HomeMy Public PortalAbout031014agendapacket0
1
Paul W. Todisco - Senior Client Services Officer
Paul Todisco is the Senior Client Services Officer for the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment
Management (“PRIM”) Board. Paul, who originally joined PRIM in 1984 as a seminal member of the PRIM staff,
returned to the PRIM staff on September 15, 2008 after a six-year hiatus. During that time, he served as the
Executive Director of the Health Care Security Trust (“HCST”), the endowment created by the Commonwealth to
invest a portion of the annual payments Massachusetts receives from the landmark 1998 tobacco settlement
that arose from a class action suit between 46 states and the big tobacco manufacturers. Between his service at
the HCST and PRIM, Paul has 30 years’ experience in the public investment fund arena. He played an integral
role in developing PRIM’s modern client service program; in particular, working on legislative strategy that led to
the passage of a bill creating the highly successful “segmentation” investment program, which allows local
retirement systems to invest in eligible asset classes of the Pension Reserves Investment Trust (“PRIT”) as an
option to investing in the total PRIT Fund.
Prior to joining PRIM, Paul served as Staff and Research Director for the Joint Committee on Public Service in the
Massachusetts legislature from 1982–1984, where he advised the Committee members on legislation
concerning public pensions, collective bargaining, civil service, and state and municipal administrative matters.
Paul is a graduate of Suffolk University (BS cum laude 1976). On April 20, 2013, Paul was awarded the Claritas
Investment Certificate by the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) Institute, having successfully passed the Claritas
Investment Certificate Exam. He resides in Marblehead and has two children, Will (29) and Diana (20).
2
Evolution of the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund (SRBTF)
1999 - MGL Chapter 29D enacted and signed into law as part of the FY 2000 GAA (section 43 of Chapter 127 of the Acts of 1999),
creating the Health Care Security Trust ("HCST"), into which the Master Settlement annual payments are to be deposited, and also
creating the HCST Board of Trustees, a 7-member Board charged with the supervision and management of the HCST and the MSA funds
therein. Significant features of Chapter 29D include: 7-member Board appointed by Governor (5), Treasurer (1) and AG (1); 70/30 %
schedule of saving/spending ratio established for annual MSA payments to be received in subsequent fiscal years, with the 30% for
spending to be "for health related and tobacco control purposes".
2004 - The GASB (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) issues Standards 43 and 45, requiring all (non-federal) government
employers to take steps to define and disclose actuarial liability for retirees' non-pension post-employment benefits (aka "Other Post-
Employment Benefits" or "OPEB"), and to determine the actuarial liability for those OPEB benefits.
2007 - The State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund (SRBTF) is legislatively created to address and administer OPEB state retiree benefits;
composition of the SRBTF Board is "PRIM plus 2", i.e., the existing PRIM Board members plus A&G and GIC (Section 8 of Chapter 61 of the
Acts of 2007 states: " There shall be set up on the books of the commonwealth a fund to be known as the State Retiree Benefit s Trust
Fund … The pension reserves investment management board … shall be the trustee of and shall administer the fund. For the purposes of
this section the secretary of the executive office of administration and finance, or his designee, and the executive director of the group
insurance commission … shall be members of the [PRIM] board ... The purpose of said [SRBTF] fund shall be for depositing, investing and
disbursing amounts set aside solely to meet liabilities of the state employees’ retirement system for health care and other n on-pension
benefits for retired members of the system ..."). The legislation also abolished the HCST.
2007 – Special Commission is legislatively established to study and report on numerous issues associated with GASB 43 and 45 and
OPEB liability -- said Special Commission issues its report in 2008, and many of its recommendations are subsequently filed as l egislative
proposals, and some subsequently enacted and signed into law.
2008 - "Interim" outside section is enacted and signed into law stating that the HCST shall manage the SRBTF while the legislature
considers the recommendations of the special OPEB study commission (See section 12 of Chapter 235 of the Acts of 2008: "… in order to
minimize investment fees and maximize returns through continuity of investment management of the [SRBTF] … while the general court
considers the recommendations of the [special] commission … investments of the trust shall be held and managed by the [HCST] board of
trustees … until legislation is enacted confirming management of the [SRBTF]").
