n july 27th to start this discussion and at that point the sense of the commission was to move ahead with um sort of uh flashing this out just a little bit and um creating a framework for some of the possible changes which which we have done and is included in in your packet which is just a quick update uh we've done a few things in the interim uh in addition to generating uh that developing that framework um on august 10th we had a meeting with our grantees uh to talk with them about uh what some of the challenges were with the program and and some of the ideas that that we had um it was a very good meeting uh we had over 40 attendees at that meeting um which was really great um attendance especially you know in the middle of the summer um and uh essentially we went over with them the same presentation that we went over with you on the on the 27th uh on july 27th and you know the feedback that we got from that was was again that you know that we were sort of correct in our assessment that the biggest challenge that they face is the um you know identifying and quantifying the impacts of of the casinos and um in general I think to a person uh for the people who commented they really did like the idea of having um our guidelines be more prescriptive where we said where we tell them what the impacts are and we also tell them what some of the solutions to those impacts might be um you know just to give them more guidance on on what uh uh what was what was uh you know what's acceptable and um and then also there was a lot of um definite interest in the idea of a block grant approach um the comments that we received back on that were that uh you know again we talked about the capacity of some of these communities to to be uh developing grant applications and so on when there's no guarantee that they'll get the money um several folks commented that they felt that that a block grant approach would sort of level the playing field a little bit amongst the communities that uh you know where we have some communities that have dedicated grant writers who take a lot of advantage of the program and then you have these communities who who don't and and have not been able to take advantage of the program so there was definitely um a lot of good comment in that area um and also this week on tuesday we held our local community mitigation advisory committee meetings and our subcommittee on community mitigation um and commissioner hill was in attendance at both of those uh meetings and um i would say that the comments that we received were very similar to what we received when we met with our grantees um the the idea of having a um more prescriptive guidelines uh was was universally uh agreed that that would be a good thing to do and same thing with the block grant approach uh you know the the key question that came out of all of this was well what is the formula going to look like uh you know everybody wanted to have some idea you know well what what does that mean for us um you know one of the things that we did hear from uh particularly from springfield was that that they felt that the you know the host communities should uh get a larger share of the money because um they they take up a much larger burden um of of those impacts so um you know again the the the comments were generally positive on on the notion of a um of a block grant approach um so what i thought i would do now is just kind of walk through the framework uh that we put together and that is in your packets starting i think at page 240 um so what we've done as you all know community mitigation fund we get six and a half percent of the gaming taxes go into the community mitigation fund from the category one facilities and also six and a half percent of the any fines that are that are generated from those facilities so what we looked at here is saying that a block grant approach probably can't work for all of the things that we do a block grant approach works for the municipalities but for those things like the workforce development programs that we have and district attorneys offices and so on a block grant really wouldn't wouldn't work for those so what we are proposing is having uh sort of a two two piece approach to that and the first we're we're calling it the municipal block grant program which would be for all of the eligible communities um and then what we're calling for lack of a better word program uh set asides and those set asides would include the workforce uh program that we currently run uh the district attorney's offices the hamden sheriff's office if we decide that that we're going to continue with that and then any regional agencies the regional planning agencies and so on now on the municipal block grant side what we're proposing is that all of the money is generated by the casinos would would go into that uh block grant program so right now in region a we're generating about 12 million dollars in funds in region b it's about four million um and so uh and what we also looked at is the category two facility which is of course plane ridge park um they actually are within the boundaries of region a and and given the amount of money that is in region a we felt it's probably appropriate for those communities to get to use region a funds historically we've kind of split it up between region a and region b um but since you know there's such a a discrepancy in the amount of funds of region a um generates it seemed more appropriate to do that but again that well that's not a question we need to decide today that's really going to be a policy question that we would be bringing up later and again on the program set asides uh we have our workforce grant program which as of right now sits at a million dollars a year 500,000 for the east 500,000 for the west um you know in the interest of trying to get more money out uh we could consider increasing those amounts again a policy question that we don't need to decide on today uh and also district attorney's office is right now only the hand in uh district attorney's office uh has come in for money and I know with commissioner O'Brien we're going to meet with some of the other uh the da's and try to gauge their interest in participating in this and we think is you know there's a really good um there's money here for them and they should probably be taking advantage of that um so we're going to try to grow that piece of the program just uh through having additional da's offices uh participate uh the hand in sheriff's office again that's a policy question we won't really talk about that particularly today and then you know we put on here regional agencies we haven't really thought too much about if we want to try to set some money aside for you know the pioneer valley planning commission and and the um the MAPC and um so anyway what we're looking at there for the funding source is you know right now we have balances that you know unused balances in the fund and our thought was that we could dedicate those funds to these set-asides and then essentially those surpluses would would reduce over you know some period of time um so that is you know so that's the the basic approach to to doing that and and I think on the program set-asides you know with the workforce grant I think we would we would put that out just as we do now as being competitive and saying that you know we have money available region a and region b um with the district attorney's offices I think we would just set aside a certain amount of money and tell the da's office you know we'll come up with an application form for them to fill out and so on and what you know what we want to see um so I think that side should be pretty straightforward so I'm going to focus the rest of this presentation really on the municipal block grant program and what we think that might look like. Joe just before we continue it can you remind me and Commissioner Byron maybe you remember have we ever had any of the district courts reach out for um any relief I don't know um Eileen if if the da's if we're talking to the da's offices that we should also be thinking about that I just I don't know there's data to support the court so yeah I think well firstly you know the law itself particularly spells out da's offices it does not talk about the court district court okay all all it says is um public safety agencies including the district attorney's office you know police fire ems things like that um so that might be a little bit of a stretch yeah I guess I thought that at one point we had gotten something my apologies you know I mean and I think we could have we could certainly have legal take a look at that and see if that fits within the framework of of of 23 yeah and Commissioner Byron you were leaning in I don't know what you were thinking I just I didn't have a memory of us hearing from the courts okay thanks okay so um moving on so what would this municipal block grant program look like um so what we would envision this as being we would get a single application from a community covering all of the projects that the community is proposing to use the funds um and this you know so the application would be broken down into categories as we do now so we would still have uh you know several categories um and of course this the the funds going on to the communities would be based on a formula which we'll talk about formula some of the things to consider in a formula um in a little bit um and right now so we're proposing five categories and those are transportation community planning public safety gambling harm reduction and also um specific impacts so those are essentially the categories that we have now um with workforce development as being an additional one and you know we kind of pulled that out of out of this the block grant piece and what we are proposing here uh in this uh in this uh memo is you know having kind of a targeted minimum in each one of the categories similar to what they do with the community preservation act where and in this case we're saying 15 percent is the target for each of the four uh categories with nothing under specific impact and that would leave them 40 percent to move among categories as they would see fit um some of the comments that we got um on this were saying that you know that may not really fit particularly well with every community and our ideas we don't want a community to just take the money and put it into all into transportation or public safety or something just every single year um where it becomes almost like a general fund kind of expense even though it would not be um and so I think maybe for the first year we would put a target on there and say you know you need if you're not going to do that you need to explain to us why you're not going to do that and how you might meet that in the future or something like that you know maybe we don't we don't say that that's a hard and fast rule this year but you know you should we want to see the money spread around to the various categories is what the long the long and short of it is and so in your memo you'll see that under each category we have sort of four uh items here we have impacts eligible projects ineligible projects and then the the target of 15 percent uh minimum spend and for for just illustrative purposes I put together um again a framework not not not a final guideline but on what these guidelines would kind of look like um so so for we did I did the one for transportation and so what we're saying in in the in the example is that you know that we've reviewed all of the traffic studies for all of the uh facilities and we've reviewed a bunch of um research uh that's done that's been done on traffic I've looked at four or five different studies that show you know sort of what uh the impacts of increased traffic are on local roads and public safety and things like that so what we're saying is that we've