LCMAC Meeting (Region B) - August 26, 2026

Okay. Well, we have a quorum. So, let me uh and if I miss anyone calling attendance, please just let me know. Uh Brian Connors >> here. >> Jennifer Bunfigio >> here. >> Lewis Cornet >> here. >> Aid O'Brien Scott >> here. >> Douglas Hall >> here. >> Ellen Patagnik >> here. and Joan Lavine >> here. >> Okay, we're going to be doing a lot of these roll calls, so I may just do first names because we're going to be doing this a lot because we're voting on various things today. >> Mary, I don't think you called my name. >> Oh, who? Well, let's see. >> Stephen. >> Oh, Stephen Fay. I apologize. Okay, that's what I All right. >> I am here. >> Stephen Fay is here. Okay. And then Tom Christensen. >> Good morning. Sorry I'm late. I was having technical difficulty there. >> We're just happy to have you here. >> I'm happy to be here. >> Good. [laughter] Okay. Uh Derek, you can take it away. >> All right. Well, thank you everyone for joining. as uh you as you all are aware and as Kayla will walk through a little later, um we appreciate all the work you do for us. Um this is a requirement under section 68 of chapter 23K. Um we have a series of meetings. This will be our first, but we also have our executive director here, Dean Serper, and I'd like him to be able to address all of you, say hello, let you know the importance that this committee provides to us, as well as how much we value the guidance you give to us. So, I'm going to kick it over to Dean, and then we'll take over the rest of the agenda. >> Oh, okay, Derek. Sure. I'll go first. Um, yeah. Yeah. I I I also want to say thank you to everybody um first and foremost, right? I appreciate everybody seeing everybody being here, seeing everybody, especially here we are late August. Um, I know everybody's trying to squeeze a little more into their summer. So, I appreciate you guys uh dialing in today, but um like Derek said, I think the most important thing for me to say first is to thank you each for your your time and expertise devoted to the community mit mitigation fund of course and and of course I want to thank our chair Lou. Thank you very much Lou. Um, it's been a interesting year, right? 2026 for the community mitigation fund. And um I know Derek will talk more specifically about the funding level for FY27, but I I think the second most important thing for me to do is to thank everybody again for um whatever effort you you what effort you did make, I'm sure everyone made, I know everyone made uh relative to educating our stakeholders in the legislature and perhaps in the administration about the fund and how the fund is useful to the communities uh which obviously made for a uh successful budget round or a somewhat successful budget round for us. So uh I appreciate everybody's activity there. I know we asked a lot of you to get in touch with different stakeholders and um we're happy right at the gaming commission and particularly the commissioners I know because we're going to have a new infusion of dollars into the fund in FY27 and that means we're going to have a continued opportunity right whatever you know whatever amount it might be um to try and help out the city cities and towns that are most impacted uh by the casino operations. And that's what this fund is for. We think I think it's obvious we've put a lot of effort into the fund over the the past uh 10 12 years. We think that these funds make a difference in a small way in each community. So we're happy to have them back. Um, so I want to thank everybody for that. I know the purpose of today's meeting, we're going to talk a little bit about um reanalyzing or analyzing the um criteria for FY27. Derrick will lead that discussion, but we want to be I want we want you to be uh forthright with us and tell us any ideas you have about, you know, how the fund worked in 26 and how we can make it simpler and effective in 27. Um that's important. That's the purpose of the meeting, right? Um so thank you. Yes. Thank you again. Yes. for engagement on our behalf. And I guess the one, you know, not to drag things up, but the one thing I should say is I want to thank the staff, my staff who are involved in the community mitigation fund. I know you guys uh I I think I know you've like to work with them and enjoy your work for them, but I know they work hard on the fund. They're impactful for the fund and I need to take an opportunity particularly Derek who who stepped in for a temporary role for this funding round. I appreciate Derek you doing that and your leadership there of course [snorts] and we have to thank Mary right because she's the the real star of the community mitigation fund within the agency here and uh Kayla of course and Jane. So, this is my moment publicly, I guess, or publicly on a screen meeting to thank our staff for their hard work each year. But please, we we want to hear from you today. I appreciate it. If you need to get a hold of me ever, feel free to always contact me independently. But, um, that's the point. We're the community mitigation fund. It's in the budget. We've got work to do and we want to make it work. So that's that. So I'll turn it back to you, Derek. Thank you to everyone. >> All right. Thank you, Dean. Um so we've got a full agenda today. We have um some minutes to vote on a few votes for chair or subcommittee representative on the uh committee and mitigation advisory board which is required under section 68 of 23K. Mary will give us a quick overview of the summary of awards. Um then we'll get into the 28 guidelines as well as the additional funding that we'll have in FY28. Talk a little bit more about that. Um and then any matters that were not already uh considered that the chair may want to bring up. So, um, Kayla will give us a quick overview of why we're here. And her presentation is basically rooted in section 68 of 23K as well as section 61 of 23K, which creates the gaming policy advising committee, the community mitigation advisory committee subcommittee, and then