and every effort to disinfect machine as soon as patron ceases to play. So that's a different model. Most of the jurisdictions have requirements to increase frequency of cleaning, more specific things on table games as for the reasons we talked about. And also in there requiring the submission of plans for more for fuller details of the cleaning protocols. Indiana has taken a little bit of approach. Now they only have, I think, three casinos in the States, not one. Or is that Michigan? Indiana has 13. Indiana has 13, right? So Indiana has taken a little bit more of a approach that addresses your concerns, Commissioner O'Brien. I like how Jacky presented the training that to encourage interval cleaning around use, but then have some but no less than a cleaning every certain amount of time. And it's a full cleaning. And also with the right cleaning agent. Commissioner O'Brien, was that a hand motion or no? No. The only thing I would note for just while we close out this topic is whether, particularly given that it, do we want signage to let people know that they can ask for the wipes or not? It's just something we haven't talked about. I thought the wipes were gonna be a bit there if they have them, if there's a supply chain for them, will they be? Category C. Just category C has a bullet, mandating signage, letting customers know that they have the right to ask for the wipes or air cleaning agent. So do we want signage or just general information to the patients coming in? Could it be signage or readily available? So they're either there or if you can't get them, you can have a sign that says you can request them. If it's there, you don't really need to have the actual signage. Right. But if MGM is in the position of not being able to put them out, then would you have the sign that says you can ask? Yeah, but a cleaning agent, I mean we could have a cleaning agent that's supply chain issues specific to the wipes themselves, but I think it's less than an issue committing to upon, if someone requests to have a cleaning agent available, we can manage that even without wipes. Right, because it says signage remind players to sanitize machines before use or asking a slot attendant to do so, but if it's, that's not a wipe necessarily, it's just a sanitizing agent. But otherwise we don't, the other two don't remind them to use it, it's just available. So the question is, is the patient expected to do the wiping? That's kind of the implication. Yeah. Yep, that was my thought on making them readily available. Sure, I mean the signage was just over and above that and the option or reminding them they can ask for staff to do that for them. Right. Okay, we need to know who's most comfortable with what? Gail, what are you most comfortable with? You know, I think we've given them the licensees quite a bit of direction here. I mean, I'm comfortable with, I like the idea of, okay, say it's every four hours, but encourage your staff to, if they see someone, I mean, that's a training issue, please just go wipe that machine if you can leave. Also having wipes available as much as possible.  So, yeah, I don't, uncomfortable with, it's not exactly A, B or C is that it's, but I do actually like, you know, even if it's a log that's easy to manage, just so the staff knows, I have to sign off that I did this. I do like that too, and maybe that's just a four hour thing, you know, just so you know it gets done at least that amount of time. And then people are going to be vigilant about looking for people leaving. And secondly, the individual patron has the availability to clean the machine as well. Sure, isn't it good? I'm leaning, just so you know, I'm leaning toward giving them the opportunity to say, you know, if you see there's been some turnover and there's an opportunity clean, now I know that probably not the cleaning that might require an additional set of hands, but to the extent it could be used, I think it's always great to do the turnover, but otherwise no less, no less frequent than, you know, I just don't know if it's two hour or four hour. I guess four hour makes sense. It's in column B and it was proposed. So that's where I would go with the idea that there's also going to have wipes to the extent they're available in hand sanitizer. Mission is in the go. Yeah, I agree with what you just said. I think that's a workable. Personally, I think, you know, I'm a lot less concerned about transmission through objects, but I know there's a lot of undefined science here. I think the overall riskier part is when you're in close proximity to somebody who's sick, but I think particularly to this cleaning and sanitation, I think it's perfectly fine the way you chose to do it. Yeah. Isha Stevens? Yeah, I'm more in favor again of, you know, making wipes available for the convenience of the patron and if there are supply issues, then at least making staff available or staff can be called over to clean down a machine, training the staff to see a position getting vacated and trying to give it a quick clean. You know, the kind of block of time, two hours or four hours, I think is helpful, but you know, four hours on a Monday morning is going to be different than four hours on a Friday night. So, you know, it's more just kind of keeping up with it. And you know, saying we clean things every two hours or every four hours, that's more, I think to just offer some comfort to the patron that we're staying on top of keeping the facility clean more than it is, trying to limit contact. I'm sure I am. Yeah, I think it's fine. I mean, if you say something like cleaning at regular intervals in any event, no less frequently than if you wanted to put, you know, four hours in and train employees to, you know, try to go wipe down at turnover, have the sanitizing wipes available and signage, if not available, that they have the right to ask someone to wipe it down. I think that kind of covers everybody's ideas. Karen, you've got enough on that one. Are you good, Karen? I apologize, I didn't realize I was muted. Yeah, so I have, just for the summary, is casino staff to sanitize, offering slot machines and chairs quickly at regular intervals, a minimum of every four hours. Sanitizing wipes if available, licensees to effectuate best efforts to be readily available for guests wishing to wipe down slot machines and chairs before using or signage to tell patrons they can ask. And then the sanitizing solutions complying with the CDC guidelines, and then along to be maintained to track slot cleaning using a zone and schedule, not per individual machine. That's