when you're all set. And we're good to go. Excellent. Thanks, Dave. All right. Good morning, everyone. This is a reminder that this meeting is being recorded in stream. Once we are using a virtual platform, I need to take a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I am here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I am here. And good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Morning, I'm here. All right, we're all set to proceed. It's June 2nd. Today is public meeting number 381. It is a single item, agenda today. And as we get started, I think that this is really the beginning of a of probably multiple discussions and perhaps our discussion will reveal more of the process as we go along. So we'll get started. I think Dr. Leitman and Todd will turn to you. Thank you. Well, good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Thank you for convening this meeting. This is important. You'll recall that in 2021, the commission received an application for a thoroughbred racing license and stirbridge, which was ultimately withdrawn. But in reviewing it, a number of issues emerged between the considerations associated with the review of a renewal application, if you will, which the commission has grown accustomed to looking at, versus one that was submitted for essentially a new thoroughbred race track. So today, the application before you for review seeks to address a number of these issues that emerged in the event that the commission actually receives any interest and indication that any group would like to submit an application for a new thoroughbred race track. Ultimately, the commission needs to ensure, of course, that it has all the information before it to make a decision as to whether to grant such a license. So this application is the vehicle by which we will gather all of that information. As we'll discuss, the commission has tremendously brought authority to make these decisions and require the submission of whatever information that is necessary to be able to responsibly make a licensing decision of this part. I should just pause and say, I think my headphones are now working, but if at any point you can't hear me, please just give me a wave and I'll address that part of it. Of course, Dr. Lightman is alongside. I wouldn't think of having this conversation without her nearby. So as we go through this, please jump in and feel free to, of course, ask any questions that may come to mind. So we have for your consideration a draft application. Before we start, I have received three different emails over the last 48 hours. Which one are we going to be looking at as we discuss this? The one we got yesterday from Dr. Lightman. No, so that one and Dr. Lightman, jump in here at any time. I think that one was just demonstrating some of the differences between the old application and the new application just so you could kind of calibrate where we were. But the application you'll want to take a look at, I don't have a chance to look in the packet, but I believe there's a clean version of the proposal in the packet for you. So that's the one, that's the one we'll work off. The packet, the packet is in the calendar. Yep, I have it. I just wanted to make sure we were all looking at, or I was looking at the one everybody else was. No, that's good. That's good. So Madam Chair and commissioners, there's a couple of ways we could do this. I could share that document and go through it. Or if you all have it and want to just kind of look at it on your own screen, we can do it that way. So that way we can see each other through the call here. But whatever your preference, I'm happy to do. Does everybody have it in front of them so that we can have a conversation? Okay, I'm seeing everyone nodding their heads. Okay. In that case, we can just jump in and we'll just be working off of the same document here. And we'll start on the first page. There's a couple of things on here that I just wanted to point out quickly. And Dr. Leipman, please feel free to jump in to offer any thoughts as well as we go through this. The first is just the towards the bottom where we talk about the application fee. You'll see here that it's set at $300. There's a provision of the statute that we cite there in Section 4 of Chapter 128A that says that the fee shall be $300 or three-fourths of one-tenth of 1% of the average daily handle of the previous calendar year for each day of any running horse, harness worth, meeting whichever is the greater amount. In this case, since we're talking about a new application or a new race track, there won't be any handle from the previous year. So it seemed to me that the application fee had to be $300, but I did want to point out why it's framed the way it is here. And the second part is just the bond piece. That's right underneath the statute requires the submission of a bond in the amount of $125,000. And of course, as we begin to go through this, it's important just to remember, as I often have to remind myself, that we're working out of Chapter 128A and 128C. As we have this discussion, this is not a Chapter 23K discussion. The first section of the application, which we broke down into seven or eight separate sections, just goes through basic background information of the applicant, pretty standard questions related to their name, where they're located, who their lawyer is. And then there is one question about the county in which the proposed race track is to be located. And we'll get into that in a little more detail, but there are a number of places in Chapter 128A where the focus of the commission's review is pointed at which county the track is located in. So we do ask that question there in the opening. And I'll add that that was a question in the previous application. It was together and it's just been pulled out as a separate issue. So that is something that we've asked for in the past. So that's Section 1 in a nutshell. Not too much there that is different from the previous application. But we start to see some differences as we move into Section 2. So right before Section 2, you'll see that there is some bolded language. And that was included because that really sets up or lays the foundation of the principles that will be or are to be reviewed by the commission in considering whether to award a license. And the language there comes right out of Chapter 128A Section 3A where the law sets out the considerations that the commission should look at when determining whether to essentially allow for certain race days or in this case to issue a license altogether. And we break some of those out further as we go through the application and the variety of sections. Just so the applicant is aware of what the consideration is and they have that in mind as they fill out the application. So it ought to be helpful just to set that right out in the application. And then we get right into Section 2. So Section 2 obviously as the title suggests solicits information relative to the broader project itself. And Section 2.1 in particular is where the application calls for the applicant to just provide detail as to what exactly they are proposing. And it's an open-ended question that allows for the submission of any renderings or photographs that the applicant may have and is designed just to offer an opportunity for the applicant to tell us what they're proposing. And that is a little bit of an extension from what has been asked in the past. A lot of the different groups that have come forward in the past with ideas have proposed more than just a race track at their facility. So this question asked for that information to go right there. So the next couple of questions are similar to that vein in that they ask for some specifics as to what the facility will actually look like. The racing facilities that is. And as you can see there are questions relative to the grandstand, the clubhouse, the bleachers and parking. Those are all of course important elements of any new development. And ultimately the commission will want information about those particulars. So it seemed at a minimum that it would be helpful to ensure that we put the applicants on notice that they will be required to submit that information. Hopefully that will be information that's available when the application is submitted though there are a couple of places throughout this application that will point out that it's it would not be a stretch certainly to think that an applicant at this juncture wouldn't have all of these issues completely worked out. Like whether the grandstand will be heated or air conditioned and things along those lines. But there's an opportunity in some instances subject to the commission's discretion to allow for some of this information to be submitted in the future. Should the commission elect to award a license that would allow before the project to move forward and that the application could be supplemented as the project moves forward. So that's what some of these questions get into. They call out for specific information about the construction and operation of the facility itself. And again that's information that has been asked in the previous application and as Todd said a new track may not have answers to all of these right up front but it's certainly something that the commission has been interested in in the past. As we continue through this section you'll see in letter E for example the question asked for the number of paramutual ticket windows and kiosks anticipated in approximate locations. Certainly that's a critical piece of information. I think it would be fair to assume that any applicant would have some idea of how that would part of the proposal would work but that's something that certainly could be subject to amendment as the facility draws closer to any hope. So that gets us through to 2.3 where again the application seeks to elicit information about the racing facilities themselves. And you'll see that it asks questions about the size of the track, the number of stables, number of tack rooms and things along those lines. And the assumption is that any applicant would have a handle on those types of things as they're submitting the application. But again some of those things I suppose could be subject to change and the commission could leave the door open. But I think it seems important that we at least ask for that type of information as part of this application. And some of it say like they ask for a track kitchen. The commission may be asked for them not to have that requirement you know and maybe do a food truck type thing. I know at one point when the track kitchen at Suffolk burned down basically they were allowed to instead of rebuilding it at that point just provide a food service for the horseman down there. So certainly as Todd said some of these things you know they may have an alternate way of addressing the particular item. So moving on if we get to 2.4 where the question seeks information about any other accommodations, amenities, facilities or services. So these are not racing related specifically these are just other amenities that the applicant plans on having at the facility and on the premises just so the commission of course has a good sense as to what the overall project would look like. And that 2.4 through 2.11 are new to this application. And so that's a good entree into starting at 2.5. A number of these questions are ones that were essentially borrowed from the RFA2 application that was used on the casino gaming side. These are some of the pieces of information that the commission in the past has found to be helpful in evaluating a new application. And there seem to be enough overlap between the a racing project and a casino project that these 2.5 through 2.11 were culled out from the gaming application and migrated over here. And certainly this is not necessarily an exhaustive list but these are the ones we came up with that we