HomeMy Public PortalAboutCPC Packet 052621Town of Brewster Community Preservation Committee
2198 Main St., Brewster, MA 02631
cpcmeeting@brewster-ma.gov
(508) 896-3701
MEETING AGENDA
May 26, 2021 at 4:00 PM (Remote Participation Only)
This meeting will be conducted by remote participation pursuant to Gov. Baker’s March 2020 orders suspending certain Open Meeting
Law provisions and imposing limits on public gatherings. No in-person meeting attendance will be permitted. If the Town is unable to
live broadcast this meeting, a record of the proceedings will be provided on the Town website as soon as possible.
The meeting may be viewed by: Live broadcast (Brewster Government TV Channel 18), Livestream (livestream.brewster-ma.gov),
or Video recording (tv.brewster-ma.gov).
Meetings may be joined by:
1.Phone: Call (929) 436-2866 or (301) 715-8592.Webinar ID: 837 7728 4808 Passcode: 326439
To request to speak: Press *9 and wait to be recognized.
2.Zoom Webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83777284808?pwd=NjB3WldRTGRxb0l0WXhIS1J0Y1NOQT09
Passcode: 326439
To request to speak: Tap Zoom “Raise Hand” button or type “Chat” comment with your name and address, then wait to be
recognized.
Community
Preservation
Committee
Faythe Ellis
Chair
Sharon Marotti
Vice Chair
Elizabeth Taylor
Clerk
Roland Bassett Jr.
Barbara Burgo
Bruce Evans
Peggy Jablonski
Diane Pansire
Paul Ruchinskas
CPC Assistant
Beth Devine
1.Call to order
2.Discussion and possible vote to amend PBCB Dock Project award conditions
3.Town Meeting Review
4.Financial Update
5.Discussion regarding first draft preparation of Request For Proposal for Brewster CPA
plan
6.Discussion and possible votes to set aside administrative funds for
a.Brewster Historical Commission binders (FY21 Admin funds)
b.Brewster Historical Commission House history project continuation (FY22
Admin Funds)
c.Other items
7.Approval of minutes from 4/28
8.Project updates
9.Announcements
10.Items the chair could not anticipate
11.June meetings: June 9 and June 30 at 4PM
Date Posted: Date Revised:
5/24/21
Hello Faythe,
I reviewed the exchange below, and while it is certainly true that a restriction is not required under the
CPA, PBCB’s attorney does not address the Anti-Aid Amendment issue, and the concerns of the lender
seem a bit exaggerated. We can revise the Grant Agreement to provide that the mortgage will be a
subordinate loan, and that the Town will grant subordination agreements to lenders providing financing. It
seems that PBCB and their representatives may simply not want to bother with the administrative task of
obtaining subordinations from the Town.
As previously mentioned, the mortgage was a means of protecting the Town against Ani-Aid Amendment
claims and ensuring that prospective buyers would learn that PBCB has committed to keeping the
property amenities open to the public, in the absence of a deed restriction stating the same. It appears
that the other municipalities – Orleans, Chatham, and Harwich – are not so concerned about the Anti-Aid
Amendment, perhaps because of the (relatively) small amount involved, the fact that PBCB is not a
church, but, rather, a non-profit organization, and the monies will be used to make physical alterations to
the property to make it more handicapped-accessible rather than on other kinds of improvements.
In my opinion, the CPC could certainly choose not to require a recordable mortgage, as other towns have
done, and, instead, rely on the Grant Agreement provision stating that PBCB will keep the property open
to the public for the next 25 years. Note that since the Grant Agreement is not recorded, prospective
buyers will not be aware of PBCB’s commitment. It appears that other municipalities consider PBCB to
be a respected non-profit and will rely on PBCB’s publicly-stated commitment to keeping these amenities
open to the public, and Brewster could do the same. If the CPC voted to require the mortgage (that is my
recollection), the CPC could take a new vote not to require the same.
Please let me know how the Town would like to proceed.
Shirin
Shirin Everett, Esq.