the community mitigation fund is section 61. All right. So, go ahead, Kayla. Thank you. >> Thanks, Derek. Just gonna share this real quick. All right, great. Oops, there we go. Um, this is um just a very quick summary of like why we're here and what the LCMAS do and and what uh we want to drive home the importance of like participation. Um there's only like three slides and then we'll get right into the agenda um like Derek said. So uh for the new people I just wanted to share the CMF um staff. We have Derek uh that's filling in for Joe's role that um is open. Um we have Mary of course and then we have me and then I forgot to put Jaden's name but Jaden is here. Well he's in the on the team but he's on vacation right now. So, um you guys have probably been in contact with either one of us. Um this is just the agenda again. Um we had some opening comments. We'll go into uh some votes and the minutes. Uh we have an ethics presentation from legal and then the summary. Um the discussion which we will not vote on today. will vote on the next uh meeting for the guidelines because there will be a lot of changes and then next steps in closing. Um >> and Kayla on that slide um we just did an update from earlier today. So the chair should be Lou Cornette. >> Oh yes, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. >> My bad. >> I just wanted to um document that for the meeting. >> Thank you. I'm sorry Lou. I forgot to um change >> No problem. No problem. [laughter] Um but we'll go to the responsibilities are the same. Um these are for the new people that are joining. Um we just wanted to share that the leg work isn't really huge for LCMAC's but the impact is super big. Um really it's to attend the meetings whenever we have them. We usually have them like around uh like once a month, but I don't know what the cadence is going to be for this year. But um we would love if you guys could uh find an alternate. Um I know that sometimes you won't be able to make it to the meeting. Um and we started doing alternates uh sometime last year. So if anybody has like a change in alternate or a change in representation, please let me know. you can email me um or Mary um and then to put your vote in for um the huge changes like the guidelines every year and the chairperson and the subcommittee. Um we would love to also hear your feedback um especially from your communities about anything that has to do with the CMF fund. Um, it could be while we're talking about the guidance, but it could also be about how to make it more user friendly for reporting or um what we could do to be a little bit more helpful for the communities that are looking for these funds. So, any input would be great. And the hugest thing is definitely to advocate for the CMF um to your stakeholders because or um your I'm forgetting the right word to your legislators, I'm sorry. Uh to advocate that the CMF is a big part uh for communities and that we do use the money and that was a huge part where we were losing the money. Um but thanks to everybody's advocating for the CMF again, we're able to raise the um the funding back up a little bit and we're hopefully we're going to get even more so. Um so just wanted to conf uh remind everybody why how it is so important for your participation. Um and in the org uh we're under the gaming policy advisory committee. we have the CMF um subcommittee and then we have the LCMAC's underneath that are region A and region B and then the LCMAC's should be um talking to the communities and then they should be getting guidance without having to specifically talk to the commission. So you guys are that liaison um and your voice is very important uh to share the input without commission bias and to make sure that we're representing our communities in the best possible way. Um you'll hear from legal that committee members can't help with the drafting of applications and working on it. But um definitely help uh the communities with their their thoughts or understanding what is necessary or what is most important to be um fixed using the CMF. And we also encourage to use the LCMAC's to collaborate with each other. Um so thank you so much and we really appreciate everybody's uh hard work for last year and hopefully for this year. Um if you guys have any questions, please message me or you can message uh Mary. I have to put uh Jaden's email in here as well. Um but you guys might have heard from him too. Any one of us let us know. >> And with that, I will pass it over to Mary, I believe. >> Oh, okay. Um, okay. So, we now are moving to the minutes from um, so Lou, if you want to take this over, >> if you want to ask people about the minutes from September 30. [music] >> Very good. I will do that. Thank you, Mary. Um, just in case anybody's wondering, I'm operating under a little bit of a technical problem here. I can hear everybody. Uh, I think Mary indicated you could see me, but I can't see anybody else. So, uh, we'll we'll we'll we'll move it forward. So, this section here deals with the minutes that were previously sent dated September 30th, 2026. I assume everyone has had an opportunity to read them. Um, any comments thereon? [clears throat] >> Not hearing anything. I will ask for a motion to accept the meeting minutes dated September 30th, 2026. Do I have a motion? >> Okay. So, I have a second. >> Second. >> Okay, great. >> Very good. Mary, could you call the RO? >> Yep, I'll Yep. I'll call the role. >> Okay. Uh, Brian, >> yes. >> Jennifer, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Tom, >> abstain. >> Stephen, >> yes. >> Lewis, >> yes. Uh, Kate, >> yes. >> Uh, Douglas, >> yes. >> Ellen, >> yes. >> Joan, >> yes. >> Did I miss anyone? >> Aaron, is Aaron Vega still on? >> He's on the phone. >> Oh, okay. All right. Oh, he's abstaining. Okay. >> Okay. Very good. >> I was I was I was at the meeting so I'll thank you next. >> That's fine. Thank you. Okay. Very good. Uh so next we h um Lou if you want to lead them on the vote of the chair if you want to explain how you'd