done the research ourselves and that based on that research we've determined that there are a number of impacts that are due to traffic and so you know the first impact they were saying is you know increases in traffic are likely to cause increased congestion along the major routes that lead to and from the casino I think that's almost self-evident um you know secondly increases in traffic are likely to lead to increased motor vehicle accidents um some of the studies that I read say that you know up to a certain point uh you know that that is true and but of course when congestion gets really really really bad and everyone's going so slow that accidents actually reduce a little bit later on but by and large uh increases in traffic lead to increases in motor vehicle accidents and also um you know that increases in traffic are likely to increase the potential for conflicts between vehicular and bicycle and pedestrian traffic and then also that there are some air pollution impacts and so then what we've done next on that is saying we've identified a number of things that folks can do to try to address these things so in this category under transportation we're saying this is going to cover both transportation planning and transportation construction it's just all transportation related items so and you'll see here and I won't go into them we've identified a number of different types of studies that folks could do to try to reduce congestion or improve roadway safety which are sort of the two main focuses of the identified impacts and then also we put together several eligible projects for transportation construction and as of now we're proposing to keep you know the cap on transportation construction at you know one-third of the project costs um as we do as we do currently and in there you know we talk about bike share networks to things like blue bikes and so on which we've you know all of these things that you see here are things that we've funded in the past um you know road and traffic signal construction um you know to improve safety or reduce congestion trail construction you know bike paths and so on um you know bus lanes things of that nature um and then when we talk about ineligible projects um you know here we're saying that you know things like simple repaving projects those don't really address the casino impacts um you know improving the condition of a road is fine but that's more of a municipal type expense than something that's addressing a casino related impact so we're saying that those you know those shouldn't be um eligible unless of course that repaving project is also improving safety you know they may do um repaving with some um complete streets kind of things that help uh you know improve traffic flow or improve safety um so you know we would consider some of that but you know it needs to be um it can't just be primarily to be a repaving a road um project primarily associated with aesthetic improvements again we love it when people spruce up their communities but that doesn't necessarily address an impact of the casino um and obviously projects that don't I address impacts identified that we identified um and then you know with police costs associated with traffic safety we're saying that you know we like we funded a lot of the speed boards and other things which are traffic safety um issues but those really should be funded under the public safety category so we're going to try to steer people into the kind of the right place for those things so that's what essentially the framework would look like now uh we are right now working with Mark uh Vanderlinden and Bonnie and their team they have a consultant that they've been using company called Rio that that that we're going to use as well and they're going to do some literature searches for us in jurisdictions outside of our jurisdiction other places in the United States and Europe and you know places that are similar to what we are you know there's been many studies done by many people but um you know we we want some help in that particularly on the public safety and the gambling harm reduction and to a lesser extent on the community planning to help us identify known impacts of casinos um you know we have we have all our research that we're reviewing but we thought we would try to expand this to a wider group to say hey if there are if there are impacts that have been identified at other casinos is it reasonable to conclude that that would be an impact here uh you know maybe some things that we didn't think of so we're working with them on the other categories um to do that um and then we come down to the the block grant uh distribution formula which is you know this is going to be I think the secret sauce in here that that everybody's going to be uh interested in uh and initially what we've done is saying what should we be looking at uh in in developing so the first thing is you know distance from the casino I think everyone would agree that the further away you get from the casino the impacts of that casino are reduced from not only from a traffic impact but from you know crime or any of the other any of the other things that you you tend to see that you know further way you are uh the impacts would diminish um traffic distribution is another one that we think we we definitely need to consider um you know if you look at the way traffic is distributed um it has a larger impact on certain communities than it does on others and just using encore as an example um you know the the Boston city line is almost right there at the entrance to encore and 70% of the traffic turns right going directly into Boston so uh you know Boston is handling a much larger share of the traffic impact than any other community um so you know we need we need I think we need to consider that as traffic is one of the larger impacts of the this um but when you look out in Springfield you know a hundred percent of the traffic goes out onto Springfield streets and then it then it you know it it gets it diffuses as it goes further out but you know I think um I don't remember what all the numbers are but you know each of the communities you know absorbs a certain amount of the traffic after that so um so I think we do need to consider um you know that that impact and it's not going to be the same uh in the east as it is in the west I mean it's just geographically it's different uh physically it's different um you know and by the same token um uh you know MGM Springfield has the interstate right there you know so a very large portion of their traffic jumps right on the interstate so how much of an impact is that on the local community so those are some of the things we need to consider some of the other things that we had questions on and I think we're going to do a little bit more research on this and you know we'll need to and again these are kind of policy questions that that don't need to be answered today but um but would be if we move ahead with this one is you know should employee residency uh impact the payments I think we can get that data from uh our licensees uh you know anonymized that say hey there's you know 300 employees that live in Springfield and 200 employees that live in West Springfield or whatever that you know whatever the number might be and you know should we think about that as as a consideration in a formula um you know the other should we tailor the formulas for each region or do we just want to have one for the state I mean I think you'd probably want to just have one formula but you know the two regions particularly uh on the category one casinos they're very different from one another um you know the locations the access to highways and and sort of um the distance that some of the surrounding communities are from the host community so um something to think about you know and again should the host communities receive um the largest payment as they bear the largest percentage of the impacts um again that that may be true uh but those you know those communities also do receive direct payments from the casinos that are you know some some substantial amounts so I think we need to look at what host and surrounding community payments are and how that plays into it um and then also should there be a minimum amount of money received by the communities and I think our group thinks yes there should be um and that would probably be different in each of the regions in region a region b and um in the category two um and you know I think we would look at each one of those and and see what you know what those minimums should be because you know different amounts of money are generated in the regions and then the last one is again it's a policy question that we that we ask every year about should um the money do you know generated in region a stay in region a and should the money generated region b stay in region b and you know we've heard loud and clear from our lcnac is that they they want it that way and they don't ever want it to change um you know uh but anyway so that is that those are some of the considerations in a formula um you know I don't think I'll go through the I gave you some information on what the review and approval process would look like you know I think on the block grant process it would be you know we would get a we would get work plans at the end of January and we'd review them this would give us a little bit more flexibility to say to a community you know if they had something that we felt need that doesn't really meet the guidelines you know we can then talk with them and say hey if you do this that looks like it would meet the guidelines and would you be willing to consider doing that so it seems like there's a bit more flexibility to go to go back and forth with the community to work on their work plan um and then you know ultimately I think you know I mean these work plans um and again this would all be up to the commission uh you know once they're finalized we're recommending that they be brought back to the commission for final approval and you know we can review them with the commission and what you know what projects are being proposed and so on and then just like uh our current grants we would do all the grant instruments and contracts after that um so um and then I I did list out for you a bunch of policy questions not we don't want to talk about those today but these are just some of the things that have been raised um over the year and we will be coming back to the commission with all of these policy questions in a more in a more detailed fashion but one that I just did want to highlight was we had a couple of different requests from folks to allow administration costs to be covered by the grant um we haven't normally done that except on our workforce grants and in our workforce grants we allow seven and a half percent to be used for administration um you know most grants do allow some administrative costs and again you know that that is that's money that we can get to the communities that we're not getting to them now if we do allow that so something to to definitely consider and so with that that's really the end of my presentation um you know we put this down for a vote and again I'm not sure it absolutely needs a vote I think it's again we can just get a sense of the commission whether or not you want us to move sort of to the next step of this process which essentially the next steps here would be to come back in the in September with all of our policy questions and at this point we would we we come back with our policy questions that need to be addressed by the commission we would have a what I'm going to say is a rough draft of our guidelines um you know more than a framework but certainly not finalized and then the third piece that we would come back with in September is a distribution formula or perhaps two or three different you