KP |LAW
101 Arch Street, 12th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
O: (617) 654 1731
F: (617) 654 1735
severett@k-plaw.com
www.k-plaw.com
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information
that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and/or may contain ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and attachments thereto, if any, and destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately.
-------- Original message --------
From: Faythe Ellis <Faythe.Ellis@outlook.com>
Date: 5/6/21 9:59 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Shirin Everett <SEverett@k-plaw.com>
Cc: Peggy Jablonski <pegjab@gmail.com>
Subject: FW: For your review - Revised Grant Agreement and Amendment to Award Letter
Good morning Shirin – Pleasant Bay Community Boating has expressed concerns about our requirement
for a mortgage as a condition of the $25,000 grant for the dock project.
Can you review the information they have provided and let me know if you can propose alternative
language that would allay their concerns?
Once you have a chance to weigh in and reply, I may propose setting up a follow up call .
Thank you in advance for your help! Faythe
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Ted Baylis<mailto:tedbaylis@outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:53 AM
To: Faythe Ellis<mailto:Faythe.Ellis@outlook.com>
Cc: Beth Devine<mailto:bdevine@brewster-ma.gov>; Peggy Jablonski<mailto:pegjab@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: For your review - Revised Grant Agreement and Amendment to Award Letter
Hi Faythe,
Apologies for the delay in this response but as I mentioned, we had to get some input from some of our
Board members, our legal counsel and our lender and that process has taken more time than expected.
In summary, the concept of a zero interest loan with amortized forgiveness instead of a grant is fine with
us but the addition of a mortgage provision and interest on repayment is problematic. I am pasting in
below the rather comprehensive opinion, and including the associated attachment, that we received
from Attorney Brian Wall, a Brewster resident who represented us throughout the extensive permitting
process on this project and is now joining our Board. In addition, I am also providing the feedback we
received from Scott Vandersall at Cape Cod 5, who is our current lender. I think the information they
have provided will explain the situation more completely and provide you with a better understanding
for our reluctance to agree to a mortgage.
We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this further with you and any other individuals that you
feel would be appropriate. In the meantime, please know that this does not in any way dampen our
appreciation for your support of this project; we remain enthusiastic about the relationship we have
developed with you - we just need to find a solution that works for everyone.
Best regards,
Ted
Ted Baylis
President
Pleasant Bay Community Boating
www.pbcb.cc
Atty Brian Wall Opinion:
Ted:
This serves to respond to your request for my assistance regarding the award of grant money to PBCB
from the Town of Brewster through its Community Preservation Committee (CPC).
My understanding of the issue is as follows. PBCB has received awards of Community Preservation Act
(CPA) funds of $25,000 each from four surrounding towns: Brewster, Chatham, Harwich and
Orleans. The awards from Chatham, Harwich and Orleans were outright grants. The award from
Brewster has conditions. The Town of Brewster, in granting public funds, is concerned with PBCB being
open to the public. PBCB convinced the CPC that it is indeed open to the public, and PBCB agreed to the
CPC’s request for signage so that there is an awareness that the public is welcome. In order to ensure
that public access continues after the grant is made, the Brewster CPC seeks to make the $25,000 grant
be in the form of a loan that would be forgiven 1/25 each year for 25 years. All of this is acceptable to
PBCB. However, when the loan documents were transmitted to PBCB, they included a requirement that
PBCB also agree to record a mortgage to secure the loan. Specifically, the “Grant Agreement” and the
“Amendment to Award Letter” state that, in lieu of PBCB granting a “restriction,” PBCB will agree to
keep its property open to the public, and the $25,000 will be in the form of a forgivable loan secured by
a mortgage. PBCB would prefer not to mortgage its property to the Brewster CPC. PBCB has asked for
my assistance in this regard.
Some background on the Community Preservation Act will help understand the Brewster CPC request.
The CPA requires that communities spend, or set aside for future spending, a minimum of 10% of their
annual CPA revenues for each of the three following categories: open space/recreation, historic
preservation, and community housing. The remaining 70% of the funds are undesignated, and can be
used for any allowable project in any of the CPA categories.