like to do this. So So >> let's we can probably start Mary with a chair. Um I've been in this role for a a couple of years. it uh uh it's not particularly difficult. Um but at the same time as I spoke with Mary before I'd be happy to continue same u but I'd al like we have some new people here and some people who have been on with me as well. So I'd like to offer them an opportunity behind that as I mentioned to Mary. Um I'm thinking of uh also uh or would like to be on the subcommittee um uh move up to the subcommittee chair. So, I'm hoping that somebody currently on um this LCMAC B would consider throwing their hat in the ring for chair. Do I have any nominations? >> So, that we have a nomination and in recognition of your excellent leadership, Lou, I'd like to nominate you for the chair position. [laughter] >> I'd like to second. >> Okay. All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. [laughter] >> Okay, let's have a >> let's [clears throat] do a roll call. >> Okay. Brian, >> yes. >> Jennifer, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Tom, >> yes. >> Stephen, >> yes. >> Lewis, >> yes. >> Aaron. >> Uh, Kate, >> yes. >> Douglas, >> yes. Ellen and Joan. >> And Joan. >> Yes. >> Okay, cool. All right. So, so um did anyone want to volunteer as the subcommittee chair? I mean, representative for region B? >> I would nominate Lou. Again, [laughter] >> thank you for your confidence in me. I appreciate that very much. But yes, um if no one else is um interested or able to, I understand that everybody has very busy schedules and uh um having been on this committee for a number of years now, I I recognize the importance and uh um we'll be happy to do that. >> Thank you. We appreciate it. We really do. You did a great job. He was really there with the legislators and getting them >> getting the communities >> together to get our money back. So that was great, Lou. All right. So, let me do um do we have a sec? Did we have a a vote in a second? >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> Okay. Brian, >> yes. >> Jennifer, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Tom, >> yes. >> Steven, >> yes. Lewis. [snorts] Well, you can't yourself. [laughter] >> Kate, >> yes. >> Douglas, >> yes. >> Ellen, >> yes. >> And Joan, >> yes. >> Okay. And Aaron, we know you're on the phones, so that's fine. >> Yes. >> Okay, we heard you. Great. Okay, so now >> just a quick question. When when Kayla was talking, she indicated we'd have an opportunity to kind of talk about um how things are operated, what work for us. Will that be later on in the agenda? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Good. Thank you. >> Yep. Because we're going to move right into our favorite thing. We have two representatives from the commission who are going from our legal department who are going to be doing our ethics training. >> [clears throat] >> So, I'd like to introduce Autumn Barilla and Noah. And Noah, I don't know how to say Legetti. >> Legetti, you got it. >> Okay. All right. All right. >> Take it away. Legal. >> Okay. Great. Well, it's so nice to see everyone here. Nice to meet everyone. So, let's talk about conflict and interest training for committee members. Why don't we bump it up a slide, Autumn? Okay. So advisory committees created pursuant to general laws chapter 23K section 68b are state agencies um and their members are state employees for the purpose of conflict of interest law. Now a municipal employee or a gaming lency rep who's appointed to serve on one of these committees will not be compensated for that service and are therefore special state employees under chapter 268A. Now, advisory committee members must complete conflict of interest law online training every two years and return a a certificate of completion to commission staff. Okay, slide. >> Apologies, I clicked the link instead of the slide. Uh, there we go. [laughter] >> Okay, so let's talk about the two main areas of conflict of interest law. The first is financial. Now, under chapter 268A section 6, you cannot participate in any particular matter that may affect your financial interest or that of an immediate family member or a business organization that you're affiliated with. Now, the second is the mere appearance of conflict. Under section 23B3, you cannot act in a manner that a reasonable person might conclude that you might act with bias in your job. So in that situation, you should disclose the nature of your disqualifying interest directly to your appointing authority. Okay. Okay. Great. Um gifts and unwarranted privileges. So you cannot accept gifts or gratuitities or $50 or more which are given for or because of official acts performed or to be performed or given because of your official position. And it's important to note here that a series of smaller gifts worth an aggregate total of $50 or more may also be a violation. Um similar principle for unwarranted privileges. You cannot use um or attempt to use your official position to secure for yourself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are not available to members of the general public. >> Simple enough. >> Okay. Slide, please. >> Okay. Divided loyalties. Um, under chapter 268A section 4, no state employee shall, otherwise as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, directly or indirectly receive or request compensation from anyone other than the Commonwealth or a state agency in relation to any particular matter in which the Commonwealth or state agency is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. Similarly, no state employee shall otherwise in the proper discharge of her official duties act as an agent or attorney for anyone in connection with any particular matter in which the Commonwealth or state agency is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. So this essentially means that state employees must give their undivided loyalty to the commonwealth and cannot take outside pay or act as a representative for private parties on matters involving the