know kind of examples of what it would result in so that's that's where we are and I guess I'll stop there and take whatever questions you have and see where we want to go moving forward Questions for commissioners well our Chief Laney commissioners Commissioner O'Brien so Joe the the one you just touched on most recently the administrative cost the seven and a half percent that's the one that probably gives me the most cause um I mean I think you made a reference to it earlier when you said you know we don't want people using this to sort of just rotate through and go into their general fund and supplement and um I mean seven hundred percent obviously isn't going to pay for an employee but um if they came into different categories 15 30 I mean you're looking at like what almost 50 percent if they went into various categories right that could potentially then each be deemed to have an administrative cost we would say seven and a half off the whole thing not per category not per category so per municipality per municipality yep okay so they actually could pay a salary with that yeah if you had a million dollars 75 thousand I you know I mean that's honestly I I I always kind of raise an eye about with block grants in terms of just grant compliance and and could have contract management but um I mean I'm hearing you on all this stuff and that's sort of the one more I got to that and like kind of the eyebrow went back up I I I I totally see it when we're doing workforce development it absolutely makes sense to me in that context um so I'm not sold on it here so I just throw that out for conversation yeah what was represented to us and I haven't I haven't verified this independently was they saying that the community development block grant the federal block grant allows 20 percent of their funds to be used for admin like which is that's a lot but but you know so so it's it's it is certainly not um uncommon for for grants to allow admin funds but I guess I'm more or less agnostic on it I I don't I don't really you know I know so I'll do I've got Commissioner Hill first Commissioner Ryan thanks Joe correct me if I'm wrong during the discussions this was also brought up for to try and help some of the smaller towns yeah those which are having difficulty being able to apply for some of these grants because they don't have the personnel or the the funding to be able to do this so they've been missing out and I think this was an opportunity for that the smaller towns to be able to get some assistance to be able to get the funding that they maybe haven't been able to get in the past yeah an accurate statement absolutely we just certainly did hear hear from that from out west for sure well Commissioner O'Brien one of the things that we're looking at for a policy question is saying you know if we do a percentage do we also want to cap for some of the larger communities of saying you know 7.5 percent of a million dollars is very different than of a like 200 thousand dollar grant so I think that'll be a a policy question for you guys to debate at a later point I mean like 7.5 percent but no greater than this real dollars right okay we did hear from the small towns just so that you know and we really I say we our Joe and his staff have really bent over backwards to try and help those communities that in the past have not been able to take advantage of this grant program and that's because our grant program there was did we require them to keep administrative costs out yeah because of the the affirmatively because it was considered budgetary issues yeah you know we initially we were saying hey you know we think the community should have some skin in the game and well we couldn't really do a match we were saying well at least if you're doing the admin costs or some in-kind services or something like that we would consider that but we you know we never required a particular match and 7.5 percent to commissioner's point in the hole can be really impactful 7.5 percent generally doesn't typically cost all administrative costs right it's like yeah and in our research on doing this most state grants do between five and 10 percent so we kind of felt that we'd split the middle yeah that's one more we did the workforce stuff that's I think crystal had done a bit of work on that or maybe even Jill before that looking at what admin costs were and and you know we we just yeah came down in the middle Madam chair yes commissioner so on the question of the block grant as a new proposal I want everybody to know that it's something that I am very supportive of and after hearing from the groups this week whether it be our advisory group or the subcommittee I would say over 90 percent of those that we talked to would like to see that this program become a block type of a grant program moving forward I think Joe was fairly eloquent in in the way he let us know and I've seen over the last two years that it's becoming very very difficult to try and tie this program to the casinos as it was when it was first implemented I think it would be easier for the agency to be able to implement this type of a program compared to the program that they've been doing over the last few years so I'm very very optimistic that if we were to do a block grant type of program it would benefit not only the cities and the towns but certainly we would be in the scope of what the legislature thought when they passed this program to be implemented can I do a follow-up of course I'm wondering I love the idea of the block grant I think I was on record last time so but I do wonder for our while we're examining these processes carefully whether we should be including and perhaps you'd have us underway generally an evaluative process you know a robust evaluative process and an auditing program so you know it's it's going to be a different if we adopt this is a different approach and it might be the right time to really do those follow-up steps that are you know a matter of best practices for grant programs oh yeah we've already started that you know we last winter we started doing that particularly out in the in region b we met with most of our communities out there and walk through closeout procedures and their record keeping requirements and all of those various pieces you know once we were in full swing of community mitigation fund in February through June we those kind of went on hiatus a little bit but it looks like it was sort of that December January timeframe you know once our guidelines are out and before we receive applications in that seems to be kind of the sweet spot time for getting out to visit some folks even though the weather may not always cooperate quite so much in that time period but but we are definitely doing that and that's definitely an ongoing effort I'd like to see it somewhat organize them I understand the audit piece and that's so important right you know stewards of this of these important funds but I am really interested in the evaluative part so that we know if it works right Commissioner Hill as we go along to if we're going in this different direction you know is it is it working Kimmy and you always you always get back to us and we always hear about the programs but I just think it could be institutionalized in a great way here yeah you know I think like anything you know we will continually looking at look at how it performs how well it performs if it performs you know I mean look if we get if we get to January 31st and and half of the community still don't apply for it it's like well what can we do you know have it again look have it again right you know we're looking at this as in some ways we're saying this is sort of a ineligible phrase but like a last-ditch effort before having to go back to the legislature for changes you know if we if we do this and then this doesn't work then you know we have to rethink everything. Commissioner Bryan? Yeah so I had two questions one similar to what the chair just mentioned in terms of compliance you know my background coming from the IG's office you would very often get allegations of misspending of grants that didn't have sort of specifics on them or specific reporting requirements back so I'm thinking again about that administrative cost like did they have the responsibility to have that person tag their time sheets you know that says yeah I spent you know this much of my week on managing and implementing the grant or you know are there going to be things like that either advisory directives mandates on the grant sort of question one and then answer that one and then I the other one was something that Commissioner Hill had said that I wanted to follow up on. Well yeah so right now we require quarterly reports from all of our grantees and we will continue to do that and the other thing that we do is you know this is all this is all done on a reimbursement basis now we used to do it where we we gave them some money up front and then gave them more money and gave it in tranches but now we're saying with your quarterly report you get a payment so hey if we don't get your quarterly report you're not getting your payment so that's that is one good method to keep you know people in line but yeah I think with I'm not sure Lillian maybe you know on the on the workforce do we track their their seven and a half percent admin cost particularly yeah I mean we have different breakdowns and reporting requirements for them so we'd be happy to look at you know what we're doing over there and see how we could you know play out here or look at some other grant programs and see how they're tagging it I think that a lot of the folks that we have funded that are related to the grant are full-time positions so they're you know it's kind of like they're very clearly doing programmatic work so I think it's a good question and be happy to look into a couple different avenues that we could do that and I think we can definitely do that you know in their reporting if they're utilizing funds for admin purposes they're going to have to submit to us whatever you know some tally of the hours that the person spent on on the project or whatever it is yeah I think that's fairly standard for for most grant programs that you know I'm sure I'm sure we can crib that off of someone yeah I think much like the police patrols where they're you know very easy to you know kind of code them in and they do submit coded in time sheets I think that you know there are some opportunities for us to figure out a way to have that represented in the data right and then my other follow-up was Mr. Hill made the comment that you know close to 90% of the people they came in this community said they want the block grant etc and I'm just curious what if anything from was the other 10% agnostic or were they raising concerns with it and if they were what if any were they saying that that said don't do it well I don't think anybody really said don't do it you know we we heard from from the dor uh Sean Cronin who's on on our group he expressed he said well you know why are we sort of trying to get this money out you know like if people aren't coming in for it why are we trying to sort of push it on them and okay and you know I think my explanation back to him was saying that look even our own researchers have a difficult time drawing a bright line between the casino and an impact you know often you'd see in Christopher Bruce's days well it's likely caused it's it's you know it's you know that you know we think it's caused by that but there's not often this perfect connection right so so if our researchers have difficulty doing that how is a community on their own going to say here's an impact and here's what all the documentation that we have to justify this impact because I mean that was essentially the way that our program worked you tell us what the impact is you can't just say