Loading...
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.