state. And an example that I sort of find helpful when I think about this is I think of a a state environmental a state environmental analyst who's working a side job writing say private wetland permitting applications and then submitting them to a state agency. That's an example, very clear-cut example of something that would be prohibited. And um Autumn will take it away now. >> All right. And so the next slide is about how the divided loyalties provision applies to the LCAMC. The paid municipal employees may not do any paid work for the mun the municipality regarding matters before the LCAMC. unpaid municipal employees may do unpaid work related to the matters. And it's also important to note that whether it's a paid or unpaid work for the municipality, you cannot act as an agent or attorney for the municipality or communicate as an agent on behalf of the municipality with the LCAMC or other state agencies regarding matters before uh this body. There are some exceptions uh regarding your own personal interest or assisting of family members or others whether it's as an executive or administrator. And the next slide has some examples. You may not do paid work as a municipal employee to prepare a community mitigation fund application which uh is requesting funds. So, don't work on applications and uh do not sign the applications when they're submitted to us. Uh you may work as an unpaid municipal employee in the preparation. Uh but you may not sign the application even if you are unpaid for that work. And uh regardless of uh whether you're being paid or not, you cannot offer legal advice to the municipality regarding an application or award. and you cannot represent uh as an agent or uh on behalf of the municipality when dealing with the LCAMC or uh more likely the commission. I looked at the roster earlier and I didn't don't recall seeing any legislators, but there are some provisions uh that are in addition to uh the divided loyalty provision regarding legislators. Uh the divided loyalty provision uh does not apply for legislators with uh certain exceptions. Uh whereas the legislators are not able to personally appear for any compensation other than their salary before state agency unless there are specific uh conditions such as they're there for to appear before the court, they're there for a quasi judicial proceeding or it's ministerial in nature. And ministerial in nature is more uh simple stuff. It's like tax returns, applications for permits or licenses or incorporation papers or other documents. It's uh just submitting applications or documents and it's not going to be as uh substantive for the purposes of uh the divided loyalty provisions. uh the uh quasi judicial means that uh the action of the state agency is adjudicatory in nature. The it's appealable to the courts and both sides are entitled to representation by council and that the council is neither the attorney general's office or the council for the state agency conducted the proceeding. And that's your typical appeals process. Uh as special state employees uh you will be uh subject to the divided loyalty provisions but it will only be in relation to a particular matter in which you worked at at any time participated as a state employee uh where uh it was with within one year of uh and it was subject to your responsibility as a state employee. and in which it is e is also in which it is pending before state agency. Uh the line about regarding the item pending before the state agency uh does not apply if uh you serve no more than 60 days of a a year. And this is a very short uh ethics presentation. We're not expecting you to be experts uh immediately following an ethics presentation. We're just hoping that uh we could get your intent up, hopefully get you to identify maybe there's something that could rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest. And if you could identify that, you are always free to reach out to either the municipal council or the state ethics commission uh to ask for further questions and guidance. And there the municipal council will be the council for the municipality you work for. The state ethics commission can be found at mass.gov/ethics. And you could also reach out to uh the anyone on the legal team. We're happy to answer questions. and it's not on here, but uh ethics training atmass.gov is uh our ethics line for employees to reach out. Special state employees, you could reach out there as well. >> Do I have any questions? >> Okay. Well, thank you Noah and Autumn. We appreciate the reminders. And um if any of you currently were have a conflict of interest uh certificate from your job that if you're with the state you can use that as to qualify as as having done the training online >> any sorry >> yeah no it's all right go ahead >> I was going to say if you have completed the conflict of interest training I could see it on the back end through the administrator portal. You do not have to submit it by email. >> Oh, cool. >> I I submitted it, but I had done it as well. So, yeah, it's not a particularly it doesn't take that that long, but it's important to do and make sure it's complete. >> Yep. Yep. Okay. Well, next on the agenda, thank you. Um is the summary of the 2027 awards. So um the review team for the applications consisted of seven staff members and two commissioners covering four different MGC divisions. The team spent February, March, April and May reviewing each application that was submitted. The review team connected with Mass DOT for their expertise in transportation and ICIP for the statewide interoperability coordinator for radios for the police. So we like to contact if we don't feel that we have the expertise in an area we do go out and uh look for experts to help help us evaluate these applications. Of the 5 million available the commission allocated 4.18 million to 28 municipal entities and 820,000 to 11 eligible regional entities. grant the grants requests that we received came to 5.89 million. Of the 5.89 million requests, 