my summary. Is that important with your understanding? Thanks, Sam. Thank you. Sounds good. Even better, yes. Great, thank you. And then let's go right to our cleansing of the table games, because it's just a little bit of a different analysis. That's on page now set five. Yes, so the first bullet point in that section on page six talks about the guest use of hand sanitizer and column A is guests sits down and is encouraged to use the hand sanitizer and B and C is the guest is required. Sort of as Brian indicated, okay, you're here. Here's the hand sanitizer. You need to use it. There are measures for cards and chips. And column A gives most flexibility to the licensee and ask them to use alternative, identify and use alternative procedures to minimize touching. Whereas B and C says must limit, must implement limits on touching of cards and chips to the extent possible. There are chips sanitization measures on each of the columns. A and B is on a daily basis. C is every two hours. When we really talk that through with the licensees because of the ways the chips are utilized and they can speak and Bruce and Bert can speak in more detail of it. You know, it may be that daily sanitization of every chip that reaches the cage is a more feasible way, but we can invite their comments more on that. With card replacement or sanitization, column A asked the licensee to deal with that based on the volume and frequency of their play and their plans would address that with, and I guess, so that's A and B as well. And then C is replacing the cards with every new dealer. The next two bullet points in column A carry through across A, B, and C. And then the last one is the sanitizing the dice after each. Yes, yes, after each shooter for B and C. Can you, can everybody remind me on one point, Jackie was going to address that earlier on the occupancy level where we have that extra provision around counting guests. Can we just make a note that we need to go back to that? I don't want to forget. I had circled it. So how do we want to get started on this one? I think, Commissioner O'Brien, you were addressing the idea of sanitizing the rails and the chairs, which are different than the slots. There is a provision that in this case, it could be a requirement of sanitizing chair and table rails when player leaves the game. And I guess a new player approaches the game. So that was a requirement of sanitization as opposed to, it's not the first two that wouldn't be expected that the dealer would be wiping things down. Seems to me that, what are you doing now, Brian or Seth, in terms of the table games for cleaning out and other jurisdictions? I'm just doing it more frequently than we did previously. So on a regular basis, similar to the slot approach. Yeah, but not necessarily every time a chair is vacated. No, and certainly to the previous comment, if someone requested it, like MGM, Seth, we would do the same, it would be easily to get somebody to go over and do that for someone. Yeah, that's the same, increased frequency. And then we'll start then with the encouraging of this hand sanitizer we touched on this earlier. Do you encourage, do you require? It's a real, if you have a cutting surface, I know that Commissioner Zinnigas mentioned that there's some evidence that requires doesn't transfers easily through surfaces. But of course, these are issues that the industry is addressing. So is there any reason other than a medical reason why we should not require people to use hand sanitizer? If they have a medical condition, we wouldn't impose that. But it's encouragement enough. Can I see, do you think encouragement is enough or should we recall it or not address that? I think encouragement is enough.  But most people will take it. Others, thoughts? Is anyone else requiring it? Or I think that it's a one, is it going around and just squirting if you want it? As opposed to we don't leave the hand sanitizers at the table. So it's only the dealer that has it, right? Is that right? Brian's saying yes. I actually think at MGM, our approach would be to have the bottles on the table available and not have the dealer squirt into the hand. Well, it would be sitting on the table. Yeah. And then Brian, the dealer. Does they wipe the table down? And then they wipe the bottle down? Yeah. Brian is otherwise saying, if you ask for it, like if I put my hand out, the dealer would say here. And then... Yeah, the whole idea is that you don't touch the bottle. So if someone else squirted it there, it would be touchless. If you touched in the bottle, you'd have a problem. Right. I'm more comfortable with that idea of one person dispensing as opposed to, and it's just an extra touch point. Yeah.  I take the sanitizer that I sanitize the bottle and... Yeah. Wipe it on the plexiglass. It goes on the plexiglass. Yeah. I mean, it's hard, but it is so serious too when we think about the numbers. You can't let this discussion, because it seems almost surreal that we're talking about it in any way reduce our vigilance when you think about what is happening and the potential going forward. So, it's okay. This is where these decisions... Loretta, you didn't create this out of the blue. Other jurisdictions have been struggling with these types of provisions. So here we are. So, I think we'll at least know that hand sanitizer needs to be available at table games and available upon request. Mandated would be hard to enforce is what I'm assuming that you would all say. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Next one on the alternative procedures to minimize touching. I think you've really focused a little bit on that when you spoke about the provisions for plexiglass with respect to Blackjack and then the challenges on the other games. So, I think we could... A number on A and B on that. Loretta points out that B and C make it A requirement. But it says to the extent possible. Okay. So, I'm gonna say, I know it's really getting late, everyone, hang in there. On number one, we're all right. We've gone through that. Karen, you're good on the first bullet. Yes, with respect to the second bullet. Are we comfortable with what is put forth in B and C because it does say to the extent possible or do we want to just use the softest approach in A? May use. If I say, I'm gonna say, how about B and C? No or yes? Okay. Eileen says yes. I'm comfortable with B, where it says to limit to the extent possible. There's in fact already a lot of games that limit the handling of cards, for example. But the reality is that some chips is currency. And that's, you