thought you might be interested in. So as you can see it includes things like the construction timeline, traffic studies that may have been performed, the total capital investment. So that's 2.7. I'll pause on that one for a moment. You'll recall that on the gaming side of the ledger there were statutory minimum capital investments required of any applicant and then licensee. There are no such requirements in the racing world, but it seems as though that is a piece of information you might be interested in understanding prior to making a decision as to whether to award a license. The same is true of the financing structure and the detailed budget, economic impact, and feasibility or viability studies. Those things are not directly required by statute but if we go back to section 3i of the statute and you look at the considerations that the law directs the commission to think about, those are all relevant. They all go to things like the financial ability of an applicant to operate a racetrack, the maximization of state revenues, and things along those lines. So these questions 2.5 through 2.11 are designed to ensure that the commission has the information at its fingertips that it would need to evaluate those elements of the statute in advance. So that's where those come from. There certainly may be others that the commission may identify that you might like to see included here as well or perhaps some of these that you feel like we don't want to ask about, but that's where these items on the list came from. If there are no questions on section 2, we can move into section 3. So section 3 gets into, as you can see, the schedule of the proposed races and things along those lines. So this gets into a broader question that is warrants some commission review at this juncture. And the ultimate question here is, what is the purpose of a racing license to begin with? In accordance with chapter 128a sections 2 and 3, I would submit to you that the purpose of the license is to permit actual live racing. And so that you can prescribe the manner and number of days and certain other terms and conditions of live forest racing. It's not necessarily for the authorization to construct a racetrack, though I would submit that that is allowed under the statute. But the main focus of the statute is relative to the live racing itself. And I get that in part from section 3, which provides that if any application for a license filed as provided in section 2 shall be in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, the commission may issue a license to the applicant to conduct a racing meeting in accordance with the provisions of this chapter at the racetrack specified in the application. So the statute seems particularly focused on the conduct of the racing meeting, which is slightly different from the idea of licensing an applicant to construct a live race. And so while I said, as I said, the law allows for the grant of a license, a new license, it's certainly not the focus of the statute. And again, it's important to can think about some of the other provisions of the statute that discuss the purpose of the license. And one of the things that we've talked about in the past is the idea that the statute is set up in such a way that it is essentially an annual license, meaning once the commission issues a license to a racing operator, they're allowed to race for that particular year. And then they're required to come back to the commission the next year to request additional race days and to review the terms and conditions of the racing application. And this manifests itself in a couple of places of the statute, including in section two, where the law requires that the application be filed with the commission on or before the first day of October, the calendar year preceding the calendar year for which the application requests the license to be issued. So it seems clear that once you certainly get into a rhythm of renewals and what have you, the law does require an annual return to the commission and submission of a new application. In the present context, though, since of course it's unlikely that an applicant for a new license will have a facility complete in a year, we'll need to address precisely what the commission believes the purpose of the racing license is. And the question would be, can you issue a license for a future racing meeting with constructions, with excuse me, conditions related to construction and things along those lines? And before we dive into that, I thought it would be helpful just to mention some language included in some case law. And the courts have over the years looked at these statutes. And there are a couple of passages that the courts have written about that I thought would be helpful just to mention here. The first one comes from a case that's called Taunton Dog Track Incorporated versus the State Racing Commission. It's a 1997 case and its citation is 424 mass 54. And on page 59, it says the following. I thought I would just read this quickly for purposes of this part of the conversation. It says, General Law Chapter 128A confers on the commission broad discretion in granting licenses and requires and permits the commission to deal with a wide variety of matters in the highly competitive racing industry. The authority to amend or modify is a corollary of the power to grant a license and is supported by the settled principle that an agency is deemed to have not only those powers expressly conferred by statute, but also those reasonably necessary to carry out its mission. And I think that's particularly relevant here. Now that case is not related to the issuance of a new racing application, but it is relevant to Chapter 128A and the courts there were construing the commission's authority essentially to amend then existing racing license and decide whether a particular entity was allowed to simulcast and what have you. But nonetheless, the principle, I think, is directly applicable in this particular case. So the commission does have very broad authority to decide what the purpose of a racing license is. So one option I might submit to you for consideration is the idea that as we move through here, that you elicit from any applicant when it is that they believe that they will be conducting live horse racing and assuming that all of the other issues are in place and that you would otherwise be comfortable issuing a license, that the any license that you do award would be not necessarily for the 2023 season, but instead for the season in which the applicant and then licensee would actually be conducting live horse racing, which would be entirely consistent with Chapter 128A. That would allow you to attach certain conditions to any such license so that you can properly oversee the construction of the facility and the hiring of the workforce and any vendors and things along those lines, which could be done by way, again, of condition. But that's an important piece of the puzzle here to ensure that we have in place before we finalize any application. And that is what you would actually be licensing, because the difficult part is that if the commission were just to award a racing license for the 2023 season, it would expire at the end of the 2023 season. And it's unlikely that there would actually be any live horse race, which would mean that that applicant would have to come back next year with the same application. And we would have to go through the same type review, even though there wasn't any live racing. So the proposal, or one of the proposals anyway, would be again to license any applicant for a future racing meeting and not necessarily for next year. Are you entertaining questions or comments yet or are we going to wait till the end? Well, Commissioner Hill, I would say I'm always open for questions. If that works for you and the commissioners, I'm happy to address any questions that come up at any point along. My fellow commissioners, all right with me. Commissioner Hill, sure. Go right ahead. It's probably helpful to make them timely like this. Thank you. So I think I need just a clarification on something in regards to not just the horse racing piece of this, but when we give a license for horse racing, are we not also allowing simulcasting and in the future, maybe sports betting? And if that's the case, it's not just horse racing that we're giving an application for. We're also giving it for simulcasting, which they could throw up a brick and mortar building quickly, as we know from other jurisdictions when it comes to this stuff. Am I wrong in that assessment or is that correct? No, that's a critical issue that the commission will have to address. And we get into simulcasting in section eight. But I would like to just address your question, and then I think the commission will have to spend a little more time going through that. So simulcasting is addressed under chapter 128c, which of course is slightly different from 128a. And the law talks about when an applicant or licensee is allowed to simulcast. And we will have to spend some time on that provision of the statute, because I think it's fair to say that the ability to simulcast as you're indicating is a critical component of any racing operation. And it's certainly a piece of the puzzle that would need to be in place for any applicant prior to moving forward probably with any project and one that the commission will want to have resolved well in advance. And so there are some parts of the simulcasting law, chapter 128c, that the commission really needs to take a look at and draw some conclusions as to what you believe it means. And of course, Alex and I will work with you to navigate those waters. But whether an applicant would be allowed to simulcast prior to opening a facility for live racing is a question that is really up to the commission. The sports wagering part of it is really a little bit more difficult to answer, because of course, we don't know whether there even will be sports wagering or what the exact language will look like. So that part of it is really dependent on what the law says about offering sports wagering. Of course, and this is of course all public information, because these are in the bills. Some of one of the bills discusses the license, the sports wagering licensing relative to horse racing entities. One of them doesn't. So it's hard to say exactly how that would apply to this situation. Though I think it's fair to say that any future racing licensee would be interested in pursuing such a license. But I don't know that we'll be able to conclude as part of this review whether they would be allowed to offer sports wagering before opening. But right now, as I understand Section 8 contemplates, if in fact an applicant wants to simulcast, this would also be the application for that. Yes. Correct. Yes, the two clearly go hand in hand. And so when we get to Section 8 again of the application, and we can go there now if that would be helpful, but that is again a critical discussion point for the commission. So I just wanted to be clear that actually the application is more than just racing and that we would be looking at possibly adding people might want to simulcast within that, in this case, calendar year 23, even though the racing might not happen until 24 or maybe even 25. You clarified my concerns and comments. Thank you. Excellent. Great. So if you don't mind, if you could go through it sequentially, that would be great. But now we have, when we get to that section, some good framework. Absolutely. So with all that in mind, the questions in Section 3 you'll see are aimed at eliciting the information as to what the applicant envisions the racing program or when the applicant envisions the racing program to commence essentially. And so the first question is when, what calendar year do you propose to hold or conduct racing? So we'd need the answer to that question. And then the second part gets into the days on which it intends to hold or conduct the racing meeting and the hours of each day. That's important because that's really, again, what the statute is focused on is the actual racing meeting. And so I think it's important to ask those questions. Of course, it would be understandable if an applicant and future licensee is not planning on racing for two years or so. Yes. I lost Todd. Did I lose everybody? Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? I can hear you Todd, just fine. Yeah, I think she might have frozen. Oh yeah, Madam Chair, you appeared to have frozen. Yeah, I think she froze. I thought you were listening intently, but she's frozen. We'll wait a moment. We need to screenshot that. Should we take five at the moment? It looks like the chair jumped off and we'll jump back in here. She's going through what I went through yesterday. It's going to be about three or four minutes before she comes back on. Yeah, she's probably trying to rejoin right now. Yeah, okay. We can, of course, we'll pause. Does anyone else in the office near her or? I think she's at home. Oh, she's at home. She is trying to get back on. Okay. Did I see there was a manhole explosion near the office today? Oh yeah, it's unbelievable. I walked from South Station. There must have been 10 fire trucks, ambulances, police everywhere. They walked down like, what happened? Yeah, and it was a weird smell. It was a little bit of like a burning kind of smell. It also apparently happened in like four or five different places. Oh, really? Yeah, it's all over the city. There are multiple manhole fires. Oh, that's scary. Yeah, it wasn't anyone down there. It looks like we got her back. Did you see you? My apologies, everyone. So I'm sorry, apparently I froze. It was not unattractive, so rest easy. But it's always everybody's, you know, keen hurry right now, right? So thank you. I am having to work from home because I don't want to spread my lousy cold germs and getting some work done. So thank you. Okay, well, welcome back. Can you stop everything, Todd? My apologies for the introduction. No, that's quite all right. This is the world we live in. So we're back at it. We were still on section three. Madam Chair, I think you were actually making some point. I don't know if that's still tip of your tongue or we should just kind of move on. No, I think that we were just going on to item, you were on the, I don't think I was, I think you had to, you went on to the hours. You were just talking about hours. That's where I remember you laughing. Yeah, so we're right in section three. And I was just mentioning that one of the questions we ask in here is for the applicant to provide the days on which it is intended to hold or conduct the racing meeting in the hours of each day. That's in there as the statute, again, is really focused on those issues. So it's important to ask those questions. And of course, if live racing won't be conducted for a year or two in the future, that could be something that could be subject to amendment. But nonetheless, it's important to ask about that now. And three, three, one is new to this application. And then three, two is something that's been asked in our past applications. Okay. So that's that's section three. And if there aren't any further questions about that, we can keep going on to section four, which as the title indicates, revolves around non commission approvals. There are a number of places in one to a chapter 128 a itself that discusses approvals that are required from entities other than the gaming commission or the racing commission, in order to move forward with the racing application. And the first one that's highlighted in 4.1 is the one that requires approval by local authorities, and that's addressed in section 13a of the general laws. And essentially, once it's achieved, it doesn't have to be sought again, which is why we haven't spent a lot of time talking about that in the context of Plainville. That was obtained many years ago, and that remains valid. But in the context of a new applicant, the law requires the approval of I just wanted to pull it up really quickly. If it's in it depends whether it's in a city or a town, and it requires the approval of either the mayor and city council or the town council or Board of Selectment. And then there's a whole process set out for people to challenge such approvals and call for referenda and the SOAR. But in any event, it's important just to recognize that municipal approval is a requirement of a racing application moving forward. And so that's why this question is here and important. The second approval that's required is that of a county vote, and that is discussed in section 14 of chapter 128a. And again, once that is secured, no further vote is statutorily required, which is why, again, in the case of Plainville and Norfolk County, we don't look at that annually, but that was secured, I believe, many years ago. I don't have the exact date here. So that's an important part of the application process as well. Any applicant that comes through for a new application would have to ensure that there either has been a vote in the county in which they're situated, or that they arrange for a new one to be taken prior to the racing slash gaming commission considering any such application. So those are two of the statutorily required votes. There are, of course, a number of other approvals that are required to move forward with a project of this type. And question 4.4 seeks information about those. That includes things like federal traffic approvals, MEPA, building permits, of course, and the like. So 4.4 is a question that was similar to one that was asked on the RFA2 application in the gaming context that would require the applicant to set out any approvals that are required prior to a facility like this either being constructed or certainly open. And that's that question. Okay, so that covers section 4, which are the non-commission related approvals. Section 5, if there are no questions about section 4, gets into somewhat of new territory for the commission vis-a-vis course racing. And it talks about, gets into essentially what we refer to, of course, as the suitability of the licensee. The law in a couple of different regards suggests and even requires that the commission considers suitability in some fashion. Unlike in chapter 23K where the law specifically points out how the commission should go about considering the suitability of applicants and sets out who the qualifiers are and what the standards are to be applied, that doesn't appear here on the racing side of the ledger. But as you can see in the bolded language, there are a couple of places that direct the commission to consider or invite the commission to consider suitability. So there's that base date harness case for starters that talks about the consideration of the morals and what have you of the applicant. And we can read through some of that case if that would be helpful. I got logged my Westlaw here. And then there is of course that provision of section 3i of chapter 128a, which talks about the interest of the members of the public and racing competition honestly managed. So I would submit to you that there are a number of places in the law, whether it's by a jurisprudence or in chapter 128a directly that invite slash require the commission to consider suitability of the applicant in some way, shape or form. There are of course a number of different ways that the commission could go about doing that if it were so inclined. And we have a number of options in the application here before you. And as you'll see right at the beginning, similar to section 116.02 of our regulations that apply to qualifiers on the casino gaming side, we set out a proposed definition of who the qualifiers would actually be. Because again, there's nothing in chapter 128a that talks about who the qualifiers are. So we would need to establish that who are you going to be looking at other than the actual entity that would hold the gaming license. And of course, applicants come in all shapes and sizes potentially, whether they're corporate entities or individuals or LLCs or partnerships or what have you. So what we have attempted to do here at the beginning in section 5.1 is set out those individuals who are deemed to be automatic qualifiers, if you will. And number eight there is the catch all and similar to language that exists in on the gaming side again, that anyone who will have the ability to exercise influence or control over the construction or operation of the proposed new facility would be considered a qualifier. So I think that's kind of the first thing that the commission will have to consider is who the qualifiers are.  And that of course can take a number of shapes and sizes as well. We are of course familiar with the standard set out in sections 12 and 16 of chapter 23k that talk about things like honesty, integrity, good character, financial ability, and all of the things that the commission has become very familiar with and accustomed to looking at when it comes to the suitability of an individual or an entity. But again, that doesn't appear in chapter 128a. So it certainly would be some a good way to go about it, but it's not the only way. There could be other things, other ways to approach this as well. So we will need to establish what the suitability standard actually is. We'd need to think about things like whether a quarry or a background check of that type will be required of the qualifiers, whether there would be any automatic disqualifiers if you will akin to those discussed in chapter 23k section 16, whether we would offer or allow for any type of reciprocity if any entity happens to be licensed in another jurisdiction and the individuals have already been looked at in another jurisdiction. And then ultimately what the burden is as far as establishing one's suitability or an entity's suitability. Of course, on the casino gaming side, the standard and burden of proof is that the applicant has to present their suitability by clear and convincing evidence. And so the question becomes whether that is the standard that would apply here on the racing side as well. Of course, as we are all familiar, we have in place a variety of applications that qualifiers on the casino gaming side are required to submit to the IEB to guide the investigation. We have the personal forms and then the entity form. So the commission could use those forms if it were so inclined. Or alternatively, there are a variety of questions that have been included here in section five that could be used in lieu of any such application. So I think, by and large, all the questions that are asked in section five are included in some way, shape, or form in the personal history disclosure form and the entity disclosure form, the business disclosure form that are presently used on the casino side of the ledger. So I don't think you'd need to do both if you were to elect to require the submission of those documents. We need not include some of these questions that are laid out here in section five. But this was just to give you a sense as to what the questions might look like if you were not inclined to use the existing application. So there are a couple of other things in section five that we'll want to take a look at here as well. And I'll kind of, I'll move on to question five. I want to make sure. It's 513. So 513 gets into things that wouldn't be included in any existing suitability related applications, but are things that the commission will likely be interested in in determining whether to award a license or certainly prior to allowing an applicant to commence operations, including things like looking at the applicant's employee handbook, their policies and procedures regarding internal controls, which as we know from the gaming side or a critical component to our regulatory oversight of the