CPA funds may be spent on the acquisition, creation, and preservation of open space, and for the
rehabilitation or restoration of any open space that has been acquired or created using CPA
funds. When CPA funds are used to acquire an interest in real property, a permanent deed restriction is
required. This restriction must be filed as a separate instrument, such as a Conservation Restriction (CR),
or Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR), or Historic Preservation Restriction (HR), and until this
step has been completed, the terms of the CPA acquisition have not been technically fulfilled.
The limitations on spending CPA funds is set forth in Section 5(b)(2) of the CPA:
The community preservation committee shall make recommendations to the legislative body for the
acquisition, creation and preservation of open space; for the acquisition, preservation, rehabilitation
and restoration of historic resources; for the acquisition, creation, preservation, rehabilitation and
restoration of land for recreational use; for the acquisition, creation, preservation and support of
community housing; and for the rehabilitation or restoration of open space and community housing that
is acquired or created as provided in this section; provided, however, that funds expended pursuant to
this chapter shall not be used for maintenance.
The requirement for a restriction is set forth in Section 12 of the CPA:
Section 12.
(a) A real property interest that is purchased with monies from the Community Preservation Fund shall
be bound by a permanent deed restriction that meets the requirements of chapter 184, limiting the use
of the interest to the purpose for which it was acquired. The deed restriction shall run with the land and
shall be enforceable by the city or town or the commonwealth. The deed restriction may also run to the
benefit of a nonprofit, charitable corporation or foundation selected by the city or town with the right to
enforce the restriction.
(b) Real property interests acquired under this chapter shall be owned and managed by the city or town,
but the legislative body may delegate management of such property to the conservation commission,
the historical commission, the board of park commissioners or the housing authority, or, in the case of
interests to acquire sites for future wellhead development by a water district, a water supply district or a
fire district. The legislative body may also delegate management of such property to a nonprofit
organization created under chapter 180 or chapter 203.
Bearing all of this in mind, it seems that the Brewster CPC is of the mindset that, in consideration of the
grant of $25,000, the CPC should be getting a restriction in return which restricts PBCB property to being
permanently open to the public. “In lieu” of the restriction, the CPC is willing to grant PBCB the money
in the form of a forgivable loan secured by a mortgage.
The Brewster CPC’s request raises two issues: (1) whether CPA funds can be granted to PBCB for
purposes of constructing the dock and (2) whether a restriction is required.
CPA funds may be spent to acquire, create, preserve rehabilitate and restore land for recreational
use. “Recreational use” is defined in the CPA as:
''Recreational use'', active or passive recreational use including, but not limited to, the use of land for
community gardens, trails, and noncommercial youth and adult sports, and the use of land as a park,
playground or athletic field. ''Recreational use'' shall not include horse or dog racing or the use of land
for a stadium, gymnasium or similar structure.
In my opinion, the expenditure of CPA funds to help construct the dock is an allowable expenditure
because (1) the dock will be used for recreational purposes and, therefore, falls within the aegis of
“recreational use,” and (2) the expenditure of the funds helps to “create” the dock on PBCB’s land for
recreational use. Attached is a chart published by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue that is an
aid to determining whether a project is “allowable” and eligible for use of CPA funds. The chart confirms
that CPA funds may be used to “create” the use of land for recreational purposes. In this case, the funds
are being used to “create” the “dock” which will be used for “recreational purposes” and which will be
open to the public. Thus, the expenditure of CPA funds is “allowable.”
The next question is whether the expenditure necessitates a restriction. Section 12 of the CPA requires
a “permanent deed restriction” whenever CPA funds are used to acquire real property or an interest in
real property. In this instance, the Brewster CPC is not acquiring real property or an interest in real
property. Therefore, in my opinion, a permanent deed restriction is not required.
The Brewster CPC is ensuring that its grant funds will continue to benefit the public for the life of the
loan by conditioning its forgivable loan on PBCB’s property remaining open to the public. The
“forgivable” nature of the loan over a 25 year period ensures the funds will be for public benefit
because, if PBCB changes its practices vis a vis the public, then the remaining loan balance must be
repaid.