know. But frankly, don't see much difference between A and B and C. B and C are the same, they're the same. That's why I just said, B and C is the same. Yeah. I think the language to the extent possible is a little stronger than May, so I would be more comfortable with that language. Okay, so we got Gail, Eileen and me, B and C being fine. It's just on that provision. We're not adopting above. Bruce, do you feel the same way? Are you seeing it says limit the touching of cards and chips by players to the extent possible versus May use alternative procedures to minimize touching? One is stronger because you're instructing it's a limit. Yeah, I'm comfortable with the extent, to the extent possible. Yeah, it's that language on the end. All right, above in C, it says sanitize the chair and table rails when player leaves game. That is not addressed in A or B about the sanitizing. Am I wrong? No, no, it's not. It really was captured routine cleaning, regular cleaning, increased cleaning in the general measures at the end of the document. Do we feel strongly about when the tables turn over that there should be a wipe down or if they have wipes available that people could wipe their own chairs? I think it would be the same. Go ahead. I'm more concerned about the table rail than the chair. I feel like that's like a more of a touch point than the chair itself. So you could draw on the slot procedure that there was a consensus around of increasing the cleaning, making wipes available for the player to do himself or upon request a staff member could do it. I'm very comfortable with that. Are there comfortable with that approach? Yes. Yeah, I am too. And I agree with Eileen about, that it's a touch point part, the rail that if anything is the concern. Like there's a lot of machines, they're being touched constantly. So, otherwise I think it's diminishing returns. What are the licensees doing? Is everything okay? All right, thank you. Now going to... Trip sanitization, if you want. Trip sanitization, that's a difficult process I understand. And I think it might be helpful if you heard about the process from the licensees or from Bruce. Does somebody want to, this is a, I'll start. We have, we've gone through a lot of different, we've looked at a lot of different techniques in order to implement this. And so we went from literally sanitizing them on the table, which isn't as effective or efficient to new machinery that we're looking at purchasing, putting it in the cage and sanitizing them as they come through the cage. And so that would be when they go to the cage, it's after, it's not necessary while they're being played. Right. It's an interval cleansing. Right, so the idea would be, you've got your chips, you play with your chips. We understand that it could be obviously mixed up during that process as you went and lose. But when you take your chips and you take them to the cage to turn in, those chips would then be sanitized. So you'd be putting essentially clean chips out constantly. Very similar approach from MGM. Yeah, the idea is that we just continuously clean chips coming through the cage. But we could not accomplish cleaning all chips every two hours. It is. I don't know that way. I understand it actually, it was a matter of the integrity of the chip almost got affected by trying to clean them at the table or something. Is that right? Discolored them or something? We didn't have, yes, there's a lot of different issues. The chips have RFID inserts, so we have to be really careful in terms of the materials that are available to clean the chips. And then we found this new machinery which we think is gonna be more effective. We also think that cleaning the chips in the cage will be safer in terms of integrity of it. Yeah, I'm okay with that. I think there's a lot of chips at any given time in a table that never get touched during the whole day, just depending on the game. And that the ones that come in and out of the cage are the higher of the ones that did the most. So getting them there and putting out, every time there's chips that go back to tables, those are newly cleaned. I think it's a good process. Anybody except have any kind of additional input on that? Okay, I think we have a consensus there, Karen, on sanitization of the chips. Now moving on to... Sorry, then there were a couple of general measures that carry across increased frequency of cleaning, focus on high touch areas. They carry across all three columns, make hand sanitizer and wipes with signage available and the pits carries across. And then you have the issue of the dice in columns B and C with the measure of sanitizing after each shooter. And I have seen that that is being required in a number of jurisdictions. And that's no problem for us. Yeah, no problem. Our approach would just be to give new dice to each shooter rather than sanitize them. So we have that's easy and otherwise no objections to the other ones. Licensees, no objections. Okay. Good. Well, so then do you have to deal with the sanitizer at place cards? Yes, we did not go through that. Oh wait, I'm sorry, did we miss that? Oh, we had minimizing touching of cards, you know, limiting the touching of cards to the extent possible and right developing protocols for A and B developing protocols to replace or sanitize cards based on the volume or frequency of their play and then column C, thank you Eileen was placing them with each new dealer. So what are you guys doing now? I think most of them are just going to replace them at the end of each shift, is that what you're planning to go with? Yeah, that's it. Yes. I'm just saying shift of the dealer, I take it, you mean? Yes, yeah, it wouldn't be after each dealer because they rotate through, you know, move down the pit that way. But with players touching them and everything else, it makes no sense actually to do it after each dealer. Got it. So the description in the A, B of develop and prioritize based on volume and frequency makes no sense? Yeah, you know, as soon as you get the cards on the table and the player touching them, they're contaminating at that point. Commissioner O'Brien to Bruce's point after they're used at that point after the shift, we just destroyed the cards. Right, that's mandate. Don't we require you guys to do that or something? Yeah. Correct. For the questions on the, I'm sorry that we skipped over the cards. Any further? Some players handheld games, the cards are exchanged and replaced more frequently. They're not 12 hours. It could be four or eight hours. So some of the handheld games have different time