casinos. And then things like the audit committee and compliance committee charters and any other policies that demonstrate the applicant's proficiency and applying general industry standards for business and financial practices, things like that that will help the commission evaluate the competency, if you will, of the applicant. So that's what section question 513 is looking at. 514 gets into the applicant's most recent audited and financial statements. Again, these types of things are required as part of the existing casino suitability applications, but they're set out here again. Of course, in the case of any likely entity applicant, that entity may not have any financial history. So one of the things that the commission would want to consider, if we were to go down this road of not requiring existing applications, but instead to use these questions is which entity we would be interested in looking at any such financials for. And that's, you know, like 13 is something that has been in the old application. So not all of this is, you know, brand new or whatever. Alex, it's really helpful that you add that. Thank you. 514, I'm sorry, 515 in a similar vein gets into the funding of the project in which qualifiers will be involved in the funding. Typically, the funding sources are qualifiers themselves unless they fall into certain categories, whether they're conventional type institutional lenders or otherwise. But if those folks are qualifiers, 515 gets into which if any of the qualifiers will be involved in the funding of the proposed project and then the amount in form of the funding and where the money is coming from things along those lines, of course, the commission is likely to want to know where the money is coming from to fund a project of this. And that of course is new. 516 gets into insurance, which of course is going to be important. That might be something that could be submitted as we get closer to any such opening of operations, but that question calls for the copy of any insurance policies that are in place. Excuse me. If I could, could I take a five minute break please right here? Of course. Thank you so much. My apologies, I mean. I've been there. Yeah, navigating a few things and really in need of Dave, I'm all set if you want to put down the screen. My apologies, Todd. Thank you. Of course, we should. I think we just maybe give the others a couple more minutes. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. I just wanted to apologize for the disruption. Not at all. I need the host to start my video apparently. I did too. Well, I don't know who the host is. There you go. Crystal? Thank you. I'm not sure who the host is, but I start with them. That was me if there's anybody else that needs it. Well, yeah, there were a few people on that we just closed up. Let's see. Anyone else? Yeah, my sincere apologies for the disruption. Thank you so much. Okay. Madam chair and commissioners, if we're ready to start off again, I'll jump right back in. There are just a couple of other points, if I may, on the suitability section. First, I just wanted to kind of harken back to section two momentarily. That's actually the area of the application where the 2.8 in particular specifically calls for a description of the financing structure and plan for the proposed project, including identifying any sources of capital. So the question we were just talking about just gets into who the qualifiers are that may be providing some of that capital. But we do ask elsewhere for a clear description as to the funding and what have you. At this point, I thought it might be helpful because I realize this is a new area that the commission has not necessarily contemplated in the past. That is the suitability of qualifiers to a racing application. There are a couple of passages in some cases that have interpreted chapter 128 a that I thought might be helpful to just take a quick look at to gain a clearer understanding of the suitability piece of the puzzle and the commission's authority in that regard. The first passage I just wanted to point out is contained in a case called Bay State Harness Force Racing and Breeding Association, Inc. versus the State Racing Commission. That's a 1961 case and the citation is 342 mass 694. And in that case, the court said that we think that chapter 128 a contemplates that the commission, although given a broad discretion in granting licenses, shall conform to general standards related to the public interest. From various provisions of the chapter may be implied a legislative requirement that licensee shall be financially responsible, be able to meet obligations to the Commonwealth, have suitable and safe facilities for the service of patrons, and be persons likely to conduct racing in accordance with approved practices and in a manner consistent with the public safety, health, morals, and welfare. And here's the part I find the most interesting. They went on to say examination of the chapter, however, furnaces few specific standards, either to guide the commission in granting and refusing licenses or in framing rules and regulations. So the court has recognized there's not a lot in chapter 128 a that provides the commission with their standards and that is left ultimately to the commission to determine what those standards will be. So that was that piece. I just wanted to quickly get into one other citation. Again, in discussing the commission's authority relative to the consideration of suitability, a court offered the from a case called Barrington fair association incorporated versus the state racing commission that's a 1989 case. The citation is 27 mass appeals court 1159. The court there said that when the statutory scheme which regulates horse racing in Massachusetts was substantially amended in 1978, instilling public confidence in the integrity of the sport was declared an objective of the revision. In considering whether to issue a license for corporate applicants, the commission may reasonably be interested in the reputations, honest dealing, gambling history, and police records of the corporation's officers, directors and stockholders. So the courts have in a number of different instances and then variety of different cases specified that the commission does have authority and should consider the suitability of the individuals and entities that are coming before it for a horse racing license. Okay. With that being said, I think that covers section five of the draft application. So I can just keep going from there. So section six. Section six gets into the public interest piece of the puzzle. And again, in the bold language, you'll see we've culled out that piece of section three, I of chapter 128, which directs the commission to consider the interest of members of the public in racing competition honestly managed and of quality. So 6.1 calls for just a broad description by the applicant as to why it believes that it's supposed to be beneficial to the public at large, the commonwealth, the applicant, and racing stakeholders. 6.2 is, of course, an important piece that gets into the any agreement it has, which we I think referred to as a purse agreement, and it's a an executed agreement with the representative horseman's organization. It recognizes, of course, that such an agreement may not have been executed at this juncture, but it's important to recognize that it will be required. And so this question calls for a description of the plan to ensure that that is in place. And that's something that's been asked in the other the old application routinely. 6.3 gets into projected revenues, if you will, and it breaks it down into a number of different categories. This is question 6.3 a through F talks about purses and the paramutual revenues and the attendance and things along those lines. So the commission has a clear understanding of what the applicant believes the revenue situation might look like. And this is similar in the application we have now. We asked what their financials were the previous year. And obviously, a new applicant isn't going to have previous financials to give the commission. Question 6.4 gets into support by a number of entities. Of course, you'll recall as we talked about chapter 128 a section 13 a talks about the actual municipal support and the required support in that case. 6.4, though, gets into more general support or opposition to the project by the governing body or other government officials with the host and surrounding or nearby communities and including evidence and opposition to the project. So this is the question that seeks to gain a clear understanding as to whether this project is supported in the community in the surrounding area. Can I ask this question? I didn't come back. Is it section 3 where the statutory votes are noted? Is that what you just said? Section 3? I think it's 13. Does that include a provision as to not only the statutory requirements but any local requirements? 13 a is a little bit different. I think you can break it down into a couple of different categories. That's not the statute that you're referring to now. I guess I'm just wondering in our draft here you ask about you cover the statutory requirements. Do we have a provision that covers local requirements? Like permitting and things along those lines? Yeah, things that the state law may not be covering but the regional or local laws require. Is that in here? We do have a question and let me see if I can pull it up here where we asked for a list of any municipal and other permitting. Here it is. 4.1. Applicants proposed facility and premises been approved by local authorities in accordance with section 13a. I think you want to look at 4.4 as well. We should probably add the word municipal in there if the commission is inclined to keep that question. Thank you. My apologies. No, that's a great question. This is something we're talking about the local government officials and all. It's not spelled out in the previous application but for those of you who've seen a plain ridge renewal application, they usually bring in like the police chief, the fire chief, and maybe somebody from the town that speaks to the applicant. Okay. Question 6.5 is new, I believe, and hasn't been asked about in the past but is certainly consistent with the commission's objectives on the gaming side and this seemed like an opportunity to include it on the racing side as well. So 6.5 specifically seeks a description of the applicant's plan to attract and employ a diverse workforce in both construction and operational phases of the proposal and a description of the plan to make use of minority women and veteran business enterprises as vendors in the construction and operational phases. That is not something that is required under chapter 128A or C or even something, and correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Leibbrandt that the commission has ever looked at on the racing side but it seems like an opportunity to do so if the commission is so inclined and this is where we ask about that. Of course, this doesn't set any goals. I mean this could be broken out into a number of different components depending upon the commission's preference here. Of course, as part of the RFA2 applications the applicants were required to break out different goals which you're very familiar with and then they're required to report on those goals on a quarterly basis and what have you and I know you're all very familiar with that so I don't need to get into it but this is just an entree into that. So this could be broken out into a variety of different avenues that if the commission is so inclined. That is section six. Moving along to section seven, we get into the facilities and equipment itself and as you can see we included the provision from section three I of chapter 128A that directs the commission to consider the circumstance that large groups and spectators require safe and convenient facilities and the necessity of having and maintaining proper physical facilities for racing meetings. So this is something the commission has to look at as part of its overall evaluation of an application and this section seeks the submission of that information and certainly some of it as we go through it we may not expect that they would know like where they're going to get their report from exactly or what have you but it certainly at some point they would be required to provide this information. 