In my view, the mortgage is not required to comply with the CPA. The sole purpose of the mortgage
appears to be to secure repayment of the loan.
Since the mortgage is not required to comply with the CPA, then it might be possible for PBCB to discuss
the matter with the Brewster CPC. If PBCB can provide the CPC with assurance that the loan will be
repaid in the event it is not forgiven, then the security of a mortgage would not necessary.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance with this matter.
Brian
Brian J. Wall, Esq.
Troy Wall Associates
90 Route 6A
Sandwich, MA 02563
Office: (508) 888-5700
Cell: (508) 737-3007
bjw@troywallassociates.com<mailto:bjw@troywallassociates.com>
Cape Cod 5 opinion
Hi Ted,
I apologize for not responding sooner. The emails went to my personal email and sometimes miss
those. I am replying from my Cape Cod 5 email, so please use this one going forward.
To respond to your inquiry, if I understand it correctly, the CPC funds are $25,000 in total and they
would want to secure that with a zero interest rate forgivable mortgage loan (forgiven at $1,000 per
year if the conditions are met). I do feel that their request to secure that obligation with a mortgage is
overkill and could create obstacles for future financing as you have indicated. If you did agree to grant a
mortgage we would want to have that obligation structured such that any future borrowings from us (or
another secured creditor) would be senior to their obligation. I am not certain if that can be
incorporated into the document at this time or if it would need to be evidenced by a formal
subordination with any future bank borrowings. That is a legal question and as you have indicated could
be cumbersome and time consuming. I have no objection to PBCB entering into a loan arrangement for
the $25,000, but would certainly recommend that it be on an unsecured basis if at all possible. Any
borrowing should also allow for future repayment at any time without penalty if you needed to remove
them for some reason.
Hope this helps. Happy to discuss it further if you have other thoughts. Thanks for sharing the
information.
Scott
Scott D. Vandersall
Vice President/Regional Manager
The Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank
19 West Road, P.O. Box 10
Orleans, MA 02653-0010
Phone: (508) 247-1623
Fax: (508) 240-3663
Cell: (774) 722-3971
svandersall@capecodfive.com<mailto:svandersall@capecodfive.com>
1
TOWN OF EASTHAM
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
EASTHAM COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
CONSULTANT TO PREPARE COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PLAN
The Town of Eastham Community Preservation Committee seeks proposals from
qualified firms and individuals to prepare a Community Preservation Plan under the
requirements of MGL 44B. The ideal candidate is a firm or individual with thorough
familiarity with the Community Preservation Act and experience preparing similar plans
and documents.
The Request for Proposals (RFP) is available upon request after 10:00 am, Thursday
January 22, 2018 at the Office of the Eastham Town Administrator, 2500 State
Highway, Eastham MA 02642. The RFP may be viewed and printed at the town
website: https://www.eastham-ma.gov/administration/pages/procurement-bids and is
available at Town of Eastham 2500 State Highway Eastham, MA 02642 from 8:00 am
until 4:00 pm Monday through Friday.
All responses must be clearly marked on the outside “Community Preservation Plan
Proposal” and include two separate envelopes 1) Five copies of the Technical Proposal
and 2) One copy of a Cost Proposal which must be received by the Town of Eastham
2500 State Highway, Eastham MA 02642 by Thursday February 8, 2018 at 2:00 pm.
The Town of Eastham reserves the right to reject any and all bids or to waive any
informalities in the proposal process, if deemed in the Town’s best interest.
Community Preservation Committee
2
Town of Eastham
Request for Proposals
Issued January 25, 2018
The Town of Eastham Community Preservation Committee (CPC) seeks proposals from
qualified planning firms or qualified individuals to prepare an update to the current Five
Year Community Preservation Plan (CPP). The Update should cover Fiscal Years
2020 - 2024.
Scope of Work
In general, the selected Consultant would be required to prepare an update to the
current Community Preservation Plan (CPP) that:
• Meets the requirements for a CPP under MGL Chapter 44B commonly referred to as
the Community Preservation Act.