requirements anyway, which would be good. Do you expect on that point, do you expect Brian or Seth that there will be many handheld card games? No, there's no poker and we're gonna minimize any touching and in Bakarov, we destroy the cards every single play. Okay, that makes sense to me. Okay, so then, Brian, any further discussion? I think we've gotten through sanitization. Just so I can confirm, so you're comfortable with the protocol to replace their sanitized cards based on volume and frequency of play? A and B. I think it's the C one, isn't it, I mean? No, it was, the description they gave was that the A and B description is more applicable than the C. Okay. This is for the cards. I just wanna make sure. Just for the cards. That their protocol to, so that A and B is, I would highlight that, that's what we would go with. Develop protocol to replace their sanitized cards based on volume and frequency of play? Okay, got it. But actually they won't sanitize, they'll be replacing, correct? Oh, okay. Hard to sanitize. Got it. Oh, that's a thing, yeah. But I think that there might be a way when I read that. Thanks for everything. Alrighty, let's go to the cage then. Okay, so the column A in the cage, again, gives most flexibility, would require the licensee to do one or more of installing the protective barrier between guests and cage employees in combination with possibly installing the partitions between cage windows and or closing alternative cage windows to allow for the increased distancing or other methods as approved by the executive director. And on those measures, columns B and C both would require the partitions between the guests and the cage employees would require either closing, alternating cage windows or installing the plexiglass between windows for distancing. And B and C also include that the cash would be provided in enclosed envelopes upon request, or I'm sorry, B is upon request, C is enclosed envelopes. Then there are measures on disinfecting the counters and touch screens. A is frequently and B and C are hourly. All three columns require hand sanitizer being available near the cage area for patrons. All three columns require protocols to maintain the six foot distancing for queuing and interactions in the cage area with signage available. So Loretta on the cash is the only difference between B and C that B says it's an enclosed envelope upon request. Yes, C, it would just be done as a matter of course. Yes. Okay, other than that, B and C are the same, right? That is right. Okay. And Loretta, you took this from different jurisdictions that are doing it one or the other way. That's right. Everything here appears in some plan of a jurisdiction. Nothing was just created by us without having seen it somewhere. So they all exist someplace with again, allowing the flexibility in the first one to come up with the combination. And I did see this combination of requirements in multiple jurisdictions. It's kind of self-explanatory, the plexiglass, removing windows or adding plexiglass if you're not going to remove the windows. Okay. Maybe it'd be helpful to just hear from our licensees what they're doing now elsewhere. Sure, so we do intend to add plexiglass for your recommendation. Can I just ask about the social distancing? Is there, are you able to maintain six feet at all times under scenarios or are we dealing with the social distancing issue as well? Are you talking within the cage or with respect to patrons waiting outside the cage? I guess probably, I don't know. We haven't talked about employees yet, but I'm really thinking at least on the outside. On the outside, we will have markers for social distancing requiring people to stand six feet apart will have sanctions set up for that purpose. And laterally, so that's in the queue, there'll be six feet apart, but next to each other, how? Is there, there's a possibility of another patron at the cage at the same time, correct? That is where the closing of the door opens. Oh, everybody's speaking. I'm sorry, that's where the plexiglass would be put up to protect them. Between the, so it would be six feet in a row or some extension out, correct? Is that needed for MGM and, Yeah, we don't have a large enough cage to do every other window. So we plan to use plexiglass external of the cage, laterally between and between the guests and the cage employee. And then at PCP? Yeah, we do have the luxury of likely going with every other cage window open and we have already installed the plexiglass between customer and employee. Okay, very helpful. Thank you. So in terms of the differences, the cash, how it's provided, I feel, I feel as though we are looking now to be in C because the plexiglass is being put forth by all of you anyway in some fashion. So if we look at B and C, the differences would be how cash is presented. I'm not sure what the general practices I, you know, I just know money is generally dirty in terms of germs. But it's gonna be, it's a cash-based business. So money is gonna be counted and exchanged and touched all the time, correct?  And the idea is it can be put in a envelope in order to protect them from what's likely to be quote unquote, maybe germy money and then they can bring it home in an envelope and it can sit for a while. Is that the idea of why it goes into an envelope? I just want to understand the thinking. Brian, are you investing in some of those money disinfecting? We have two units that we're supposed to arrive today, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to be able to disinfect all of the cash. What we intend to do is count out the cash in front of the customer which is required and then offer them an envelope. I think some people will wind up taking it out of the envelope and just, we're gonna have a big, huge pile of envelopes to be frank. However, I think they should be available for customers that want it and it's very thoughtful and it's protective. So I think it's... So the idea is so that they just aren't touching money that could contain germs until perhaps a later time when the germ supposed to use. That's correct. I just wanted to make sure I understood that they wash their hands. Or they can wash their hands. Or they can wash their hands. I understand, got it. Okay, so that's a... So really it's a question of if you do be upon request or do you mandate it with everyone? It sounds like Brian's saying we might have some other issues with people touching an envelope and then tossing it. Yeah, I like the idea by request. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, good. Consensus on that. Got it. I got it. And then it's really frequency of disinfecting, right?  Hourly. You would like hourly, I mean? Is that what you're saying? No, I mean, I think I'd ask you guys, it would seem to be a more frequent use area than maybe some of the, you know, mandating every area or machine beat down in a frequent way or at least two frequently or whether that's fine with you guys. Doesn't seem onerous, but you can tell me if you think it's too much. I guess we'll talk at once. We're fine. Hourly works. Yeah. So hourly is fine. More often. Okay. So say it in, you know, frequently and no greater than hourly or no less frequently than hourly? No greater than hourly. No greater than, no less frequently. No less than, you know. It's time for me to stop. I know, I appreciate everyone hanging in there so close. You know, it's so close. But again, I'm just a reminder, none of this is, it's too little. You know, none of these are too little. So everyone, thank you so much. So I think what we just said, hourly and no less frequently than hourly, okay? And you know what? If something becomes impractical, some, you know, we all, we know how to get in touch with people, so. Make hand sanitizer, I think, again, there might be a supply issue, but this seems to be something that's recommended across the board, Loretta, correct? The hand sanitizer seems reasonable. And then the, I think I already had, asked the question around the queuing. It was actually, I was actually thinking, my concern was next to each other, but the queuing, you'll do what everybody's doing, keep the crowd with markers on the floor. Do we have any other questions on the case? There really were very few differences, correct Loretta? That's right. Okay, good. Just to be clear on the cage, we're giving you the option of the Plexiglas dividers or closing off a window if you have that flexibility or that capacity. As long as I think the six feet is maintained, that was, I think, maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that if there can't be six feet between them, they would use Plexiglas and where you actually can achieve that, right? Lance, because you have more space, yeah. Okay, thank you. I think all three of them said they intended to have the Plexiglas, right? Thomas, I think you're gonna use Plexiglas in front. In front. Lance, but not necessarily on the side. That is correct. We've got enough space in that cage to do every other window, which will provide more than six feet. Right. Thank you. So to the side, don't Plexiglas in front, Plexiglas. And then for the others, you're gonna have to have it on the side as well. Correct? We're gonna do both front-end sides. Excellent, thank you. All right, these are general measures could have probably been put into optional forms too, except I think that already you made a judgment call that these are a relatively standard across jurisdictions. And so we should just go through them. And if something sparks another thought, because of course the problem in doing this at such a late hour, the problem is the omission. But I know that the red and the whole teams process was so thorough, there's probably very little that could be omitted. But the other thing is, is that there's something that the licensee sees that just isn't workable, then we should just hear it. But these, you wanna walk us through them? I'm looking now at page eight. Sure, and many of these on the sanitization, you've been signage, you've seen throughout the prior pages, so we can go quickly. There are a few elements that you haven't seen in the other pages. So I do think it makes sense to go bullet point by bullet point so we don't miss anything, but I will try to draw your attention as well as you'll know the things we haven't discussed already today. So on additional measures for the gaming area, sanitization and disinfecting products, as well as hand sanitizer, touchless where possible to be made available at each point of entry and exit and throughout the gaming area for usage by guests out there, discretion. And I'll just move on unless anybody stalks me. That's a big, I'm going to keep my eyes on the paper, so you have to do a verbal projection. Next is enhanced cleaning and sanitization throughout the gaming area with staff deployed regularly to clean and disinfect restrooms and high touch point locations. The next is signage at each point of entry and at prominent locations throughout the gaming area to remind guests of safe practices, including frequent hand washing, use of hand sanitizer, proper wearing of masks and to stay home if sick. On that one, Loretta, does it make sense to tell somebody to stay home if they're sick, if they're already on site? Go home if sick. I think there's- Although we may have covered that in our initial screening and entry. Right. Yeah. Actually, the state has developed standardized signage for that. Okay. Moving on in areas where lines normally form or are expected to form inside or outside, signage combined with other methods, including an appropriate level of staffing to remind guests to remain six feet apart. I have a, that all makes sense. I have a general concern obviously about each property and how they're going to handle queuing up of guests that arrive when they've reached capacity and how each licensee plans to deal with that. They don't need to share those plans with us, but that'll be part of what I'm looking for. Moving on. Casino staff to implement and monitor procedures for elevators, escalators and stairs to ensure social distancing. Loretta, just on that one, and it's just a technical thing, it might not be casino staff, but it'll be- Yes. That's actually, and it's really to Commissioner Stebbin's point too, and I know Commissioner Cameron's raised it in earlier meetings, the challenge of the enforcement. And we started off, I think Commissioner Zuniga started the meeting today with enforcement measures. So I think the, when you say clean up the casino staff- Oh, I guess it might be hotel staff. Hotel, security, we don't, yes. So that's important to know because of course, we also have- Just staff. Since we want to make sure that there's a clear understanding of how these measures will be enforced. So I think Commissioner Stebbins, you were just suggesting you might want to see that planned fleshed out a little bit. Yeah, that was really about queuing up in the inside. I mean, we've been privy to some guidelines that'll be instituted for our own building of, you know, no more than four people in an elevator and we all have to turn it face the wall. So I worry