7.1 it gets into the immediate question as to how and whether they control the property upon which the project would be constructed and how they own or control the parcel. 7.2 gets into whether there are any additional parcels that would be required in order to construct the facility. 7.3 is the exact property description by meets and bounds. I'm sure seeing what those look like. And of those 7.2 is new. The other ones have been asked in the previous ones. 7.4 gets into some of the equipment that an applicant at this juncture may or may not know about like the exact trade name of the equipment when it's going to be purchased that any contracts or leases for things like the timing devices, the PA system, any scales and what have you. Obviously those are important components to the oversight of horse racing but it is certainly foreseeable that an applicant may not know exactly which equipment they will have in place for opening but it is important to include a question like this I do believe to at least signal to the applicant that they will have to provide this information. Up to 7.6 it all gets into that equipment but 7.6 is a slightly different question. 7.6 gets into essentially the security measures that will be in place to ensure the protection of the patrons, employees, licensees, and forces and traffic control and things of that sort and there are as you can see a number of specific questions as to how the applicant plans on going about things like that. So it seems that that is certainly something that has been a focus of the commission and this is an opportunity to inquire about those types of things and again some of these things the applicant may not have specifics on at the moment but they are things that would ultimately be required. Things such as whether certain law enforcement officials would be regular or special police officers and things like that or things that may be figured out in the future but these are all the types of things that you will likely be interested in knowing certainly prior to Operations Connect. 7.5 is new and 7.6 is from the previous application. Those are the questions we have before you for Section 7. Now Commissioner Hill to your earlier question we move into Section 8 which is obviously a big piece of the puzzle and this gets into really two parts. The first is whether the applicant intends to offer account deposit wagering and if so or a description of that and any service providers they may plan on using again that might certainly be something they don't have specifics on at the moment but as you've done when it comes to Plain Ridge Park that information certainly needs to be provided in advance and those entities need to be authorized before they may be used for ADW related purposes. The second piece relates to simulcast and of course this is a critical component of any racing application and it's worth pausing here on Question 8.2. Question 8.2 sets out the exact part of the statute that we believe governs whether an entity is allowed to simulcast and to essentially sum it up I would say that essentially if an entity is granted a license to conduct live horse racing they are allowed to simulcast essentially by right if they meet certain requirements relative to the live horse racing. So simulcasting is under Chapter 128 A and C directly tethered to the conduct of live horse racing. Now we have to set aside the fact that Suffolk Downs and Rainham Park are allowed to simulcast because that happens under a separate body of law. Those are special acts of the legislature that the governor authorized for those two bodies but that is not to be confused with the requirements of Chapter 128 C which set out specific requirements for the conduct of simulcasting or racing licensees. And it's actually Section 2. It says Section 5 here that's a typo. So Section 2, I just wanted to pull that up quickly. It's 128 C, not 128 A. So Section 2 gets into a wide variety of requirements and it breaks it down by county and the licensees and specific counties and the types of signals they're allowed to carry and things of that sort. It is unfortunately the paragraph isn't numbered but it's about halfway down. It's the best way to describe it in Section 2 that it includes the language that we've included in the application. And it says that no racing meeting licensee shall simulcast live races in any racing season unless the racing meeting licensee is licensed to and actually conducts at least 900 live races over the course of not less than 100 calendar days during that racing season with no fewer than seven races completed on any of those 100 calendar days. I believe that's the language that at least on the staff side that we have historically looked to to ensure that a licensee is in compliance prior to being allowed to conduct any simulcasting activities. It's important here because depending upon the commission's interpretation of that, a applicant and future licensee would be required to conduct a certain number of race days and races in order to secure the right to simulcast and that is a critical piece. So it's really important that the commission have a clear understanding amongst the body as to what the threshold is. For example, if an applicant were to come in and say for the first year or so we'd like to conduct 40 live race days would that meet the statutory requirement or to Commissioner Hill's question if an applicant came in and said well we would like to conduct simulcasting activities while we're constructing the facility would something like that meet the statutory requirement. These are the types of questions the commission may be inclined to discuss in advance. Todd, the language right here as you read it does it simulcast hinge on having 100 days? I mean as opposed to I mean I think we want to be clear that statute doesn't seem to be ambiguous does it? I don't believe so and I've obviously like Dr. Leipan chime in as well. The only thing that is slightly I wouldn't call it even ambiguous that's interesting is that the statute uses the term calendar days instead of race days but other than that it seems to me that there are not a lot of different ways to interpret this language to slice it and dice it in different ways and anytime you try to interpret it in a different way you get pulled back in by a different clause in this section. So if you started trying to figure out whether for example it's possible to conduct 900 live races in fewer than 100 days with seven races on each particular day you start to see that you can't physically do that. It would take a legislative act. Yes so that's why I think the logical I shouldn't say that the conclusion that we have historically drawn is that one has to run 100 live race days in order to simulcast. But I don't believe at least as far as I am aware that the gaming commission has ever offered an opinion as to whether that is what the statute says. And so it's obviously an important part of this application and we know that any applicant is going to want simulcast so we want to ensure that there's no confusion as to when or whether simulcasting is allowed under this section of the statute. So and historically when Suffolk was running before they started doing the festival weekends when they were running a regular meet they did go to the legislature a couple of times and asked to have that reduced to I think it was 80 days once and maybe lower than that another time and the legislature did do that and so they were allowed to still simulcast with that. And something similar for so in Plain Ridge's renewal applications they always state the number of days they're going to race and all and as part of my report to the commission I mentioned that that the number of days they're proposing to race will meet the requirements of the simulcasting. And also the there's always been sort of the so Plain Ridge doesn't open for live racing until April. They are allowed to start simulcasting January 1st of that year because there's the general acknowledgement that opening in April they will have time through the rest of the calendar year to complete those hundred day requirements. So to be clear under the proposed application they wouldn't be able to do simulcasting because they wouldn't be able to do the racing days in that calendar year. Is that accurate? Yeah I think that I think the statute is the law and and we really can't override the law. The legislative change was sought by interested parties in the past. The legislature didn't say that's not how the law you know was intended to be. No we intended it for to be the last 100. In fact they gave they made they took special action right Dr. Lightbaugh to give relief. So I think that we've got some pretty good legislative history here to say how the the law has um was intended to to be applied. So I'm sorry I'm sorry. I'm just gonna say I appreciate Councilor Grossman's invitation that we be somehow interpret it or somehow but I think that the law is the law and I'm not sure it's really a matter for us to interpret. I think it is a matter for us to provide. So Commissioner Hill yes the implication that you're suggesting is an important one for parties to hear. So as I I'm sorry I'm frogging my throat today. So we would be giving a license to an applicant possibly and for one whole year they're just holding a license but not being able to do anything with it until they come up a year later with the facility with the racing days. So they're basically holding on to a license that they can't do anything with for a year. I just want to be clear about that. I wouldn't exactly describe it in those terms. I think it would be of great value to an entity to have such a license because it provides an entity some assurance that if they go ahead and construct a facility under the terms and condition that they have proposed and the commission has authorized that they will be allowed to conduct horse racing and simulcasting at a future date. Without that license they have no such assurance and they would just be constructing a facility without knowing whether the gaming commission would ever license it. No I understand that. So yeah I mean to your point yeah you can't there's nothing you can you can't conduct racing or gambling activities I suppose but there is great value in the license on the left. So can I keep walking through this so let's say somebody came before us now June we gave them a license by September let's say I'm just scenario don't they have to come back to us in October for now a 2023 reappoint another license for 2023 because now they're reapplying for a license they already have. See I would suggest that this is up to the commission and that's exactly what the question is before you but I would submit if you were so inclined you could license an entity to race in 2025 subject to certain conditions being met. In which case other that language that talks about an application being submitted by October 1st you would be that they would already have submitted the application they would have been licensed and they wouldn't have to come back before you until you know the end of their first racing season. Now they would have to come back before you in accordance with a number of the conditions that are likely to be put in place so you can monitor the construction and development of the project so it's not like you wouldn't see these folks for 10 years something like that