4.64 million is from 25 municipalities. We had three municipalities that did not apply for this grant. And 1.24 million is from the nine regional agencies. Municipal applications exceeded their allotted funds by 463,400 while the regional applications exceeded their allotments by 427,900. The fund was able to distribute just about all the requested funding. Some waiverss were able to be paid by reallocating funds from underexpended previously awarded grants from the from the and also from the uh allocations not used by the communities that did not apply. And we also received additional funds from the research and responsible gaming division. In total, the funding was distributed 4.11 million in municipal grants, 8,84k in grants to regional entities for workforce development and public safety. This amount includes the 66,200 that was not utilized in the municipal entity allocation. So, does anyone have any questions about last year's funding or how we were able to uh make up that shortfall? We we did a lot of um reviewing of older grants and if we came across older grants and the municipality felt that the project was not going to move forward, we asked them to try and use those that funding for new priorities. So, we're always, you know, if um if you hear of your community having a fund that gee, we got this grant, but we don't really need this, we really need that, you can come back to us and say, "We would like to, we've changed our priorities. We would like to," and then what we do is we um we have forms and whatever, but we go before the commission and ask for a reallocation. So, that does my presentation. Now we move on to Derek and discussion of the fiscal year 2028 community mitigation fund guidelines. >> All right. Thank you Mary. Thank you to the legal team. Thank you to Lou for all the earlier presentations and the dean for the uh welcome. This is um [clears throat] probably the part where I'm going to ask you to be as brutally honest as possible and remind you this is a safe space. Um, all recommendations here are those, right? Recommendations. And we want to hear the good, the bad, and the ugly. Um, so I came in and I had big shoes to fill in, um, Joe's role. Um, I don't know if many of you remember me. I've been here since 2013 at the commission and I was actually on the first three years worth of review committees. Um, so I got to see where this started off and I've gotten to come in towards the end and what was striking to me was we had 27 pages of guidelines that we had created with the assistance of the lickmax, the GPAC and the commission over the years. And those 27 pages actually got us as an agency into a little bit of trouble of not being able to allocate all all of the money to the communities who welcomed in gambling. Um, so what we're trying to do is take a look and get feedback from all of you on what can we do better, what has been your biggest sticking point, and how can we kind of get this fund back to what section 61 said. Um and what section 61 said is we should the commission shall administer um the fund to assist the host and surrounding communities and offsetting rel offsetting costs related to the construction and operation of a gaming establishment but including but not limited to communities and water and sewer districts in the vicinity of a gaming establishment. local and regional education, transportation, infrastructure, housing, environmental issues, and public safety. Nowhere there does it say it has to be a negative, unintended consequence. It just says anything that's going on, an impact of a gaming establishment that could be good or bad. Um, so I found and we worked hard with the communities this year to um, kind of thread the needle through the 27 pages of guidelines and all the requirements of a construction project versus a transportation project versus a roadway project that needs to have at least 1% traffic guide, right? all these things that were making it so hard to get the priorities of the municipalities um host communities surrounding communities and those communities in vicinity of a gaming establishment that we had worked through through the initial um RFA 2 phases we we just kind of want to go backwards and say all right that was the work of 13 years in the past is that really what today's community mitigation guidelines are is that really what we want to be using the fund for today. And that kind of mirrors with what Mary was talking about where this year we had people coming forward with ideas that we thought were great, exceeded the $5 billion. And when we took a look at some of the older grants that hadn't been allocated, we said, would you like, which one do you prefer? This one that's been sitting there for four or five years with no movement or the one that you're asking for today that could really make a bigger impact. Um, so we're we're trying to get to that piece of let's get this fund to do what it intentionally was derived to do. Get that money back into the host surrounding and vicinity communities that welcomed in gaming with the good, the bad, and the ugly. And let's take some of these tougher guidelines off that are making it hard to get the priorities of the communities funded. And that's where we really want to focus this year and make recommendations back to the commission um for their adoption of FY28 guidelines. Now, if there are aspects you love about the guidelines, we want to hear about that too, right? If there are areas, so what we've tried to do is we've stripped it down to what the legislation says. So, we've gone from 27 pages to four in our internal workings. Right? Now, we know four is not the right number, right? There have to be some more guidelines. But what we've taken a look at is what's the timeline for application? Is there some impact that you can demonstrate by the casino? And then, you know, are you going to apply for your money? And we're going to do it as a block grant, too. Um, which is reminiscent of the first year where, if you remember the