there's an impact you have to demonstrate that there's an impact through data or whatever it is it can't just be sort of an anecdotal kind of thing um and you know that expectation of the communities is probably unrealistic you know and they also there is a reality here that you know somebody we fixed all the impacts there are some impacts that will go on forever as long as there's a casino there the district attorney's offices will handle an increased caseload due to arrests that happen at the casino that wouldn't happen if the casino wasn't there and that will that will never stop you know so yes you may address some of the impacts on traffic and other things but there are definitely impacts of the casinos that will go on um and that will that will never be fully addressed so I understand the the the thought there is like you know but I think the reality is is that as a commission we need to try to help these communities define the impacts and define the solutions and then let them basically do the implementation of these things um and that's I think what this program is really trying to do yeah these aren't going to be like exclusive right so sort of like I think conceptually what I thought you're saying too is we're gonna sort of give you the guaranteed impacts that we see unquestioningly when we're looking at this that doesn't preclude a municipality right from saying look here's this obscure thing peculiar to our locality that's you know that's also going to be considered and is it under the old analysis well so so yeah that's I didn't really explain that we do have the fifth category which is specific impact so if they if they have something that we that's not identified they can identify it and and um and yes they would have to provide some justification for that I'll give you an example of last year um was an example where saugus doing the street treats for air pollution we've never seen anything like that and you know they came in and it's like oh this this is interesting right and at first you're almost like really but then you know you read the analysis and they're saying hey you know there's this many more cars on the road from the casino with this you know that has this many pounds of carbon dioxide etc etc you know you do some of those calculations you know like well well that that really is an impact and this is a way to address that impact it's it's perfectly legit so yeah we would absolutely consider all of those things um and and I again one of the points is saying when when you're submitting a work plan it's a little bit different than submitting an application I mean it is their application but once you have a work plan and you review it and again if there was something that was novel like that and we said well you know we need a little bit more justification for that you know can you can you generate something that does this or this or this um you know we have the ability to do that with a work plan we didn't really have the ability to do that with um the application application before we would we were asking questions of them and at times we're trying to through the questions lead to an answer but we often didn't get the answer that we were hoping to get right right you know so I think this process will be um it will be more collaborative in a way I mean so that's gonna you know that's gonna make more work on our side a little bit but I think it's gonna it's it will be a lot smoother than the other process that we had which was sort of review everything send letters out to everybody and wait a few weeks to get them back and then review everything again and all of a sudden it's June and we gotta get this thing done you know so I think this this process should be uh I I think um smooth if not necessarily easy I'm sorry little I did you I felt like I cut you off at one point no I was just saying the only piece of concern that we got back from any community had nothing to do with the structure they all liked the block grant it was just the you know at the end of the day we want to see the formula see how much money we're getting and we don't want to lose any money that we're currently getting right makes sense yeah and look the reality is depending on what the formula looks like there could be some communities that get less money than they get now because you know we were giving money to many communities who weren't who weren't coming in for anything you know so again we're not getting into what the formula looks like today we're going to spend the next month assuming we're giving the okay to go ahead on this um to come up with that and look that's when that's when it's you know you guys are going to earn your salary on uh on making decisions on what you want these formulas to look like Lenny did you just ask to say that that's how we're going to earn our salary you will definitely be earning your salary thanks it's just after a couple of long days just this past week I think uh we look forward to your formula that's what I'm saying um commissioners this might be a good point where we do we give the green light to this team to continue on and come back with the formula in the after four to five weeks I would like for that to happen yes Michelle brian yeah I said I I had this ingrained opposition to block grants um but I hear Commissioner Hill I hear Joe I hear Lily um and so I'm okay going forward you know coming up with the formulas pressure me or I totally support anything that we can do to make it easier for these communities and I did tell Joe this so I want to say it um on the record and that is you know when you look at the program and you really dig in there are a lot of things that have happened that would not have happened without this program so you know when I think back to the legislation and I think back to Governor Patrick signing it I think it was totally envisioned um that this would exist in this would exist in this way and that's why we're trying to and as long as it's used in a proper way as Commissioner O'Brien brought up I I totally support you have your green light and thank you very thorough very thorough um memorandum thank you so much well and thank you uh precious I do I do think um you know and look when we get to September or even October um you know if if things for whatever reason go sideways on this you know um you know I think we'll still be able to run our program you know as it as it exists but you know I think as a fallback you know I mean we can take this year's guidelines and go out if things don't um work out uh but we'll you know we're gonna do everything in our power to get this thing done and and move it forward good so should we move on to item 6b then yes that would be great thank you okay excellent well done thanks Lily so this should just be a pretty brief discussion North Attleboro is received a CFF reserve grant of $100,000 back in 2021 if you're calling 2021 we were telling communities that you you know you need to spend these reserve funds or or we're gonna take them back and so North Attleboro came in to do a study of Kelly Boulevard which is um just down the road a bit from from PPC and uh in the interim after that grant was signed a developer is proposing a 300 plus unit apartment complex on Kelly Boulevard and through the planning board and others was required to do a study of Kelly Boulevard and uh and that came up with some significant improvements that need to be made to that roadway and the total cost is $6.2 million and you know the developer is not responsible for all of that because Kelly Boulevard had its own issues before the development which is one of the reasons why North Attleboro wanted to do this study in the first place but now since they haven't needed to do the study they would like to use that $100,000 towards the construction of Kelly Boulevard um obviously our limit on uh transportation construction is one third of the total project cost clearly $100,000 is well less than one third of $6.2 million um they have cobbled together several uh sources of funds they got a mass works grant uh playing bills kicking in some money North Attleboro is kicking in some money the developer is kicking in some money and this would just be um this would just you know finish off the uh the funds for that project so we are certainly recommending uh allowing that change in use for their uh grant that memo is on page 246 yes missionaries do you have any questions for joe commissioner hill do you want to move uh sure madam chair i move that the commission approve a change in scope to the North Attleboro 2021 reserve grant of $100,000 to use the funds for construction of proposed improvements to rather than a traffic study of Kelly Boulevard is included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today second thanks any questions or edits great thank you commissioner brian hi commissioner hill hi commissioner maynard hi and i vote yes four zero excellent work well that that concludes uh my work for today thanks joe thank you very much we appreciate it um we'll move on then to item number seven madam chair yes before we move on to that next section i am going to excuse myself from this meeting at this point um i apologize to you the commission and the public for having to leave but i'm sure you three can handle what's in front of you very well without me so thank you and i will see you also and we're thinking of you and your family thanks commissioner hill okay um so we're moving on to seven um item number seven legal and i see that katelyn is available and i believe um perhaps um attorney rocales but maybe not precarious i always put that r in there um yes and k will be helping today with these regs um i believe attorney macarius and attorney commoners will be here um so we have four regs for you today two regs are coming back for their final vote um and that is 205 cm r2 30 review of a proposed agreement with a category three licensee and 205 cm r256.05 advertising to youth then we have two regs that you will be seeing for the first time and those are 205 cm r2 19 temporary licensing procedures and 205 cm r2 31 renewal of a sports wagering license so with that i will turn it over to mean it and paul for uh to start uh thank you katelyn and thank you madam chair uh paul is finishing up a separate call so i'm going to start off without him and uh may take these slightly out of order if that's okay to accommodate that um and hope you can join us uh but let me start with 205 cm r2 30 uh which is um appears on page uh sorry here i'm using a different platform than usual so i'm not sure i have the page 248 248 thank you appreciate that um there are no comments on this one this is the review of a proposed agreement with a category three licensee this governs agreements between category one and two licensees and the uh and a category three um and so i have nothing to add uh for this one and it's just ready for final adoption unless there's questions questions commissioners okay i'm going to turn to my two fellow commissioners do you have no questions are you prepared to me this is i move that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement and draft of 205 cm r2 30 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today and further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process second okay and edit okay commissioner brian hi commissioner maynard hi yes three zero thank you all right thank you madam chair the next regulation is uh 250 605 this is coming back for final promulgation of the change made by emergency this is a section regarding um the signage um and the uh me to include 21 plus language on signage um the is currently subject to a 90 day waiver which i believe expires in the next month or so but the regulation itself is coming back for the final adoption we did received uh did receive one comment on this and it was really a question