a little bit to your point, Madam Chair, about the enforcement piece of some of those areas of the property. And that would be a, I think if I'm guessing correctly, that those restrictions are applying to you in the hotel through the governor's advice now. So you're already addressing it. So it will just be also who encounters it and if it escalates, what's the plan? And that's all part of our training procedure that we're gonna implement before we open. So it will be detailed in a plan and we can provide that to you. Right, and then Commissioner Cameron, we'd want to, and Commissioner Bryan, we'd want to understand, make sure that our GEU understands that plan and their role, so if any, right. Okay. Great. Okay. Okay, we are in the middle of the page at provide appropriate receptacles for disposal of PPE. Yep. Next is no promotions or activities that challenge the ability to maintain the six foot social distancing. That one we're having, that one's got a big asterisk because we need to understand that because already we, there's a possibility that we've discussed activities that challenge six feet social distancing if activities includes playing a smart machine. Right, I think what I envisioned were promotions, giveaways, that sort of thing outside of the normal operations that we've already gone through. Great, thank you. I guess we could even have those kinds of activities at this time, yes. Could be giveaways. I think there's ways to do it safely but more in terms of giveaways, less in terms of big events. Okay, great. Ballet service. No ballet service until further notice. Although we did have discussion yesterday that there may be access, disability access issues. So I'd suggest that that would be updated to unless to address a disability access issue. And the guidance actually, so it's in the operators of lodging safety standards. And it says that ballet can be provided to accommodate physical or geographic constraints in order to accommodate individual guests with disabling conditions. Great, thank you. Good, thank you. Next is, I'm sorry? No, I'm just gonna start the next one. Each licensee is planned. Shall detail procedures for dealing with guests who are non-compliant with the required COVID-19 related health and safety protocols. Again, this is on the enforcement piece, so. On the, yeah. Okay. Next is each licensee's plan to outline measures to ensure air quality, including possible filtration upgrade to increase fresh air and ongoing inspections and maintenance of HVAC systems. We got great reports on that at our last meeting when they went through their plans. Okay. Next is each licensee's plan to identify anticipated supplies needed to stop furthering the spread of COVID-19 in measures to ensure the availability of supplies. And that should, that's really missing a bullet point. So that's the end of that bullet point. Okay. Loretta? Yeah. If you could, could we, could we back up just a minute to the non-compliant guests and we've talked about it, you know, the enforcement piece. But I think we'll have plans, but I think I just want to make sure we're on the same page that, you know, at least them Jim's plans, and I presume it'll be similar to the other two would be that if, if someone's not compliant, we'll tell them they're not compliant. They're going to need to leave. If they refuse to leave, we trespass them.  That's really the process that's going to be employed in any situation where there's failure to follow the rules. That's one of the reasons I mentioned earlier, the requirement versus encouragement is a unique issue for our property, given the nature of casinos and that we have law enforcement on site and how we deal with those. I do think there will be an increased demand on GU interaction, hopefully not substantial, but, you know, witnessing just anecdotally, you know, going to supermarkets and other places, I see every day that goes by fewer and fewer people using masks and people getting closer together. And so I think it's a real issue that we will need to work closely with GU and be prepared for that, depending on how strict we're enforcing all of these. Yeah, and I think there may be, in the same way at the supermarket who may have never, you know, hired a security guard before, but had to hire security to make sure, you know, that the measures of, you know, wearing the masks and any altercations around that were under control, since some of this can be anticipated, having you pay attention to your security staffing levels, because I think it is contemplated, as you said in the first instance, casino security being, you know, to deal in the first instance with this, but certainly law enforcement is on site and would be prepared to step in, but again, you know, asking you to anticipate any upticking of your security needs and staffing accordingly. Yeah, and as to, you know, the GU stands ready and able to assist as needed for public safety, but I think there is an expectation that we want to diffuse situations, not escalate situations. So coordinating with the licensees and their security departments to try and manage these situations without having to bring in law enforcement would probably be better across the board as much as possible, just to prevent escalation and prevent contact as much as possible. We'll just, we'll have to see how it goes, but a continual feedback between the departments I think would be helpful in seeing what works, but to Loretta's point, making sure there is sufficient security there to make sure that they can effectively diffuse situations and move people along as much as possible. So moving on in the bottom quarter of the page, each licensees plan to detail procedures for managing guests with fevers and or who exhibit other symptoms of COVID-19, including maintaining a supply of the non-touch thermometers for this purpose. Next is each licensee to designate and identify for the commission a key level employee to act as liaison to federal, state, and local public health agencies. This liaison, the public, the pandemic safety officer shall be responsible for notifying the local board of health as well as the commission if the licensees alerted to COVID positive case on the premises, to assist with data sharing and identification of individuals for contact tracing. Since the 24-7 business, the individual may designate others on staff to ensure responsiveness on a 24-7 basis and the person shall work in conjunction with the compliance department to maintain a record of all material communications with public health authorities related to COVID-19 