reserve funding, all we made you say was, do you want your do you plan to apply for your money? Check a box, yes or no. Then over the next 3 to 4 months, we as a community mitigation fund team will work with you on what those applications are to make sure that when we put them in front of the commission, they are responsible and make sure they meet the needs of the communities. So that's our plan. That's where we're kind of heading towards, but we need your assistance as well as telling that if you if you all love the 27 pages of guidelines and think that we shouldn't change them, we want to hear that too, right? because then we can go back to the commission and say, "Hey, we had an idea, but the lickmax love the love the guidelines. So, now's the time. Open up." And we are all ears and we really want to hear it because um you know, you are the big reason that we got this $10 million back. Um you know, it used to be 6.5%. In the governor's budget, it was 3% in the House budget. It was 4% in the Senate budget. it was 3% and based on I think how we all worked together this year was able to get up to 4% as well as all the advocacy you did and we want to continue that right we don't want to go backwards and we want to make sure that this money listen I was the CFO of EOD when this fund was created um so I know that the intention of this fund was to get the money into the community's hands because gaming was not popular at that time so we want to get back to that [snorts] >> Darl, can I start? Lou Cornet. >> Sure. >> Absolutely. >> Well, well, well, thank you. Um, first off, I appreciate your efforts along with Mary and the whole team. Um, I I think one of the things I'm thinking about here, and I represent one of the smaller communities uh in the area, and impacts and needs differ from location to location. Uh, I I think we really have moved forward. the the um block grants were tremendous uh asset to us to especially for smaller communities who don't have major grantw writing staff and um didn't have the time or didn't want to take the time without realizing that we're just submitting an application we may or may not get funded but really allowed us to kind of focus on and consider what the impacts are. Um impacts have been difficult at times and they do vary from community to community. what's the primary impact? So, I want to make clear if I understand what you're asking us for the new documents and again I you may have shown something but uh I can't see uh here on on the video. Um will we have an opportunity to look at the new guidelines and then kind of provide some additional feedback or you're looking for right now? >> So that's those are two great questions. We are not able to share what we are doing right now because we have to get input and guidance from you first. Which is why I said if you love the 27 pages we can [laughter] >> we can go with that. Um if I >> it was helpful in some ways but there large parts of it I guess what I'm trying to get to large parts of it weren't gerine to my my smaller community. Maybe they were for other larger communities. I don't know. But uh I think um um simple more focused uh is better and um trying to be all over the place doesn't allow us especially with limited amounts of monies coming through this year. Uh we need to focus on those things and this has been a clear message I've heard from Mary and everybody. We need to focus on those high impact areas by your community whatever it is is the most important but simplifying the process as much as possible. And I think I heard the message being that we we'll be a little more creative and considerate of things that may not be locktock and barrel for what they were years past of having to clearly be impact and somehow justify impact uh from casino operations and and those have evolved. One of the things I've always talked about is that uh you know this is not 10 or 15 years ago and some things maybe we've we've put a lot of effort into but casinos and society is constantly changing and new things are coming up and new impacts are coming up. So I think it behooves us to kind of look at our local communities and then work with you folks to make sure we're we're addressing um you know the right things for our communities. Yes, that is that is exactly what we're thinking and um that's why we are at four pages right now. But if there are guidelines that guard rails we should put in um because it still does have to be something that's the impact of the casino. So I think that's what we're looking for. We don't want to make it so that it's so hard to address the impact. Um, but we're looking for ideas here of how we can make sure that we tie it somehow to the casino, but because that will give the commission cover as far as meeting their statutory requirement under section 61. Um, but the rest of it should be what the municipalities want, right? You can drive a truck through that language. Even the areas they call out are including but not limited to, right? So, um, we really want to make sure that this money does not this fund does not create a balance again and we are not being an obstacle to getting money back into the communities who welcomed in gaming. And I think Mike has his hands up next. >> Yes, thank you. So, I agree with what a lot of loose said. The city of Chigabye, they thought it had to be a direct impact. So, in the beginning parts of the mitigation fund grant program, we didn't even apply because we didn't know exactly how to show a direct impact. >> And when the guidelines came out and kind of broadened that to indirect impacts and and kind of gave us more of a perspective on what the impacts could be, that's when we first started applying for the grants because now we had a much better understanding of how the process would work. And the other thing that really helped us us out a lot was the um the block grant process that Lou was talking about. And it before we didn't know how much to even ask for or what projects may be considered. But the block