for clarification um and it had to do with whether the 21 plus language uh associated with with stationary signage would be needed in two different contexts uh one is for branding and locations viewable on a television broadcast but not in the venue itself uh the example given um is the top of say an mba backboard at td garden um so it might be visible in an overhead shop that may not be visible in the garden i will say just anecdotally i i think i have cheaper seats in the commenter because i i can usually see that but um the um the the question was simply you know if it's somewhere where you can only see it that way the second example was uh branding that's super imposed onto a sports venue in a television broadcast and what they that refers to for in case uh others don't uh don't see this normally when you're at the arena a particular sporting arena you may see uh nothing at all or or you know a green um um wall but at home one might see um an ad or a branded ad brand branded logo for a sports wager and operator so question was does that apply uh the language based on the language of the regulation is currently proposed uh the answer to these two questions would be in our view that um the um to to the extent that the branding is in an arena whether or not it's likely to be visible within the arena if it shows up on the broadcast it should have the 21 plus language and that is based on the fact that the wording is displayed on signage or a fixed structure at a sports venue where it is likely to be viewed so if it's going to be viewed at home by folks over 21 on a on on fixed signage then it's subject to that however the language is displayed on signage or a fixed structure so it would not apply to the superimposed logos and that is uh I know that that's a consideration we talked about early on with the sports wager it was advertising because this gets into what is shown on a broadcast which actually may be difficult to address depending on whether the feed is local or national this is in-game advertising typically that's shown I think an easy example to picture is behind the batter at February park for instance and so it's it's not always clear that the operator would be able to section off massachusetts versus other so this was not the intention to capture at this rate again all this is by way of clarification assuming the question and my clarification today don't change your minds on the reg we're ready to move forward with the language as is it appears at 250 page 254 the red language is what was added by emergency it will be finalized at this point commissioners are you all set with the reg as is and with Mina's explanation all set I see commissioner brian nodding her head I'm good so I guess we still have to have a vote on that that can be you're prepared to move I can move Madam Chair I move that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205 cmr 256.05 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today and further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to further require documentation of the secretary of the commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process second okay any questions or edits just a reminder that this is under the advertising to you back okay uh mr brian hi mr manor hi my vote yes three zero okay moving on then seven c thank you madam chair so starting at two page page 259 excuse me there is a um memorandum followed by two regs that I'd like to explain a little bit together that related 205 cmr 219 it's a revised version of that an amended version of that and a draft 205 cmr 231 both of these relate to the renewal of temporary and full sports wagering license in prospect of these full sports wagering licenses the the procedure for 219 to start there and 219 shows up at page 261 initially if you'll recall this was discussed several months ago now the idea was to have a temporary license that would terminate after five years um and um that concern that was expressed by some operators was that they're that a license could terminate as a temporary license even though there it may be for reasons outside of the licensees control that there's an investigation pending etc or a suit full suitability investigation in particular uh accordingly the commission had um asked for a regulation to allow temporary licenses to continue operating after that five-year period if there was commission if it was sort of not the operators fault that that was happening um so um the way we have uh sought to address that is uh just to be clear and this sort of tries to balance cost of renewal and getting to a full license is to one have essentially a one year limit duration for a temporary license before it's renewed the operator would be paying an annual license fee at each point of a million dollars at each point and we'll go through the statutory steps for a new temporary license so sort of allow for additional temporary licenses instead of expiration of the license um and depending on when um that you know which which renewal it is there may be different levels of scrutiny applied uh consistent with the prior regulation so the first time an operator seeks to leave request to for a renewed license i.e. the second temporary license uh it's a pretty pro forma request making sure nothing material has changed however um you know if there is new information that can be taken into account for the third temporary license i.e. the second renewal there would be a new preliminary suitability report that is meant to address the concern that i believe was raised when this was discussed of of not acting on stale preliminary suitability data so now you're sort of two years away from the end of the temporary you you have um you get new data but it's not all the way to a full suitability analysis which may still be pending um and then it kind of recessed to another two years of more of a pro forma approach now that you have the revised uh or updated suitability um and the idea after that is that you would have flexibility to determine which of the two approaches you want to go again the hope for all of this is that there is not a need to trigger uh this is i think we've as we've discussed in the past this is a regulation that has had a lot of complexity to anticipate potential scenarios that i think it's everybody's hope and intention are not needed um and that there'd be full review done before all of this uh but it's a sort of belt and suspenders approach to make sure that the commission is balancing uh adequate review with updated and and timely suitability information with fairness to the operators who may not be at fault for the for the delay in that um in getting to a full suitability uh proceeding so it is it reads as a brand new regulation but that is sort of the the overall structure commissioners do you want amina to walk us through the bag are you satisfied with your own review so amina is this i feel like we've read this before is this just a rework of kind of i feel like i'm talking about this for ages but this is a uh yes it is a rework of a prior one it's hard to say that i you know the reason we didn't provide this as a red line is they think it it would be a lot of moves just too much out of too much yeah but yes it's a rework to reflect that earlier comments i think what happened the last time we talked about this which feels like ages ago actually at this point was at the outset when sort of deciding what a temporary license would look like and understanding that we kind of we'd come back over this summer after temporary licenses were issued to think about what these are going to look like several years into the future from now with the not that we ever ended up in a lull in in activity but with with sort of that first phase of licensing completed this was an appropriate time to bring this back up reflecting and and you'll see you know it's to sort of walk through the sections briefly you know there's still the same setup about the temporary license request process because that's how the statute phrased it has to be requested of the commission the the big piece of this that i think is important to keep in mind is this idea of different levels of review for the second license versus a third and then it goes back to what's more like the second license and that's that's reflected on page 264 that distinction and really the big feature here is that that third temporary license has an update of the suitability the preliminary suitability report to avoid the stale data issue and then as you get back into years four and five you get the you get the ability to do a more pro former review after five years i think we left it more flexible and again if we need to we can adjust again within the next five years but we just want to we didn't want to try to forecast all that at this point okay I mean to my apologies and i may have been reading and you may have said it my apologies for not being a better listener but under the under the rag it's up to three years for IEP to do and then that rag allows for relief to IEP if they come back to the commission is that what it is is that right and then there's the fourth and fifth year is that what you're getting at under today it's not so much it's not so much at the IEP comes back and I apologize by the way there there is I had forgotten that there wasn't a packet but there is a red light version starting into page 267 my apologies for that at the at the third year it's not so much about what the change is not that the IEP requested or not although that is certainly going to contemplate as part of the process is how you would know you know why a license may be pending for that long madam chair the issue is at that third year the operator still submits an application for leave to obtain a renewed license but this time rather than just to perform a kind of acknowledging whether or not there have been material updates the IEP actually goes through the process that it would have in the past year for preliminary suitability to make sure the preliminary suitability report is up to date they essentially go seek the information again make sure it's up to date as opposed to relying on a more pro forma review to make that that there have been no material changes or certification there have been no material changes in other words I believe in the past when we talked about this there was that the the five-year term you know one one option was to just have a five-year term and have it simply expire at the end the concern there was that that was an awfully long time to have reviews ongoing but that the safety valve option of having the IAB necessarily request the extra time didn't always make sense because the operator may or may not still be you know engaged in in wanting another temporary license this has the operator asking but you know with the acknowledgement that the rationale will be because the suitability review is not done but what I think I'm hearing is then so now they they're kind of coming into some kind of a sort of partial not quite temporary suitability review and not quite durable suitability but they're subject to something in between is that is that kind of how to imagine so IAB can sort of say well we've got this concern that concern we need two more years or is it we're just not done we need more I mean I guess I'm wondering does this help who's this I think when I remember Commissioner O'Brien bringing this up we wanted three years because we were hoping that a suitability would be done as efficiently as possible without compromise to integrity but that sometimes we felt you know and Commissioner O'Brien I don't want to put words in your mouth but five years you felt were too long because it's not because of of risk to integrity but more IAB should be getting to the full suitability unless there's extreme circumstances like such complexities