but they would not have to come back before you with a new application for a license because in theory depending how this goes you would have already awarded the license for racing so the license to be clear based on some of the discussion previous the license is to conduct live horse racing that's what your license is. Thank you. Well I just asked the clarifier if they it's conduct live horse racing but would this license also if they cover the simulcasting if they meet the requirements? Yes I so I think that that's exactly right I mean that's kind of a corollary to the the license is that then you have adw you have simulcasting there might be other things that go along with it but the it's live racing plus yeah okay thank you they don't have to have another document this will cover it. I believe so yes and and now the the previous application has that in it the simulcasting approvals request for simulcast approvals and an account wagering approvals as well. On the account wagering I'm sorry for going out of order I don't think this got covered but one of the one issue did come up and Commissioner O'Brien I'm not sure Commissioner Skinner was here with that but I think Commissioner Hill you were here when we when there was a new a new vendor involved Dr. Lightbound. Yes. Do we do we address that issue where we we felt that we needed to to check into those vendors more is that covered in this life in this draft document? No we have there are account wagering regulations and they're kind of broad about you know what type of checks you do and so that was one of the things on our you know on our list of yes yes it's on the it's on the reg review list but not incorporated per se in this license is that okay should it be stronger or no I did know it was through the reg process but I wasn't sure if we would need to do it either unless in the this application wow do you familiar with the the issue somewhat I would if I'm understanding correctly I would say that type of thing might be good to signal somehow in this application but it could probably be done just by way of the regulation process. That might be a efficient way to do it Dr. Lightbound. Can we just put that down as a note? It is of course signaled in part if the commission's inclined to leave in the question we talked about it was earlier where you mentioned vendors. Yeah about the you know the diverse workforce and and the vendor sources and and what have you we do. It was more on the suitability review I think yeah right as long as that section would apply to simulcasting issues that's really what I'm wondering Todd if um if maybe that's where we expand under suitability in the review of them. Is that 6.5 you're talking about? Yeah you're more on top of the pages right now than I am. Yeah that's that looks like it. I mean I don't know if you're thinking about it too but yeah well no 6.5 is the workforce and and vendor but I'm I'm thinking more of the suitability review. Well would the account wagering providers be considered qualifiers? Well I'm not sure if that's where we want to go or not that's kind of my question or some you know key employee or whatever status of the license review that we would want to give them or or just what kind of a check do we do on the vendor itself because I don't if I recall correctly the reg was so broad we we had we didn't have those standards clear I'm just wondering if we want to cross-reference that Todd. Yeah and there have been updates at RCI to the that particular issue. Yes I know. I don't know off the top of my head how detailed it is but you know it may be just a matter of us incorporating that into the regs. Director Wells I don't know if if you have any insights on that given your history as IEP director but I don't think anything in particular but you know we could definitely look into that for you. Just cross-reference to maybe whatever we come up with on the regs. Thank you. In regards to 6.5 I know you would ask us our opinion on that so I'm going to give mine right out of the box. I like it. I think it should be part of the application. I think it goes right with what we've been doing as a as a commission all along so I'd like to see that language remain in there as one commission. I imagine I'm not going to speak for everyone but I I can certainly say that it's consistent with all of our values and in the mission and I think the intent of 23k and by incorporation 128a. I agree with Brad sentiment. Keisha. Yeah I thought you'd have a group behind you Brad on that. Thank you sorry to interrupt again. Quite all right. Can we bring up the the Essex County issue at this point or do we want to not discuss that yet? That's of course whatever we're inclined to talk about. So you're talking about Suffolk County? I meant Suffolk. Okay. I always say Essex. Sorry about that. So through the conversations that we've had I'm of the understanding that we would be allowed to offer horse racing throughout the Commonwealth. We went back and did a little digging I think in history and most of the counties if not all of them took a statewide vote on one day and they all approved it back in the help me out Dr. Lightbaum I forget. I don't remember when that was. I think it was like in the 50s or something or 60s. Yeah. So for me anyways as one commissioner I feel so we should be able to and can give out a license to anybody throughout the Commonwealth. It would be nice if the legislature clarified that for us by removing that but after looking and digging a little bit I think we have the ability to do that to allow somebody from another county to come before us. And I don't know if this is the appropriate time to interject it's possible that sort of legal question we may be able to have a forum to discuss that legal question independently if there's some legal advice so we were going to explore that whether that needs to be a public discussion or not. There could be so that's one thing we're looking at and I'll just throw that out there there may be an option for the commissioners that way on that on that issue. Okay. I don't think that's necessarily been resolved at this point. Fair enough. I had a minimum I'd say there's no reason to stop discussing this application now and work our way through it. Oh no I think we should continue absolutely. So we've got through wagering and simulcasting Todd. Yeah so that brings us to section nine which as you can see and I think this was largely included in the existing application there are just a lot of conditions that are automatically attached to the license that we asked the applicant to sign off on. There is one though that I don't believe is included in the existing application and that is on this section nine page the next to last one where it incorporates by reference all documents that are attached to the application first of all that actually may be a much better but more importantly there's that second sentence that says that the applicant agrees that it shall have an affirmative obligation to abide by every statement made in this application to the commission should it be awarded a license. Now that language you'll recall is pulled directly from chapter 23k and is a condition of all of the casino gaming licenses that does not exist in chapter 128a but it is here and I certainly wanted to draw your attention to it. It's not required but it is a good way to ensure that every all the statements that are made in this application are adhered to and not necessarily just aspirational but are things that will be expected of any future license. So that I mean that in a nutshell covers section nine and then from there on or they're just the number of attestations and affidavits and things of those sorts which we can go through as well at the appropriate time but that basically covers the the whole application at this point. Todd before we get to our questions and discussion I'd like to just suggest to the commissioners that this application and the process associated with it from you know when we would entertain accepting applications to the decision making process to the illegal issues that are outstanding as Commissioner Hill just raised one important one and then other not so much legal issues but just policy issues that are outstanding. I'm wondering if it would make sense to invite public comment and even possibly hold a public hearing to get the input from there's so many interested parties you know the course the horse racing community is very invested in in our work and and there's a lot of moving parts right now including various bills pending at the legislature. We should have public input for sure. I know there's been some interest expressed in that by different public people to me. Yes and and we could do a we could do a hearing or we could ask for written comments our combination we've done both. What do you think Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Skinner? I think combined one of the things we did the last time where we did we gave a period of people wanted to do written submissions and then we did combined so we could you know query people as they came in to give comments seems the most efficient thing to do. And but you like the idea at this juncture maybe? Absolutely. Okay, Commissioner Skinner? I also like the idea in fact I think it's the prudent thing to do um especially uh Madam Chair as you as you mentioned the legal and policy issues that are that are before us. Yeah some are more complicated than others and I think personally I'd benefit by hearing from those with interest and expertise.  Does that make sense? I don't mean to stop discussion because I think it's important for us to raise our questions to the pod. This license draft does I mean application draft does give a good framework to raise questions so I think it's been a it's a really good first exercise here. Do you want to ask questions now commissioners? I'm going to ask mine. Sorry to hog up everything. I think I I mean this isn't the first time that we've talked about this since in my tenure here I'd actually like to hear what public comment there is out there. I think that would really focus any questions that I have and I think it's it's going to be necessary in terms of the policy discussion for me. Commissioner Skinner? So I was going to say this is my first conversation um public that is um I certainly have had the benefit of the two by twos um earlier in the week and you know I intended to sit through this meeting as a listener um because I do have quite a bit of homework to do to come up to speed on all of the um attending issues so I don't I don't you know disagree with sort of pausing right now and engaging in the public comment process. Commissioner Hill? No agreed. So um is there any guidance we need to give um Karen and Todd and Alex, Dr. Lightbound, Director Wells and Councillor Grossman um for what we would like to see in a public hearing in terms of direct invitations as well as the broad invitations. Any any suggestions? Of course Dr. Lightbound all of the interested parties in the horse racing community would get some kind of a um directed notice of the hearing and invitation to come in. I think probably um members of the legislature would get some kind of a notice of the hearing commissioner, Belgium, you think that's a good idea this juncture? Yeah. Um other um particular stakeholders? Well the only thing I'm thinking there are proposed projects which we still don't know uh exactly uh you know how that's going to play out but it could be you know community members or um government officials from those communities may want to have some kind of comment. So may want to just at least push it out so there's uh at least an awareness out there that this is going on. Yes and then we'll do our our our broad based um right communication that um that uh Tom and Dave can work on for us in terms of timing because we have such a clear calendar going forward