grant gave us an idea of what the scope of the project could be and what the limitations of the project may be. So I think the block grant process really helped us a lot in understanding how to go about the grant process. That's that's just my couple suggestions. No, that's great. >> Thank you. >> Any and we will follow up with each one of you in independently from this um where maybe we can share some of those guidelines without doing it in a public format. um just as you know information seeking and what we're thinking um so you can kind of give us some some pointers but throwing it out in a big format before the commission seen it is not advisable um at least on in in my opinion >> um so I have a question >> Derek um are those four pages of guidelines somewhere where we can access them >> not right now >> not right now but when we do a follow-up call with you um we would bring them up on a screen so that you could work look through them with us. [snorts] >> I've always been highly impressed with the effort that the staff members have put into trying to help communities make it work and as a mitigation member somewhat frustrated when year after year there were these balances. So the introduc of introduction of the um block grant system um was of tremendous assistance. Um and the other thing that I I think people I have appreciated is the sort of very ethical presentation of the staff members and trying to help communities make it work. So that flexibility that was there um I'd like to certainly see remain with the commission members who >> I think have done a good job. And equally there's a few things over the years that I have seen that you just scratch your head and I had a really hard time acknowledging the uh direct impact to the community as a result of the casino. But when there was such a surplus of money and such a challenge in terms of possibly losing it, you just kind of said, "Okay, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you." >> I'm I'm wondering if the commission is ever is considered um similar to what the state has done now with like these community onetop programs, they have an expression of interest period. So before the application opens, you can submit up to, you know, two or three projects and it's more just a an interest in applying to see if they're even eligible because the application period is very short and so you're investing a lot of time and then you guys are reviewing applications that might not even be eligible. So I don't know if something like that might help streamline the process. >> Yes. So um Jennifer, thank you for that. And then Brian, we'll I know you've had your hand up, so we'll um jump to you next. What we plan on doing, and I was around for the first year, is just put out a applicate. So, we'll put out the guidelines. Um we usually get those approved in October, then we'll post our RFQ or request for grant applications. And all I'm hoping this year's application will be once again the commission has to approve it is you signing your community signing off on a piece of paper saying I I intend to apply for my block grant and then over the next 3 months you would work with the um community affairs team to actually find a program that works. We won't write it for you but we'll be that what you're talking about the expression of interest saying yes this either works or it doesn't. And we did a lot of that this year with the municipalities, not so much with the regional entities because the commission um prioritized municipalities this year with the reduced funding, but we worked hard to make sure that the money if people applied, they didn't leave anything on the table. Um, and that we got it back into their hands either through the project they asked for or one that met the guidelines. But we'd prefer to see the project that you asked for as long as we can find some sort of connection to the casino operations. That's all it is, right? It's the operations of a casino. >> On that note, you said you'll ask municipalities to say whether or not they will apply if >> if you determine that, you know, five out of 15 are not, are you going to reallocate those funds to other community members? >> Yes, we would. >> Yeah, that's a I like that approach. Yep. >> And that's another thing we're looking at and we'd love to hear uh feedback on as you sit with us. We're looking at getting rid of the waiver request and just allocate out the money. Um that that's how block grant usually works, right? You get you get your portion and that's it. Um and then when the waiverss come up, that makes it so >> I don't know. It makes it tough for the commission to make decisions, right? You try to prioritize one over the other and not turns into a competitive grant versus a block grant. >> I agree. I think that was from the approach of my municipality that um it did feel that even though it was a block grant, there was it was still competitive. So, eliminating that waiver and I like the approach of reallocating the funds if a community doesn't intend on applying, I think that we're getting the biggest bang for our buck. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Brian, did you want to say something? Yes. Thank Yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Derek. Um, yeah, I I'll I'll probably not be the most popular person here, but that's all right. >> It's often the case of the case want to know that we know. Yep. >> But I guess what I I feel like I'm reading between the lines that it's being sort of um that the impact connection is is being really loosened up. And so I guess my concern is that as the host community is that this gets watered down to the point where things that aren't actually impacts are getting funded. And um uh to me the intent of the funding is for actual impacts. So that's just my two cents is I'm fearing we're going down a road where we're going to start funding things that really aren't impacts of the casino. And I don't think that's the intent of the program or the funding. So