I mean I do understand certain investigations are going to be so complex they could require more time and that's what I was thinking we were getting at so I think it was also to balance sort of making sure there's efficiency on on the IAB's end and then also cooperation on the applicant's end and so this was sort of these check-ins were sort of designed to motivate both of those and allow for a process that sort of did these check-ins and revisits so that somebody didn't get I actually think was Commissioner Maynard said you know you don't want to find out it's four years later and they're still only paying their million dollars on their 10th and they've been operating and and so we were taking all of those things in figuring out how do you kind of tranche this so that both of those competing possibilities balance each other out and I think that's what they were trying to do with this yeah um because there was a level if there weren't cooperation going I would hope that we would know that a lot sooner rather than later yeah yeah you know what I mean right right and that's why I said at the outset I you know I think this is the hope that this is a very complicated rag that will never matter in a sense that you know this will be done but the way we try to balance all those factors so it's really a host of things it's sort of ongoing integrity because of changed facts efficiency so that the IAB is not sort of having to layer on multiple temporary license reviews while it's trying to do the full suitability review fairness to the full full licensees of not having paid so much more than the temporary licensee so that's where the annual fee comes in and then fairness to the operators that they're not being forced to undergo you know more suitability review when it wasn't their fault they are cooperating but there's more to be looked into and so the balance there is to sort of recap it with those factors in mind the first and second year after you get your temporary license the renewal is pro forma in the sense and for those of you who may ever have witnessed or been familiar with local alcohol beverage licensing it's very much a if you submit the paperwork you say you're you're going to renew unless there's a known change circumstance that's sort of the end of the review it's really pro forma paying the fee year three is where the commit where the IAB in this case would prepare a new preliminary suitability review so would actually be under the same standards to your question madam chair as the current preliminary suitability review that happened in this go-around in the past year that would happen again at year three while certifications that kind of thing exactly but with the full certification as opposed to um saying yes I'd like to renew which is essentially years one and two so it's the the that happens again at year three and then after that it goes back to sort of the pro forma you you if you express an intent to renew there's no known reason for an update you know the commission doesn't need to pull it out or the bureau doesn't recommend saying actually we have a red flag that's been raised or something big material change it just goes on that way so it's essentially redoing the preliminary suitability at year three I think is great it does look complicated doesn't first blush second fourth and fifth temporary licenses madam chair yes commission my memory is very similar to commissioner o'briens which is this was really trying to solve for a practical problem that could come up but that no one hopes comes up and at the end of the day I remember being really really worried about you know kind of like a lot of people hold the breath with some simul casting every time it comes up and waiting to see I worried about the licensees you know right sitting around waiting to see wait a minute am I able to operate on this date or am I not and why so yeah it's complicated I hope it's an insurance policy we never have to cash in yeah um but at the same time I think we should provide a route that both incentivizes the everyone moving forward quickly and turning in things quickly and and being very cooperative with the IEB and at the same time giving the IEB time to do the work but giving given some certainty to I can operate I can continue to operate and the fairness on on the fees which was really important to is there a provision if they're not cooperative there is a provision in general if they're not cooperative um into like yeah it's not necessarily in this section but at any time when an operator is not cooperative throughout suitability um that is there are sanctions for that and there are opportunities for the commission to intervene come forward with us because right I mean that would be a red right exactly and so this is not really contemplative to address driving you know an investigation dragging on for that purpose it's it's because of really issues you know we we've talked about as issues outside the operation control I think that's true I think it would also be outside in a lot of ways outside the IEB's control you're not outside the IEB's control because um you know whether it's a resource issue or not getting information from external agencies external right yeah external agencies as opposed to the operator so yeah got it okay I'm good thank you for getting me through it again um I I knew the core issue but the reg itself when I reviewed it so a little confusing again thank you I think go ahead Matt I would recommend voting me separately if that's okay I can then discuss due 31 they're related but not um they should be taken separately yeah I think that's right so this is the 219 temporary um commissioners I can move thanks um I moved that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 219 as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today I moved that the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin to be wait do we need this on the emergency Mina yeah I believe so Caitlin is to begin the regulation promulgation process I further move that the staff shall be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process second okay any further edits or questions are answering that motion okay I'm sure Brian hi commissioner hi I vote yes three zero thank you then we'll turn to the related 231 that starts on page that starts on page uh two yeah so this is this regulation I see um Paul may have joined us so uh if he has anything I'll start and give him a chance to take a breath in between meetings but this is the full license renewal process so if there is a this is at the end of the permanent license permanent license to be renewed this is a pretty straightforward regulation it really mirrors 219 in the sense that has an administrative sufficiency review at the end licenses do not expire while timely renewal requests are pending that's under subsection four on page 276 because another key key feature the bureau conducts an investigation you know for the purpose of renewal the commission goes through the process of evaluating it and if it says if it if it does renew it it the operator pays an honor fundable license fee of five million dollars which is by statute and they and we move on for another five years with a renewed license there may also be in subsection 10 I just want to note this on on page 277 a limited extension if there is a non-renewal to wind down operations you will in the next couple of weeks or month or so be seeing a regulation from us on wind down not in this situation but in other you know situations due to closure of a company or decision to pull out of the Commonwealth etc we will be making sure that that kind of aligns with this but that this is sort of a more open-ended ability for the commission to allow for a sort of safe and efficient dissolution or wind down really not dissolution and there is an application fee as as there always is for these things so that's that's really it Paul enough there's anything you want to add for 231 the the only thing that I would add and you may have said this on 219 first of all this is structured in the same manner as 218 just like 219 was once again if you read through the regulation it pretty much proceeds chronologically from the receipt of an application to the issuance of a renewed license and second of all I just wanted to remind you of the statutory provision that this that is that enables this regulation which is chapter 23 n section 6 f and that subsection provides that full licenses may be renewed for five year periods upon payment of a five million dollar renewal fee provided that the operator shall continue to meet all requirements under this chapter and the rules and regulations of the commission and with that we'd be happy to answer to answer any questions I have a general question we've done one renewal of ppcs right for you know not under 23k so did you say you kind of looked at you use the 23k renewal as a basis I'm just wondering if there are any lessons learned on that process we used 205 cmr 218 which deals with the initial issue on civil license as our starting point for all of the procedural steps and the options the commission has to evaluate the renewal request and the overall structure of the regulation I don't I initially drafted this regulation some time ago but I don't recall reviewing the chapter 23k regulations and I'm not sure I was aware that ppc had renewed I mean I might be more familiar I also wasn't I don't think we had ppc particularly in mind Madam Chair but we did to as Paul mentioned 218 was also based on 118 or the equivalent I came up with exactly 118 so I'll do follow a similar process where you know applications taken in it's reviewed for sufficiency and then you know you retain all of I think the key point in all in renewals you retain all the same ability to look at factors and see compliance with the past process in terms of lessons learned from prior application process from what I understand about your renewals in the past or or even looking at ongoing compliance nothing by the time you get to a renewal assuming the internal controls and reporting mechanisms that are put in place through other regs have been followed you should have a pretty good sense of how things are going obviously I think that's been evidenced again today from from the rest of your agenda so that by the time you get to the renewal process if it's not reforma but it is a much simpler process in the sense that the commission knows the entity and knows what issues need to be addressed if any commissioners I do recall for the ppc renewal that we did hold a public hearing I don't know if this I don't see that here I don't know if we need to put that in our reg but you know getting we did hear from the public the renewal if you remember that commissioner brian I don't know if we do that every year with the racing license we do that we public comment where we knew all of our license to I don't know if we need it in the reg if we'd like to include I mean for consistencies that we probably should it's a statutory requirement for racing as a part of because the racing licenses aren't renewed it's actually a new license every time so it's a statutory requirement it's not required here but certainly you could do it yeah um if I may be there was not a requirement in 218 uh if I remember correctly to host a public hearing on any particular application although I do believe there was a requirement to host a public hearing on the competitive category 3 process generally yeah um the commission had the option to do so and I and I believe did but I would not um I did not think we should impose more public hearing requirements on renewals than on the initial application and so it's unclear that we could did this reg support us if going down the road the commission sitting at the time wants to do that does this support that move exactly is it