• Establishes priorities for grants in the designated support areas (Affordable Housing,
Historic Preservation, Open Space and Recreation).
• Through a community participation process directed by the Community Preservation
Committee, reflect input from various ‘stakeholders’ in the Town of Eastham, including
but not limited to the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation
Commission, the Historic Commission, the Open Space Committee, the Recreation
Committee, the Eastham Affordable Housing Trust, the Strategic Planning Committee,
the Board of Selectmen and the public.
• Consider information in local and regional planning documents such as the Cape Cod
Commission Regional Policy Plan, the Eastham Local Comprehensive Plan, Historic
Inventory, Affordable Housing Plan, and Open Space and Recreation Plan.
• Evaluate the impact and usefulness of future CPA commitments (including the
pros/cons of remaining within the CPA program) under varying tax percentage
scenarios as permitted under MGL Chapter 44B and in context with the Town’s five
year capital improvement plan and current/projected municipal finances.
• Provide recommendations for streamlined method for monitoring CPA projects to
ensure funds are used appropriately and projects are carried out in compliance with
MGL Chapter 44B.
Required Meetings
The selected Consultant shall attend and participate in a minimum of six meetings with
the CPC and stakeholders, as follows:
3
1. An initial meeting with the CPC to discuss general requirements of the
CPP update.
2. A meeting with CPC Chair, Town Administrator, Finance Director, and Town
Planner to discuss CPA tax scenarios, current and projected finances.
3. A meeting with stakeholders and the public, facilitated by the Consultant, to
obtain input into the CPP update.
4. A meeting with the CPC to review the preliminary draft plan update and
obtain comments.
5. A hearing on the revised draft CPP update to obtain public comment.
6. A meeting with the CPC to review the final Plan.
Timetable
It is anticipated that work will begin in February 2018 and be completed within seven
months prior to August 30, 2018.
Products
The Consultant shall prepare and deliver the following:
• Report on findings of CPA tax scenarios
• A draft Updated CPP
• A final Updated CPP
All items shall be delivered in both electronic and hard copy (12 copies) form. The
electronic format shall be compatible with the Town of Eastham computer system,
including availability on the Town’s website. All documents shall be the property of the
Town of Eastham.
Contractor’s Requirements
1. Insurance: The selected firm shall be required to provide the Town of Eastham
with proof of insurance as follows:
a. Automobile Liability (applicable for any contractor who has
an automobile operating exposure) of at least $1,000,000
Bodily Injury and Property Damage per accident. The Town
should be named as an "Additional Insured".
b. Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by law.
2. Hold Harmless: The Contractor shall hold harmless, defend, and
indemnify the Town and its officers, agents and employees against
all claims, demands, actions and suits (including all attorney fees
and costs) brought against any of them arising from the
Contractor’s work or any subcontractor’s work under the contract.
4
3. General Terms and Conditions: Any contract entered into as a
result of this solicitation will incorporate by reference this Request
for Proposal.
Technical Proposal Requirements
The proposer will submit five copies of the Technical Proposal which shall include:
1. A description of how the work will be performed,
2. A project schedule beginning in February 2018 and ending by August 30, 2018
showing all activities under the contract and benchmarks for production of draft
products which will be delivered to the Eastham Community Preservation
Committee over the project period,
3. Resumes demonstrating the qualifications to work on this project of the
responsible project leader and all employees who will work on this project,
4. Summaries of similar projects that have been completed by the proposer within
the last three years,
5. Three references and information on the proposer from clients for whom similar
work was done.
6. A sample work product similar to the project proposed.
Cost Proposal Requirements
The Cost Proposal shall be submitted in a separate sealed envelope, clearly marked
Community Preservation Plan Cost Proposal and shall include a lump sum inclusive of
all costs to perform the work under the proposal. The Cost Proposal must include the
name and contact information of the vendor and be dated and signed by an authorized
person.
Submission Directions
Proposals shall be submitted as follows:
A. A packet of choice (packet, box, envelope etc) will contain:
1) The non-price or narrative proposal (5 copies)
2) The completed “Certification of Non Collusion”
3) The completed “Statement of Tax Compliance”
4) Acknowledgement of any addenda issued.