at the gaming establishment. And I have a question on that. I just wanna make sure that I understand it's a 24-7 business, but I wanna make sure that it doesn't get so designated that the chief pandemic safety officer is not always apprised of an incident. In other words, I really want the accountability to be with a single individual. So while that individual may not be on the premises and somebody else may find out the news of a diagnosis, that the responsibility of it getting processed all the way through stays with the initial designated pandemic safety officer. Does that make sense? It does. We've actually already designated our pandemic safety officer. He's very pleased with his new title and he's very senior in the organization and he will take care of making, we'll make sure that it gets to him rapidly. Right, because of course, if it's a 1AM diagnosis, how to get to the local public health department, it's not gonna happen at 1AM anyway, but it just needs to happen in timely fashion. And so that responsibility should lie with one individual and they can manage their responsibility appropriately. Excellent, thanks. Who is the senior level person designated, Jackie? Brian looks awful happy there, so. Not Brian. You know, it's Eric Krauss, who's now senior vice president. And I work very closely with him as does Brian. And so we will connect to the compliance department and we thought that he's the one who's been in touch with the public health department and the Everett Department of Health. So it's appropriate for him to handle. Yeah, thank you. We know Eric. And a couple more in this category, each licensee to obtain and follow legal advice to ensure appropriate safeguards in the event of any HIPAA protected material. And each licensee's plan to include protocols to be implemented if the licensee is alerted to a COVID-19 case on the premises, including a deep cleaning of affected areas. There were some additional measures moving on to protect the game sense area, requiring the licensee to install protective plexiglass barriers on the counters with an opening to allow the items to be split underneath, to place markings and curing devices at appropriate locations, to assist with the distancing around the game sense areas, and to make sure that those areas and informed staff and security that those areas are reserved for game sense related activity except in an emergency. We did include on this document some employee related measures. Yes. But the game sense areas will be cleaned at the same rate as the rest of the game. That's, yes, that would be part of the, that was part of my understanding as well as. Yeah. Moving on. Okay. With general employee related measures. And I know that licensees have already submitted. They have already submitted. Plan draft plans. And are expected to submit a more detailed plan, but. So they are expected as businesses and employers in the Commonwealth to follow all the guidelines by the CDC, Department of Public Health, governor's office, we can put the local boards of health as well. And the guidelines set by the. The first thing we need to do is to make sure that all employees must provide employees with training, COVID-19 specific training, which provides an overview of the mitigation protocols, including disposal of PPE and recognition of COVID symptoms. Again, identifying the pandemic safety officer this time and identifying the person to all employees. And encouraging any employee who has a COVID-19 related concerns in the process to be implemented by the licensee. At each employee entrance, requiring employees to undergo a temperature check. Also at each employee entrance, placing markings or queuing devices and or queuing devices to maintain social distancing of employees reporting to work. Hosting signs, setting forth the checklist of the symptoms, instructing employees to remain at home if they experience any symptoms. So those would be reminder, reminder signage. Establish protocols to maintain social distancing in the dining areas. Uniform areas. Shared office spaces and other high density employee areas. Co-ordinated employees to follow CDC DPH. And again, we can put local board of health guidelines for hand washing, using sanitizers, wearing masks and staying home. So those would be reminder, reminder signage. And again, we can put local board of health guidelines. Posting rolling periodic announcements in the back of the house to remind employees of all of these COVID protocols. Requiring employees to wear masks while. Performing their duties and providing. Yes. Go ahead. Also providing masks for employees. Okay. Loretta, is there any need to focus on the employees who may or may not have to wear gloves? We could put that in.  We could certainly add that. So, um, any of the new requirements would require additional wearing of gloves by employees, but it sounds like it's pretty understood at this point. When we've gone through that, it, um, I, I'm on of the understanding, but correct me if I'm wrong to the licensees that anybody who would be required to wear gloves under a COVID protocol was already required to wear gloves under their normal walk protocol. Correct. Um, I'm just going back to, I'm not sure if it's under number. The light, the, there's no number. The, um, uh, bullet, the second bullet on page 10, the licensee shall also. Establish protocols to maintain social distancing for high density areas. Yeah. I know they asked this question the last time that. Uh, are close to the same question. The last time we met around the round table discussion. In the back of the house area with the use of the computerized bars. Are those going to be. What are used to, for the drinks now of the computerized bars in the back. So Lee, are you concerned about the servers. We'll be making their drinks then correct. Or will there be a separate bartender? No. The service, the service, each have their own units that they'll go up to.  