clearly an option to another commission if they want to do it it would be very easy to make that tweak to make it explicit so in subsection seven in reviewing the renewal request the commission may takes you know any of the actions listed in 205 CMR 218 041 we would also add 205 CMR 218 05 which is the regulation that says the commission may conduct one or more meetings to receive public feedback to present and so forth because it does make it mandatory but it makes it clear that it's an option yes I like that I I agree madam chair and commissioner brian I think it's I think it's important um I I would go one step further and say to Paul's point you know perhaps we should have should have been in the right to begin with and we did end up but um and so I don't know if I would you know stop at at that but given it given discretion to any future commission it's fine more a reminder of a best practice we probably can always hold a public meeting or public hearing okay anything else this is very this one unlike the other one for me was very straightforward to read Paul thank you and and Mina um but commissioners do you have other questions could I make I just want to confirm with Paul I don't think we need this one by emergency but want to confirm before that is that is correct it will be several years before this regulation is implicated we can certainly take three months to receive public feedback okay so no word is you necessary okay anything else that's why I stumbled on the last one Caitlin so I'm glad you did this no that was a good question that you raised on Jordan so all right um if there are no other questions with this pretty straightforward vague um the future I have a motion I move that the commission approved the small business impact statement and draft of 205 CMR 231 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today and specifically also is further amended today and I move the staff be authorized to take steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the common law to begin the regulation promulgation process I further move the staff be authorized to modify chapter section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process second any edit question okay commissioner brian I wish I'm here I and I felt yes three zero great work legal team uh I just want to thank A&K thank you Paul thank you Nina and of course Caitlin thank you for you're standing in for pretty much everybody right now so a little bit of a skeleton crew this week it's not lost on me and I'm sure it's not lost on my fellow commissioners so thank you Caitlin um all right so now um I'm going to turn to my fellow commissioners we have next on the um agenda the um the hiring process I am looking and I see Derek I don't see Dave while drew I see Denise while I thought most importantly I don't see our fellow commissioners and I wonder if we should proceed today um you know this was I think commissioner is going to be very fair to her she had anticipated working this day of her vacation but she ended up working on Monday at her vacation and those are two of the sun of your today and Monday with two of the sun of your days of her vacation so um I'm hoping that she's enjoying every second today with that um and then of course um Commissioner Hill has a funeral obligation so with that um how do you feel about rolling this over yeah it's ironic to me that the two people who were including and yourself sort of allowing you through the opportunity to continue to participate as much as possible or two of them aren't here today so right kind of defeats the purpose a little bit and I really would want their input you know because um yeah all right and so uh that would also um would be with respect to the selection committee which means that mean it seems like you may be able to be excused uh we're in love with those two items um does that make sense and Derek I see you're here I know that you probably have been anticipating this throughout the day but you probably have been able to observe that we've had some moving parts I'm okay with that thank you for your patience okay thank you ma'am okay thanks me and thanks for everything all right so then we'll move on um to perhaps our most critical piece of the day um and that is a commissioner update before we move to the actual one list of honor agenda commissioners do you have anything else no so um Loretta Lilly else is in the house with her video on um and there she is she's actually in the office which for everybody anyone who's in the public knows that she may be violating a ruler too but hey what the hey you know uh she's the director of IEB um I think actually in your neck of the woods in that office everything's nice and tidy it's right where Marianne I think is or has been observing and looking at things are happening that's right here we're mercifully pretty um unaffected back here in our corner of the office so we do have a contingent here and it feels all feels pretty safe that's good that's good well um we appreciate your being there and and we also know there's a reason why you're there is because you are you are winding things up so today's public meeting milling marks of bittersweet occasions for all of us where we're saying goodbye to you um our IEB director Loretta Lilly else Loretta as many know has held multiple positions here at the commission since her arrival nearly 10 years ago and she has made consistent and meaningful impacts all along the way we at the MGC in the commonwealth have been the beneficiaries of Loretta's depth and expertise in investigations and law enforcement she has been a very um loyal and rigorously a rigorous collaborator within the industry setting standards for legal investigatory writing that folks try to emulate across the country she's steadfast in her positions as she works to advance the mission of this commission and Loretta is no sure to feel this as she takes on new challenges I have appreciated Loretta's thoroughness and attention to detail in every facet of her position but in my role I've really been able to enjoy watching Loretta's style and leadership evolve and witnessing really with her expanding pride in each and every member of her team I have loved most when she's reported to me about a new idea or innovation proposed by one of her division leaders and her expressions and and how she conveys that information to me always shows the level of her support and always the level of your excitement Loretta and I have truly loved and appreciated when you've described an opportunity for growth and development of one of your team members you note potential and you value excellence Loretta you should be very proud of the team that you have inspired you're leaving them with a clear playbook that will serve the commission for years to come you are truly the consummate professional and public servant diligent and tireless working to get things just right um you've inspired all your colleagues across the commission throughout the course of your tenure I learned that upon my first day here and I know that there are a few more chapters that you plan to attend to in your life professionally and I'm wishing you the very best as you move into your next act I want to wish you and your husband Sam and your daughters and your grandchildren the very best in life and most importantly the very best in health I have to thank you for all that you've taught me with personal level and shared with me on a personal level I'm going to miss you but I am ever grateful so with that um I'm going to turn to my fellow commissioners and I'm going to know also that um there's a little bit of a celebration a little bit later this evening and we do um look forward to um further kudos being given to you director yes I really appreciate it thank you very much for those wonderful words I mean the world to me Mr. O'Brien or Commissioner Maynard um I don't know where to begin no so Loretta and I've actually known each other since law school so I'll put a little plug in for northeastern law school um this is this is what you get when you go through there um which I think I've said to people and I'm sad that I'm saying this um on the last leg of the stool but that when I was asked to consider coming down there were three factors that definitely made the decision to jump in easier one being Brian Connors one being Karen Wells and the third being Loretta Lilio not to disparage anyone else that was here at the time but I had professional and personal interactions with them where I knew that if they were in an agency and independently involved that you couldn't go wrong coming down and I think Loretta has shown that in every agency that I've been in with her and certainly here as she stepped up um first is the chief legal counsel enforcement counsel and then is the director of IED um and there to support Karen and us in whatever way that she could um I never doubted your intellect Loretta I never doubted your legal analysis and I never doubted that you were being completely honest and forthright with me in your um assessment on something your position on something for uh for the commission for legal issue anything like that and I think that the integrity and the consistency that you show your entire career on that um is remarkable I think that the Commonwealth is losing a tremendous public servant I totally understand and appreciate your decision to retire I have said before I will say again I tried to talk you out of it I know other people did too hoping that you would stay a little bit longer I understand it's the time that you've decided to go um sadly I've had um COVID has reared its head for me I am I am not going to be able to get in Boston it looks like like I thought I'm I'm still trying so I might be able to get there late um but what I will if I can't I'm going to use that as leverage to make sure that you uh connect with me and maybe some others and we do a redo um in the fall once everything is under control but um I wish you the best Loretta I I know the people from your team think the world of you and I probably will say so in their own words now but um I I wish people also knew the other side of you in terms of you know the the stories that you have of growing up and in your careers before you became a prosecutor and um one of my lasting memories I think and if anybody asked me to describe you would be the sort of news reporter voice and cadence um just doing a cutting cross examination of someone um I think that was a skill that was remarkable to have I was very impressed by it I think we're gonna miss it um again enjoy retirement and um I know where to find you and I'm gonna have to buy you a drink if I can't get there tonight thank you so much again just really have a well thank you very much Mr. Maynard I don't I don't want to repeat anything that's been said and I had some time to think about it over the last few days and um it's funny you mentioned that Commissioner O'Brien the biographical piece of Loretta comes to my head before the work stuff does and I don't know how much of the public knows and I'm not going to put her on the spot or embarrass her but you know Loretta really um really made her own way in life and she you know Boston born and bred and and swinging all the way to the top right to get things done and um I think that you know when you come from that background and and you make it to be a long great public servant um you have a certain way about you that it's both passionate but also empathetic and um you know something that has stuck with me that Loretta said and because it was said to me a lot um is uh you have a really thick accent and maybe it should go and um you know she didn't let it stop her and she thinks she may have mitigated a little bit I don't think she has and I'm sure she doesn't think Fine has either um but uh you know it's it's important