The packet will be marked “Technical Proposal: Community Preservation Plan
Proposal (include respondent’s identification) and must be received at the Office of
the Town Administrator, Town of Eastham, 2500 State Highway, Eastham, MA
02642 by Thursday February 8, 2018 at 2:00 pm. Contents will be checked for all
required submissions.
5
B. A sealed envelope containing one copy of the Cost Proposal, marked “Cost
Proposal – Community Preservation Plan Proposal’ (include respondent’s identification
and authorized signature).
Questions:
Questions on the Request for Proposal may be directed to the Town Planner, at
plagg@eastham-ma.gov no later than Friday February 2, 2018 at 4:00 pm.
Selection Process
The ideal candidate is a firm or individual with thorough familiarity with the Community
Preservation Act and experience in preparing similar plans and documents. The
Selection Committee will rate each Technical Proposal according to the criteria below
and make a recommendation of the most advantageous proposal to the Town
Administrator. After review of the Technical Proposals, the Selection Committee may, at
its discretion, schedule interviews with any or all of the proposers for the purpose of
further evaluation of the proposer’s qualifications and ability to provide the required
service. Interviewees will be ranked on their presentation. The Cost Proposal will then
be opened and reviewed by the Town Administrator who will make the final decision on
the contract award.
1. Minimum Evaluation Criteria
The Selection Committee shall first review each technical proposal to ascertain whether
or not the following minimum criteria have been met:
a. The technical proposal includes all of the items for a complete proposal.
b. The proposer meets the minimum qualifications to do the work.
2. Comparative Evaluation Criteria
All responsive proposals will be judged against the Comparative Evaluation Criteria
detailed below. The Town will rank each proposal as:
a. Highly Advantageous – the proposal fully meets and significantly exceeds
the standards of the specific criterion;
b. Advantageous – the proposal fully satisfies the standards of the specific
criterion;
c. Not Advantageous – the proposal does not fully meet the standards of the
specific criterion, is incomplete, unclear, or both.
6
2.1. Quality and Depth of Project Experience
Highly Advantageous – The project proposal demonstrates superior experience
in providing services related to the Town’s requirements. The project proposal
demonstrates a wide depth of experience with similar projects (5 or more), and
prior experience with public or private not-to-exceed or fixed-fee contracts.
Project work samples are of outstanding quality in content and technical
presentation.
Advantageous – The project proposal demonstrates solid experience in
providing services related to the Towns requirements. The project proposal
demonstrates a good depth of experience with similar projects (3 to 5), and
prior experience with municipally or privately funded not-to-exceed or fixed-
fee contracts. Project work samples are of good quality in content and
technical presentation.
Not Advantageous – The proposer has limited experience in providing services
related to the Town’s requirements or with similar projects (less than 3), and
prior experience with public or private, not-to-exceed or fixed fee contracts.
Project work samples minimally meet current standards for content and
technical presentation.
2.2. Qualifications of the Proposer
Highly Advantageous – The proposer’s resume(s) demonstrate that proposer
has superior training, educational background and work experience appropriate
to the project described herein and all key project personnel demonstrate
professional experience well beyond the minimum requirements.
Advantageous – The proposer’s resume(s) demonstrate that proposer
has adequate training, educational background and work experience
appropriate to the project described herein and all key project personnel
demonstrate professional experience that meets or somewhat exceeds
the minimum requirements.
Not Advantageous – The proposer’s resume(s) do not demonstrate that
proposer has adequate training, educational background and work
experience appropriate to the project described herein.
2.3. Desirability of approach to the project, demonstrated understanding of the
community’s open space, historic, recreation and affordable housing needs, and
proposer’s ability to undertake and complete this project in a timely manner.
Highly Advantageous – The proposal demonstrates a superior approach to the
subject material, an understanding of the community preservation needs
7
addressed by the project, and a clear analysis of the time required for each
phase of the project. All references confirmed that consultant had met schedule
expectations and delivered an “on-time” project.