in June um would we try to have it in June or or in July? I'm thinking of course how to um the legislative calendar as well. June might be tough in terms of giving people time to submit or fair then you're sort of getting into the end of June anyway. Yeah and I'm off sort of that lat the last half of the last week and that first week in July I'm actually not in so yeah. So it would be maybe um if not late June then maybe that sort of that second week of that second week of July um so I'm gonna I think that's the thing that I'm having my little issue with so well and and I have a little issue too so we're we're going to be grappling with that together Commissioner Hill so um you know both of us have various personal um commitments as well so we'll have to have our magic worker um tackling fine times but I think what we'll do is is figure out what's was fair to give enough notice to the stakeholder so they can um prepare written comments and also make an appearance at the um a public hearing um now I'll ask the the um question of our particular time and era virtual or live I'm wondering if virtual gets us the most participants given that it could be a broad um yeah I will say um Madam Chair I had a conversation with someone from the horseman community yesterday who was uh one of the conversation had this conversation was so pleased that there was the virtual option for meetings because normally he would have to take a whole day off work to come in and get to Boston to do the meeting and all that but it was so convenient to be able to just go online um and and do that um you know remotely so it was just interesting I just got that comment yesterday well that's really helpful then I think that given this does have implications for the entire Commonwealth with stakeholders across the Commonwealth do we agree that a virtual format works well okay um it doesn't always mean that we have to meet we could be in person together so that but that um that's not underway right Karen um in terms of our own uh technological capacity um Commissioner O'Brien what date did you say that you were away on in July did you say that that fourth of July week um so it's I'm back on the eleventh for essentially the rest of the month so I'm out the holiday and then the rest of that week so July 11th is the day or we have a I think we're going to have a meeting on the 12th that's correct yep so maybe the 11th is the date we should shoot for because that's right before all of my personal issues take care yeah I'm I might have to just wave my hand here because the week of the fifth I'm I'm having um I'm I may not be as equipped to be as ready for the 11th as I would otherwise want to be so um I want to just work with Jacqueline that would be really helpful for me thank you so much and I'm not available on July 11th so there's that and that there we go Jacqueline and there she is look at Jacqueline has to have she looks like she's in NASA right now without just air traffic control there's so many monitors and and that's why I say where the magic begins so thank you um I just want to just a little bit of caution there thanks so much yeah I was following along as you were talking and I was like I need Jacqueline thank you crystal um we've got people who are thinking of each of us um kindly so thank you um all right we'll figure out a good date um that it will always work out um okay so the last thing is that I know it was a matter of concern before um we want to give um opportunity for as many participants possible we will be giving adequate notice I know at one time we thought about lunch being a lunchtime being where people might be able to um participate more eat readily on the other hand we often meet in the morning and we do have a lot of the first racing community participate Dr. Leipan do you have any insight on the time that would work best given there are likely schedules yeah um I think where plane ridges is a renewal license there may not be too many comments from the um standard bread side certainly they're willing you know they can um participate um you know if it was a race day and it was in the afternoon it might limit people but um where it's mostly going to be uh people on the thoroughbred side you know they're it would be whenever was would work for the commission would be fine for them and especially if it's virtual thank you very easy to hop off whatever they're doing to make a few comments some commissioners is there any strong sentiment as to timing or should we let Jacqueline even exercise her discretion on that good let Jacqueline take over crystal you're relieved with that we're already working on it okay thank you and it does help yes thank you and we'll get um notice up um as as soon as possible um to the public on that director wiles is there anything else that we should be thinking about on this or just the um the process today no i mean i'm you know legal we'll circle back on legal if there's another forum discuss any legal issues uh if not you know we'll we'll just continue the discussion as is but i think you're in pretty good shape i'm compliments the legal department and outside council and their work on the application and especially to direct different life and her excellent work on this whole process um just as a clarification i assume we're putting the draft up online so people can look at it so that they can comment on it how does that work was the draft in the public packet today it was yeah but we can repost it then um as um oh there we go hi tom how would you like to do it yeah we uh david can put it up on the website um sometime this afternoon we can uh figure out what's going on and and on um the deadline for written comments todd they would be in advance of the public hearing yes of course we want to give the commissioners at least a couple of days to look through yeah i think what we need to do is know what the date is and work our way back because yeah some of us patients too having it having a deadline fall when we're not in may not make them particularly helpful for us right because we'd like to be able to review the written comments in advance of the um public hearing okay so just um again it's a little coordination with um with jacklyn too on everybody's um personal schedules okay anything else so we can think of logistics or otherwise we're good johnson grossman excellent job going through the application today um is and are we missing anything or is there anything that you need from us before we close no thank you i think this is great i think we have a good plan in place to get this moving ahead yeah back to live on anything that you can think of oh i think we've got a good plan going forward okay so is there any other business commissioners that you want new business before we close okay great job everyone yeah yeah it was a well well done uh two also at um god and and team judy i know has is off but i know she was involved in of course carrie commissioner brandy are you moving i was not but i can um so i have a motion to adjourn yes i move to adjourn madam chair thank you second thank you commissioner skinner all right um we're we're so democratic that we almost almost don't get paralyzed i love that um that's a good thing that's a good thing no further discussion all right mr o brian hi mr hill hi mr skinner hi my vote yes four zero thanks everyone and thank you to the entire team very good work thanks thanks guys


In 1936, near Red Creek in London, Texas, something was found. It has become one of the most compelling pieces of evidence to suggest there is a lost history of Earth. Within a rock, Emma Hand would notice a small piece of wood that appeared to be embedded, finding the strange she picks up the object for a closer inspection. Not really knowing what it was, it is lucky she was curious enough about the embedded wood to take it home. A decade later, presumably after the artifact had sat in Max and Helen Hand's household for many years, their son Max would spark an interest into what it could be. He breaks the rock apart, and to their amazement concealed within the stone was an ancient stone hammer. Now known as the London Hammer, the rock that once grew around it, was claimed to have stopped growing around 400 million years ago, which could only mean the hammer would be even older. What if the maker of this hammer nearly half a billion years ago, stole the design from an ancient artifact he found himself, just how old can our history be? The metal of the hammerhead has been confirmed to consist of 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulphur. And since its discovery in the 1930s and its subsequent re-entry into the air, it has not rusted. Around 1983 the hammer was acquired by creationist Carly Barth, an active advocate of Pelluxy River man-tracks, and other alleged geologic anomalies, who began to call it the London Artifact. Many figures within the scientific and historical communities have strongly disagreed with the premise that the hammer be many hundreds of millions of years old, some even theorizing that the limestone in which it was discovered could have formed in just a few centuries in perfect conditions. The variation in dates put forward by creationist scientists regarding the matter, has also just stoked the flames of debate, and indirectly aiding in the denial of the artifact being truly ancient. However, there are certain factors regarding this object, like so many others in this criteria, that cannot be explained by accepted academia. Firstly, it is unthinkable for the modern theory of evolution to include such artifacts, this gives the creationists a foothold, yet they lack the material to continue an argument back many millions of years. They are indeed opposite, yet both incorrect approaches. Thus, because of this, the most important features of the hammer, are conveniently ignored frequently by both sides of the modern coin. For example, the handle of the hammer is not made of wood anymore, it is now made of coal. It was once made of wood, but through a natural and unrushed process, the wood has been transformed into coal. And whatever the reasons for these inconsistencies in reports, evidently the rock strata at the site are indeed Hensel Samb member of the Travis Formation, lower Cretaceous, upper Apsham stage, considered to be approximately 110 to 115 million years old by conventional geologists. This is fact, so by default that hammer is older, regardless of orterior motives for publicizing such artifacts, the truth they can tell, no matter how reluctant it may be to your worldview, shouldn't be ignored. However, the age of the rock formation may be relevant to authenticity, it is irrelevant to the fact that the hammer does indeed exist, and that these artifacts create a proposition for historical data we should be approaching with open minds, if we are to progress as a species. The channel's recent exposé regarding the possible true age of the Great Pyramids outlaid many fragments of evidence, strongly suggesting they pre-date a number of past advanced lost civilizations. However, it mistakenly overlooked a possible culprit for their construction. Numerous layers of casing stones, each once an enormous undertaking, occurred at varying times within antiquity, by different civilizations which many perceive were possible conservation efforts. Due to this, and the fact that I had so far identified at least three advanced separate civilizations elsewhere, achieved through the co-operation of nearly three years' work, focused upon cataloging unexplained advanced ruins from the past, characteristics within the techniques used to construct them, toolmark signatures left upon the stones, unique identifiable architectural design, and differentiations exclusive to particular ruins were slowly gathered and used to identify three distinct ancient civilizations with their own unique directions of development. However, I mistakenly