Brian, very good point, which is why we're asking for those guardrails, right? Right now we have four pages. So what we're looking for are where are these guard rails and so that we as staff when we're sitting down with communities, we can make sure you get your primary projects done, but also give the commission the one thing that has to be well the two things that have to be there, right? One, did you apply by February 1? and two, is it associated with the op construction or operation of the casino? Um, and that's some that those are the main areas that we really need to make sure the commission can justify when we're making these grants. So any any guidance during the those are things we really want to talk about with you um and figure out as we're as we're having our meetings with you in the next couple weeks because we'll be back at this in September I think um Mary will go over towards the end of this >> but we hear you Brian. >> No I appreciate it and and the the the program the commission has been incredibly fair to Springfield so we have we certainly have no complaints. Um, but I guess I'm also looking at this as where, you know, we're celebrating our eighth year in Springfield with MGM here. Um, and so I feel like the impacts are fairly defined at this point. And looking back at what they are, you know, I think all of these all of us as applicants and uh surrounding communities and host communities can can really see what's happened uh in that time. So, um, we are, uh, we're actually, thanks to the community mitigation fund, we're partnering with PBPC and doing a traffic study, for example, to see what those actual impacts are. Are they what they were expected or are there things we didn't expect? Are there things that did or didn't happen? So, um, it's it's a good time to, I think, look back and see what those impacts are. But I would urge urge the commission and the group to to not lose that connection to the impact since that is the the purpose of the funding. >> Mhm. >> Understood. >> I I kind of would like to add to that though. I think I appreciate that comment because I do agree there should be some guard rails, but I think going to the block grant approach um I think really made a lot of sense because we are all surrounding communities and we are all impacted in some way. So I feel like that block grant addresses that impact. Um sometimes though it's really hard to find an actual direct impact to apply for funds. So, I mean, I like when somebody said before maybe an indirect impact because, you know, it might be, but sometimes it's really difficult to find that direct impact, but by allocating funds through the block grant, you're recognized, you're recognizing that we are all impacted in some way. >> Some more than others. >> Yeah. >> Absolutely. Okay. >> All right. Any other um and I know that we just hit you with this, right? So that's why I said we will be following up with each of you. We hope that you can work with your um with the entities within your cities and towns and municipalities that that do apply for this funding um so that you can hear from them. And as Kayla pointed out, even some of the other things like how is quarterly reporting going? Um this year we're rolling out site visits to the municipalities that are getting uh some grants. So, if you didn't get a site visit this year, congratulations, but you may be on the list next year. Um, >> y >> and that's part of our trying to reduce on the amount of information we take in from you um to pay your quarterly invoices, too, because if we have a site visit program, we don't have to get as much detail in the um in what you submit quarterly. So, these are all things we're trying to do. We've heard these over the years and we're trying to implement them. Um, and you are our best um, guiders, right? You are dealing, we're sitting on one side of the table, you're sitting on the other, and we look forward to hearing all of this information and feedback. [snorts] Okay, >> Mary, are we at the next steps point? >> I guess we are. Um, let me just uh tell everybody I have reserved September 29th as our next meeting date. It'll be at the same time. And now I think we're at the point of next steps. Um, so we'll be getting in touch with each of you to see if you have any more comments or your community has any comments. um and will be busy drafting and getting the guidelines up to par and getting going through the approval process within the commission on the guidelines. Um once the guidelines are approved, we do post them on the website for two weeks or 10 days for a public comment period. Um and then from there we uh once the guidelines are approved by the commission then we can do we can publish the RFP for the uh 20 fiscal year 2028 grant round and that's usually November is when we do that but you things are kind of flexible this year. I'm hoping to get it up in there earlier to give you guys more time to think about things. But don't forget your probably your first thing you're going to have to do is simply check off a box and saying yes or your community yes we're going to apply and then we are going to be working with you to get it established and you'll know how much you're getting and so things are good. So uh Lou if you want to make a motion. >> Okay. We'll we'll move this along. But uh I I think from my perspective, this has been a very very valuable meeting and good good conversation, good comments, and appreciate the staff and moving this thing forward. Um unless there is any other items that need to be considered at this point, I will ask for a motion to adjourn. >> Second, please. >> Second. Okay, here we go. Yes, you can. Okay. Brian, >> yes. >> Jennifer, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Tom, >> yes. >> Stephen Lewis, >> yes. >> Aaron, uh, Kate just had to leave. Uh, Douglas, >> yes. >> Ellen and Joan, >> yes. Yes. >> Okay, great. Meeting adjourned. >> Meeting adjourned. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you everyone. >> Bye.