Advantageous – The proposal demonstrates a good approach to the subject
material, an understanding of the historic and cultural resource issues
addressed by the project, and presents a time schedule that meets the project
requirements. One reference stated that consultant was unable to meet the
agreed-upon project schedule.
Not Advantageous – The proposal does not demonstrate a desirable approach to
the project and does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the community’s
historic and cultural resource protection needs. More than one reference
indicated that consultant had been unable to meet the agreed-upon project
schedule.
2.4. Overall Quality of Client References
Highly Advantageous – All references contacted spoke favorably of the work
performed by the proposer and would use them again for a similar project
without hesitation.
Advantageous – The great majority of references spoke favorably of the work
performed by the proposer and would use them again for a similar project without
hesitation.
Not Advantageous – One reference stated that there had been significant
difficulties with the proposer’s ability to deliver the contracted services and
deliverables.
2.5. Completeness and Quality of Proposal
Highly Advantageous – Response is complete, concise, informative, and highly
detailed. Proposal reflects that proposer is able to perform in a superior manner
acceptable to the Town. Selection Committee is completely convinced about the
proposer’s ability to provide the level of services as required by the Town.
Proposal demonstrates excellent communication and documentation skills.
Advantageous – Response is complete, informative, and meets criteria for
responsiveness. Selection Committee finds proposal reflects that proposer is
able to perform in an adequate manner acceptable to the Town. Proposal
demonstrates a good level of communication and documentation skills.
Not Advantageous – Response lacks a comprehensive approach, but meets
criteria for responsiveness. Selection Committee finds proposal reflects that
8
proposer may be able to perform in a manner acceptable to the Town.
Communication and documentation skills appear only adequate.
REQUIRED FORMS
The following blank forms must be completed and included with the Technical Proposal.
Certification of Non-Collusion
Statement of Tax Compliance
TOWN OF EASTHAM
INVITATION FOR BID
CERTIFICATION OF NON-COLLUSION
The undersigned certifies under the penalties of perjury that this bid or proposal has been made
and submitted in good faith and without collusion or fraud with any other person. As used in this
certification, the word “person” shall mean any natural person, business, partnership,
corporation, union, committee, club or other organization, entity or group of individuals.
_____________________________________________________
(Signature of individual signing bid or proposal)
_____________________________________________________
(Name of business)
STATEMENT OF TAX COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 62C, Section 49A, I certify under penalties of perjury that I, to my
best knowledge and belief, have complied with all laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
relating to taxes.
Social Security or
Federal Identification Number: ________________________________
Signature of individual signing
Bid or proposal: ________________________________
Dated: ________________________________
APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE FUNDING
Historical Commission Form B Publication Expense
Project Name (or “None”)
Date: 05/24/21
Name of Person Submitting Request: Faythe Ellis
Daytime Phone Number: 508-896-9937
Email Address: Faythe.Ellis@Outlook.com
Requested Amount: ___$400_________________________
Expense Description: Printing and Binder expense for library copies of the completed Form B’s (Historic
house information). These will be housed in the reference section of the Brewster Ladies Library. This
expense is expected to be incurred prior to June 30, 2021.
Administration Expenses Category: __Open Space x_Historic Preservation __Recreation __
Community Housing
CPC Action:
☐ Approved Amount: $______________ CPC Liaison:
☐ Disapproved ☐ Other Action:
Date CPC Chair Signature
Administrative Expenses Committed to Date in FY 20___: $_______________________
Form PE 6/14/2018
Community Preservation Committee
Minutes of April 28, 2021 Page 1 of 2
2198 Main Street
Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898
(508) 896-3701
FAX (508) 896-8089
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
Virtual Meeting
Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2021
Present: Community Preservation Committee (CPC) - Chair Faythe Ellis, Vice-Chair Sharon Marotti,
Clerk Elizabeth Taylor, Roland Bassett, Bruce Evans, Paul Ruchinskas, Diane Pansire, Peggy Jablonski
Absent: Barbara Burgo
Also Present: Donna Kalinick, Assistant Town Administrator; Cynthia Bingham, Select Board
Chair Faythe Ellis called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm and announced a quorum
This meeting will be conducted by remote participation pursuant to Gov. Baker’s March 2020 orders suspending certain Open Meeting Law provisions
and imposing limits on public gatherings. No in-person meeting attendance will be permitted. If the Town is unable to live broadcast this meeting, a
record of the proceedings will be provided on the Town website as soon as possible.