um that in public service we're more than just statutes and regulations people are policy and Loretta was policy here at this organization and I appreciate her I look forward to a continued friendship and I hope that whatever the next chapter is that you write it the way that you've written every other chapter of your life Thank you so much Let's turn to some of your colleagues who are here um you know what I'm going to put Chief Counsel Hall and enforcement counsel Hall in charge of choosing the order um takeover please Heather thank you chair I will just say really quick um Loretta I can't thank you enough you have been a shining example of a leader you have been a compass for the IEB pointing us in the right direction and you've been an anchor when we dealt with some challenging seas so thank you so much for your leadership I'm going to turn it over to Monica next thank you Heather Great thanks thanks Heather um thanks chair um so Loretta um on behalf of the financial investigations team thank you for everything you've been just such a big and positive it you just had a big and positive impact to each of the member of our team and it's really hard to express in words what you mean to us um we have just accomplished so much under your leadership and we're just been so proud of having been part of your team it's hard to say goodbye but we wish you all the best in the next chapter whatever it may be um don't forget us because it's impossible for us to forget you so thank you impossible to forget you thank you Monica how about Burke hi Heather hi uh chair Loretta uh I've I've only been in the chief position for I guess nine months and working with Loretta has been so so much fun to have her as boss but more importantly as we've grown to just become friends I was joking with her this morning you know we've learned so much and I'm in my fifth decade now of casino regulation in compliance and I was telling her uh Loretta I think you're a first valid hall of famer in my book so um we're gonna miss you it's been fun we've learned a lot I learned a lot so uh you know we'll stay in touch thank you Mark speaking of people with a lot of gaming experience how about Bruce Van well it's been like going on my tenth year knowing Loretta and uh I have a lot of Loretta stories I could tell which I'm not gonna do right now because thank you very much she would appreciate that uh but I'm really gonna miss you Loretta it's uh it's been a fun 10 years here and uh we'll miss our our talks and conversation and uh I hope you keep in touch I plan to I plan to I need to get a tissue excuse me I hope that's not because of me how about Cara all right well I believe I am maybe one and one of the newer people at this point who will be speaking but uh and I feel a little bit cheated I would have loved to have more time uh to learn from you uh but what I wanted to say is on behalf of the licensing division we want to thank you for your instrumental leadership guidance and tireless dedication you will be missed but we do wish you the best our mic for Sean on we can hear from everybody we can hear from anyone who's here everybody it's about Caitlin hello I have to follow on with Cara and say it has been a real pleasure to learn from you um you're such a role model Loretta and I wish we had more time but when the going is tough and there's a hard argument to be made I'm gonna always think of you and you know your brilliance your ability to explain an issue and your calmness um so thank you for everything you've taught me in the last year and um you were able to stay in touch we will thank you so much we will how about Mary Ann hi all hi Loretta it has been an absolute pleasure we have been together working together for a long time and um I just want to thank you for your kindness over the years to me and your guidance and um I'm sure we'll stay friends take care good luck whatever you do Loretta so um don't be shy of your accent be strong in that almost as strong as I am and educating people that it's rain ham instead of rain them um so um we are definitely gonna miss you you know been here a decade you've been here before me starting off with your role at the AGs and working in the legal office which many people don't remember before you went over to the IEB um you've touched on everything here and we are going to miss you we're gonna miss your your wit uh your dry humor as well as the just knowledge that you have of the agency so I know you've put a lot of that back onto your team and they're very lucky to have had you and we're gonna miss you I echo everything everyone has said Loretta you're simply the best so I'm so happy and thankful to have been a part of your team I hope you know and feel how respected you are and how appreciated you are um I'll miss your presence you're always such a steady presence when we're dealing with any sort of crisis in the IEB um I'll miss your wealth of knowledge your kindness and your sense of humor and wit as Derek just mentioned and absolutely wishing you all the best and hope you have some much-needed relaxation coming up thank you so I don't want to call anybody else out but feel free to raise your hands I know Stephanie would like to say something too Stephanie and Zach maybe yeah hi Stephanie hi so Loretta as a newer employee you've been welcoming and supportive you're our strong leader whom we all admire and personally a role model not only in intelligence but also in grace you set the bar high for our team and we'll honor your legacy here for many years to come we will most certainly miss you thank you so much Stephanie thank you Andrew hi Loretta you've been a huge support for the gaming agent division huge supporter of myself as well um we're really gonna miss your guidance and just your knowledge in the division we'll truly be missed with this gaming agents thank you thank you Loretta uh you know since I think going back to when I interviewed to come on board you've been a really welcoming presence you know throughout the entire time I've been here and to kind of echo everybody else I feel like a calming presence as well in situations where you know starting things up starting a new year I felt like kind of your influence made me feel comfortable made me feel like I could thrive so I wish you all the best going forward it's been great working with you thank you so much. Vanessa? Heather um I think Vanessa has had her camera on. Yes I'm probably the the newest one here on this call but I just want to wish you well in your retirement I wish that I had more time to get to know you as a person um but the leadership that you've shown that I've been able to witness is tremendous and you know I think during our um DEI session I think you knew I was directed in that question about how can we get good people like the people in this room to stay that was kind of directed at you um uh I wish you could stay but I do understand and um haven't retired from an agency recently for after 31 years I know this was a very difficult decision for you to make and I knew that I know that you weighed very heavily on this decision before you made it um but I wish you well. Thank you Vanessa thank you so much. So Heather I think that's everyone um on our screen uh I guess I would propose that I'd like um you know my fellow commissioners aren't here uh commissioner Skinner and commissioner Hill but the five of us um have signed a certificate that will be presented and it may be reread um but I'd like to read it into the record uh I know that we wish we could all be together right now in person uh it kind of stinks that we're not in our public room um I don't know eating ice cream or pizza while we do this um but we're pretty good at virtual rooms and so here we are um and again the reason why we're not together is because of that 12-inch pipe that flooded um our floors so on this and I have to thank Marianne Dooley um for all of her work and to help with the certificate um Marianne knows just how to get things done and almost with the right heart um so um there will be a frame involved thank you so on this 25th day of august 2023 the massachusetts gaming commission proudly presents the certificate of appreciation to Loretta Lillios and sincere appreciation for her distinguished service to the massachusetts gaming commission and the common level massachusetts Loretta Lillios as deputy general counsel chief enforcement counsel and director of the investigations enforcement bureau led the agency in its historic implementation of casino gaming and sports wagering in the commonwealth a person equipped to address with ease the most complex of matters director Lillios has served with the utmost integrity to advance the interest of the commonwealth effectively building a dedicated internal team while nurturing positive relationships with industry stakeholders the mgc extends its profound gratitude for her extraordinary and impactful contributions tireless professionalism and exceptional tenure as a public servant and that's april 2014 to august 2023 signed by the five commissioners who you are currently working with i suspect the others who you worked with join in these sentiments thank you Loretta virtual pause thank you i mean i'm just um so appreciative i'm a little embarrassed um the whole thing just means so much to me you know chair you use the word bitter sweet and that is uh how i feel now you know the countless accomplishments of this agency and it's relatively short history uh i i beg me so much to me but through it all i just do not take for granted that behind all of those are the people who worked individually and as a as a team here the ones that have a very public face and these public meetings and you're just as importantly the ones who are working outside of the public view but through it all everybody's had a common goal of doing the right thing and keeping integrity from the center in everything we do you know i've worked with all of the divisions over my 10 year 10 year here and just across the board the professionalism and expertise of my colleagues here just very very fortunate um and i see all these newer faces and i see that the future of the agency uh is uh in good hands with all of these younger people uh younger and tenure i mean not necessarily younger in in years um you know for the ib my heart and soul is here it's such a deep bench of the highest quality professionals made um heather you your legal team monica and your team of analysts and experts for your team the heart and soul of the agency uh caring your team it all starts with licensing and the you know safely scheme enforcement unit uh with um like leo shana bryan jade collette and the leads of each of the properties um just you know the top of their game so thank you from the bottom of my heart it's been an absolute privilege for me personally and professionally to be part of this team thank you very much well if there are ice cream cones available we'd be toasting you with them right now yeah you know it's just COVID first pipe so we're going to find a way so we will find a way to make it all happen so we always do we do so cheers to you loretta um and uh for those um who will gather tonight we're looking forward to it um commissioners mr bryan commissioner maynard anything you want to add before we close this meeting no just that i hold you to it levada we're going to track you down in the fall and do it again for those of us that they can't make it in there perfect thank you loretta thank you so much okay into the whole team um it's hard to share your sentiments publicly but it certainly is meaningful and i know levada this um you know they could have gone on forever and every sentiment is heartfelt so we're wishing you the very very best and with that move to adjourn second okay commission bryan i commission maynard i night vote yes three zero thanks everyone