Uh, back to the guest. So they bring the drinks and. They radically because they're holding it down low that it's all safe. Correct. And they're usually required to wear a mask, obviously. But they're not mixing. Then. Okay. So there's none of that. Those concerns about touch points, but then there's a queuing. Do you worry that you might have your employees getting kind of stacked. Cause. In the back of how. Well, cause it's, if I understand correctly, you don't have what three of those bars. And so. We have. Sorry. Brian. Sorry. We have seven of those bars that have been converted into machines and all of those drink dispensers is for per station. So as Jackie was saying, they shouldn't have to wait as they used to wait in a long line for one bartender. Now we have machines in every bar. And now I remember that they actually get their own. They're actually spaced apart quite significantly. So there's, you know, I'm just thinking back to, I haven't measured them, but it's clearly they'll have. They'll have to wait. They'll have to wait. They'll have to wait. They'll have to wait. At an ample distance between the machine. Before that night or during your ship, they will have their own area. That's my understanding. Yes. Right. Can you. So they not cross contaminating machine. They will. Most likely. When it's busy. They may have to share with one other person. So if we have eight servers. That means two people would be sharing. We would have the ability for them to have wipes there. So they could wipe it off if they wished. And then they will all be washing their hands, all have sanitizer and all have masks on. There's a hand, there's sync associated with that for hand washing. Every bar there is. Right. Okay. So it would, at the worst, it would be only two individuals lined up. And I knew you had answered that, but I just couldn't remember because I was wrong on the number. So thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay. I think that after you on the next one, break schedules and shift times. Yep. They shall be staggered to the extent possible to avoid congregating and back of the house. Employee meetings shall be conducted in a manner to promote social distancing. Employees shall be encouraged to wash and or sanitize hands before they leave the house. So. All back at the house areas shall be cleaned frequently, including, but not limited to employee entrances, locker rooms, dining areas, security and surveillance areas, count rooms, cages and ruse of travel between those areas with specific attention given to high touch areas. So that's what we're doing right now. I think that's a good point. Any questions on, on the employees section? I just have one question just to be clarified on the employee entrance regarding temperature checks. Would that also include our own MGC employees or state police? I'm not sure what they're doing right now. I think at, at, at on core, they are testing our folks as they come in just. That's correct. That's correct. And I think it's irrespective of where they come in, even if they come in through the guest entrance, they would still be tested. We are encouraging everyone to come through employee entrance, but obviously because of the guest testing, everyone would be captured. Okay. Let's get to my point I made earlier that we really want to make sure that there's cross training and. Cross understanding because we do have the GEU folks, the gaming agents, and then of course game sense advisors. So we want to make sure they're complying with what we're expecting of the, um, the licensees here. Correct. Everyone's in agreement with that. All right. Yes. We're doing is we're developing, um, sort of a procedure for our vendors that, you know, we've also got, uh, within the premises. So we can certainly share all of that as well. And then if there's any concern that's raised by either, uh, MGC, or the gambling council for their, on behalf of their employees, you know, we, we need to, we need to have conversations. We want to make sure there's no, no concerns. And I think, um, Dino and our team has already spoken with Bruce and Angela around IB and, and they're. So the IB and GU have full access to. Entrance and exits with our employees. We control it by limiting their access to certain entrances. I believe, um, Bruce and Angela, I've indicated that IB is perfectly happy complying with that. We haven't. I don't know that we've yet had the conversations with GU, but that would require. Their, you know, active cooperation in, in only entering and exiting through those, those points so that we can have a protected envelope of the back house. Employees. And. IB GU. We haven't. Yeah. That's all. I'm all set. That's helpful. Thank you. This was an exhaustive process, but a really important one. Thank. Karen Loretta Bruce. And everybody who I'm not acknowledging, but I know contributed to this effort. So thank you. Um, but most of all, thank you too for the licensees. Your input was really valuable. My fellow commissioners, do you have any questions for anyone here before we, we close this discussion? In terms of next steps, I think there'll be a revision. So the document is no longer mostly three options. So in that draft can perhaps be circulated appropriately in accordance with open meeting law rules. Karen. And then we can share with, with the proper state stakeholders after, you know, once we get comfortable with the revisions. And if need be. We can convene. We have a couple of meetings coming up as you will know. And we can address. Any outstanding issues. Okay. And then we'll wait to hear. I think we do need to see what the governor's office does and, and stay very, you know, aware of what's happening in the, um, the federal government and the local governments. And then of course, if we learn something from jurisdictions that are, are underway, we have the ability to, to, to correct or add or edit. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I'm raking. Would you like to make a motion? Well, yes. And before I do that, I just add the same thing. Thank you to everybody. It's clear. It's clear that everybody has worked so much on this. There's been a lot of thought and research. Everybody's doing so collectively, both licensees and staff. Thank you very much. Um, with that, I'll move to adjourn. I'll second. Any further edits, discussion. Comments. No, just thanks everybody for their good work. That's, that's universal. I think. Just to thank you. Nothing. I'm sure you feel the same way. Thank you. And I did. I thank you to everyone, particularly the licensees. I know this was a long day for everybody, but I think very necessary. Thank you everyone. And again, to the license, we stay safe before we say goodbye, stay safe to all the team members. Many of our team has stayed on. And. Whether they were working on all the way. We just appreciate the attendance. So. Be safe, everyone. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. I'm sure. Brian. Aye. Mr. Zunica. Aye. Thank you again. And commissioner Stevens. All right. Thanks everybody. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Zunica. I thank you again. And Patricia Stevens. Thanks everybody. Yes. Thank you everyone.