1.Financial Report
Sharon addressed the Committee. She said we got an email from the State announcing the initial rounds of the
distributions of the CPC Funds will be 32.3% of the projected revenue. This is very good as we were basing our
original figures on 15%. Also, since we are a town that does that 3% contribution from our taxes, we are eligible
for a 2nd and possibly a 3rd round of distributions in the future of whatever remaining money there is which means
we will end up with even more than the 32.3% at the end of the day.
2.Discussion and possible vote to extend term of Brewster Woods Mortgage to 40 years
Paul recused himself from this discussion.
Faythe included in the packet the back and forth with Town Counsel on the subject. Town Counsel is
recommending the Town consider agreeing to a longer-term 40 year mortgage.
Sharon said she wasn’t on the CPC at the time this happened and wondered what the reasoning would be
for giving this as a mortgage and not a distribution or grant. Is there a concept of them repaying it?
Faythe said it was a 0% interest loan with no concept of repaying. She said this is not unusual, and we
have other discussions of unsecured loans for other projects. From where she sits, she is comfortable
recommending we do this as Town Counsel has said they are comfortable with this approach.
Motion to extend the term of the mortgage from 30 to 40 years.
MOVED by Bruce Evans. Seconded by Roland Bassett.
Roll Call Vote: Sharon Marotti – yes, Bruce Evans – yes, Elizabeth Taylor – yes, Roland Bassett –
yes, Peggy Jablonski - yes, Diane Pansire – yes, Chair Ellis - yes
VOTE 7-yes 0-no
Approved:
VOTE:
Community Preservation Committee
Minutes of April 28, 2021 Page 2 of 2
3.Discussion and possible vote to approve edits to Stony Brook Retaining Wall Award Letter draft
Faythe deferred this discussion to the next meeting.
4.Discussion of possible joint meeting with Town of Dennis CPC
Faythe said Elizabeth had an email from the new Chair of the Dennis CPC suggesting we have a joint
meeting with them as they had done with the Town of Yarmouth. Faythe thinks this is a great idea.
Diane asked if this would be the entire meeting. Faythe said she was unsure how it would work, but she
would return his email, and then the Committee could discuss the format.
5.Approval of minutes from April 14, 2021
Motion to approve the minutes from 4/14/2021 as presented.
MOVED by Diane Pansire. Seconded by Roland Bassett.
Roll Call Vote: Sharon Marotti – yes, Bruce Evans – yes, Elizabeth Taylor – yes, Roland Bassett –
yes, Paul Ruchinskas – yes, Peggy Jablonski - yes, Diane Pansire – yes, Chair Ellis - yes
VOTE 8-yes 0-no
6.Project updates- none
7.Announcements
Reminder that Sharon and Faythe will be attending the Brewster Community Network meeting
tomorrow night at 6:30pm. One of the topics they will be discussing is the Dog Park Application.
Sharon will be the lead presenter.
Paul responded to Sharon’s earlier question by saying that it is worth having the CPC Award be
structured as a mortgage – on the off-chance something goes wrong with the development or there are
violations to the Affordable Housing Restriction, it gives the Town the ability to get their money back.
8.Items the Chair could not anticipate – none
9.Next meeting dates: 5/12/21 at 4pm
MOTION made by Sharon Marotti to adjourn the meeting at 4:13 pm.
Elizabeth Taylor second.
Roll Call Vote: Bruce Evans – yes, Elizabeth Taylor – yes, Paul Ruchinskas – yes, Roland Bassett
– yes, Sharon Marotti – yes, Peggy Jablonski - yes, Diane Pansire – yes, Chair Ellis - yes
VOTE 8-yes 0-no
Respectfully submitted, Beth Devine, Recording Secretary
Packet of additional documents available on website for public review.