presumed that the Cyclopean civilization was placed far closer to us than the original Pyramid builders. This was put forward as a personal opinion, which mystery history reluctantly has to admit that, although based on logic, has been disproven by this very same methodology. In the video, it was stated, and I quote, I have never, and now strongly feel, will never find any indicative evidence of these civilizations building the footings under any of these gigantic megaliths, end quote. I had looked for a significant time for any signature stonework, linking any of the civilizations I had identified to the placement of megalithic blocks over or around the 1000 tons mark. If I discovered these characteristics beneath such enormous stones, I would have proven that they were indeed capable and more than likely the civilization responsible for their placement, with the most significant being the building of the pyramids. There were some issues which niggled MH regarding this postulation before the following discovery, however, due to the lack of any footings, had to postulate the pyramid builders were a far more capable group. One such niggle were the matching scoop-like tool marks used by the Cyclopean civilization found in Bosda Cave, Turkey, officially proven to have been the quarry for Haran, a nearby settlement, which possessed their signature Cyclopean blockwork, cuboid blocks with a raised center, synonymous with many ancient builds, with the same scoop-like tool marks also present upon the excavation of the unfinished obelisk. But due to the absence of footings, which would have demonstrated undeniable proof that they were indeed capable of working, moving, and placing such stones, I wrongly presume that they were incapable of such tasks. However, unlike academia, regardless of disliking the realization that he was mistaken about something, the motive of the channel is honest research and logical deduction. Thus, admitting one's mistakes allows not only mystery history's understanding to evolve, but is the only path one can take in the pursuit of truth. The Western Wall, Whaling Wall, or Kotel as known in Islam as the Barrage Wall, is an ancient limestone wall in the old city of Jerusalem. Originally erected to its current height by Herod the Great in 19 BC, enclosing the Temple Mount in a large rectangular structure, topped by a huge flat platform. The Western Wall is considered holy by both practicing Muslims and Jews. Of the four retaining walls, the Western one is considered to be closest to the former temple, which makes it the most sacred site recognized by Judaism outside the former Temple Mount Esplanade. Just over half of the wall's total height, including its 17 courses located below street level, is academically claimed to date from the end of the Second Temple period, and is commonly believed to have been entirely built around 19 BC by Herod the Great. However, the Western Stone, weighing around 600 tons and a few other enormous stones, all located below ground level within the base, not only possesses compelling evidence of incredible antiquity, but beneath this enormous stone are the signature blocks of the civilization I named the Cyclopians. This is evidence I wrongly presumed I would never find, demonstrating that the civilization I call the Cyclopians were indeed capable of moving such gigantic stones. What's more, they were also capable of moving the pyramid stones, and indeed those of Baalbek, yet to be a viable suspect, due to the immense age of the pyramids, stones would need to be found to support this, and amazingly, these foundation stones do indeed contain just that. Still embedded within holes, presumably cut for the placement of the blocks, timber chocks can be found in these foundation stones, wooden planks which have over an unimaginable amount of time petrified into coal, stone, and flint-like materials, indicating a minimum age of at least 100,000 years. As such, decay and petrification would not have been able to occur in the currently attested timeline. Could these stones date from the original construction of geese's great pyramids? It is undoubtedly a wall many followers of certain Abrahamic monotheistic faiths hold in high regard, and one of incredible importance to them. Interestingly, however, due to these amazing features, it is also of high significance in regards to unraveling the secrets of history. It is undoubtedly highly compelling. Hey guys, so today I wanted to share with you a rather special out-of-place artifact. It's known as the Fisher Canyon footprint, and it's actually a lump of coal. However, this small lump of coal is something very special. It's an artifact we hold dear to our hearts here at Mystery History. Since its discovery in the early 1900s by a man named John T. Reed, a character we have actually covered in the past, it has been silencing skeptics and evolutionists the world over. John T. Reed was the man responsible for confirming native Indian legends of a race of red-headed giants that once terrorized the American continent some 13,000 years ago. When John found the Fisher Canyon footprint, he reported it to the New York Sunday American. The coal layer in which the fossil was found was dated at over 15 million years ago. Microscopic photography that was carried out by the Rockefeller Institute, presumably attempting to discredit the find, actually confirmed that it was indeed a heel print of a hand-stitched shoe, and that the fossil seemed to show the presence of two rows of stitches along the edge of the sole, with twists of thread clearly visible in the photography. The right side of the shoe also appeared more worn than the left, indicating that it was worn on the right foot. Crystals of mercury sulfide collected during the analysis only confirmed the fossilized shoe prints enormous age. After the test results were in, Samuel Hubbard of the Museum of Archeology in Oakland, California buckled to the sheer amount of conclusive evidence by telling the press, quote, Today's people are not yet able to make this kind of shoe. Facing this kind of evidence indicates that at the time of suspected uncivilized arthropods, millions of years ago, people with high intelligence appeared to have existed. Detail of the threads proves that it was the sole of a shoe, and was strictly the handiwork of man, end quote. This is why we love the Fisher Canyon footprint so much. It sat in the back of museum collections for years, silently waiting for evolutionists and skeptics alike to stumble upon its existence, only for it to then cast its spell of tremendous doubt upon their way of thinking. They can produce no real explanation for it. The best any mainstream scientists or anthropologists can do is ignore the evidence and conclude it's just a natural formation. Unfortunately, the footprint conveniently went missing a few years ago, even though by all accounts it was just a lump of coal. The story has also been hijacked over the years, with the Rockefeller Institute's test results subsequently vanishing. However, luckily for us, the quotes by Hubbard are in press archives all over the world. The small lump of coal is sure to fuel the argument for years to come. How many different civilizations, and thus different builders, have actually been and gone, only to be ignored by an academia wishing for their remnants to simply erode away? These remnants, many of which still existing ancient ruins, are visited by billions of people every year. Each attributed to a convenient imposter, a lie which conveniently ties in with previously printed, condoned, and currently preserved paradigms by superior influences. Not only ill-informing the world's young population, but attempting to rob us all of our own personal histories. However, thankfully, some things do not lie, cannot be hidden, and will never go away. We share many ancient out-of-place artifacts on our channel, some more perplexing than others. Yet our next artifacts might be the most puzzling yet. Found in Kosovo, upon the Shar Planina mountain range, an ancient advanced artifact that has been explained as having once been some kind of transformer. Found by photographer and researcher Ismit Smiley, he subsequently donated a sample for scientific examination. It was found that the artifact is no less than 20,000 years old. In addition to the stone, coil, and copper wires, the artifact amazingly contained some form of ancient insulator, whose composition differs from the surrounding material, although not tested, it appears to have mysterious convex bands fused into a stone. Parallel to these are four symmetrically located openings, which have been postulated to have been entry points for wires, these once collecting energy from the transformer. What is this mystifying object? What was it once used for? Who made it? And with dating results of over 20,000 years, just how much older could it possibly be? Could these objects have once been a common occurrence amongst this ancient civilization? Founder to the clearly advanced metal clamps previously covered and found upon numerous ancient block-built buildings throughout antiquity. Due to the sheer number of clamps used, although they are clearly a remnant left by a lost civilization far older than academia would ever attribute the buildings to, many of the clamps have survived the eons to be tested, examined, and displayed in numerous different museums as more modern artifacts. Is this how this transformer survived? Was it due to the sheer number of them once in existence? Or is it possibly a very special rarity? Unfortunately, regardless of alternative advice, ISMET intends to donate it to academically funded scientists for, quote, further studies. We feel there is a high probability that the artifact may be lost or stolen. Regardless, it was thankfully photographed and is undoubtedly a very remarkable object. During such events as a pyroclastic flow, complete human forms can often be preserved in a fixed position, turned to ash in an instant. Someone turning into a stone fossil with age, however, was thought to be an impossible scenario. That was until 1898, when an extremely controversial discovery was made, deep within a copper mine.  Deep within an old copper mine in Chukicamara, an ancient stone woman complete with basket and tools was discovered, and although a date of only 400 years was preliminarily given, it is clear to the many involved that she is far older than that. The discovery was examined closely by Jose Torribino Medina, a central figure in Chilean archaeology at the time. He described his findings as follows. The body is that of a female. The depth of the soil where the corpse was found was no more than six to eight feet, and the miner was probably searching the mountain when a sudden collapse buried her. The miner, feeling that the mountain was breaking down, lifted her arms up to protect her head, the position in which her body is preserved. This discovery, although the only one of its kind, is highly controversial, and we suspect this may be because certain individuals are aware of its true antiquity. Beside the body were the remains of a basket, a stone sledgehammer, several stone shovels, sharpened pieces of wood, and a torn bag made of animal hide, all leading to the conclusion that this mummy dates from a very distant time within our history. After more recent analysis was conducted, it was discovered that it was actually a man, strangely. He also has an unusually shaped skull and a green hue from sulfate and chloride within the copper. It is thought this may have been one of the contributing factors in his marvelous preservation. The copper man of Chukwikamara is extremely difficult to research, and although he is clearly of considerable historical importance, his whereabouts may continue to remain vague. Regardless of his known whereabouts, his existence will forever lend credence to a forbidden history here on our planet.