2009 - Interim status of HCST management of SRBTF becomes permanent, and HCST Board is reconfigured.
3
Who Manages the SRBTF? Who Can Invest in the SRBTF?
The seven-member Health Care Security Trust (HCST) Board, established by Section 4 of Chapter 29D of the
General Laws, is responsible for the administration and investment management of the SRBTF. The HCST
Board is comprised of the Secretary of Administration & Finance or a designee, the Executive Director of the
Group Insurance Commission or a designee, the Executive Director of the Public Employee Administration
Commission (PERAC) or a designee, the State Treasurer or a designee, the Comptroller or a designee, an
appointee of the Governor, and an appointee of the State Treasurer (both appointed members are required
to have investment, financial management, legal, or public management experience).
Chapter 68 of the Acts of 2011, the FY 2012 state budget, was signed into law in July 2011. Sections 50 and
57 of Chapter 68 amend Section 24 of Chapter 32A and Section 20 of Chapter 32B, respectively, of the
General Laws allowing municipalities, authorities, and certain other government entities of the
Commonwealth to establish a liability trust fund for funding retiree benefits (other than pension), also known
as Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB). The legislation also ensures that these entities have access to
the state’s investment trust, the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund (SRBTF), for purposes of investing OPEB
funds. Further, Section 20 of Chapter 32B, as amended, designates the entities eligible to serve as custodian
of such funds: 1) a designee appointed by the board of a municipal lighting plant, 2) the treasurer of any
governmental unit, or 3) the Health Care Security Trust (HCST) Board of Trustees, which oversees the SRBTF.
In August 2011, the HCST Board voted to assign full investment management of the SRBTF assets to the nine-
member Pension Reserves Investment Management (PRIM) Board, which manages the approximately
$57 billion Pension Reserves Investment Trust (PRIT) Fund, the state pension fund. PRIM and PRIT were
established in 1983 to address the Commonwealth’s unfunded pension liabilities.
4
Composition of the Health Care Security Trust Board
State Comptroller, or designee (Chair) Martin J. Benison
Secretary of Administration & Finance, Julia Chabrier
or designee
State Treasurer, or designee Alan F. Gordon
Treasurer’s appointee Michael Tow
Governor’s appointee Terrence Finn
Executive Director, Group Insurance Commission, Dolores L. Mitchell
or designee
Executive Director, Public Employee Retirement Joseph E. Connarton
Administration Commission, or designee
5
Section 20 of Chapter 32 B provides a Road-Map for entities to establish an OPEB trust without a
special act and without a funding schedule requirement:
Government entities setting up an OPEB Trust should adopt Section 20
Identifies HCST and entity treasurer as options for custodian (not retirement systems)
Provides “turn-key ” option to invest in SRBTF by appointing the HCST as custodian
If the treasurer is custodian, Section 24 of Chapter 32A allows investment in SRBTF
HCST Board Approval required in either case
Section 24 of Chapter 32A (as amended) provides entities who already have an OPEB Trust fund
with the ability to invest in the SRBTF
Must have appropriate investment authority
Retirement systems are grandfathered
HCST Board Approval required
NEW: Section 7 of Chapter 36 of the Acts of 2013 amended Section 24 of Chapter 32A and now
requires the HCST board of trustees to invest the SRBTF assets in the PRIT Fund.
Summary of Legislation
6
HCST Board Approval Requirements
Evidence of authorization
Acknowledgement of investment risk, understanding of agreements
Acknowledgement of fiduciary obligation (HCST as custodian or custodial
designee)
Indication of commitment to fund
Application of Legislation
7
State OPEB Reporting Requirements
MGL 32B:20 (d)
Shall annually submit to the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission
(PERAC) on or before December 31, a summary of its OPEB cost and obligations and
all related information required under GASB 45, covering the last fiscal or calendar
year for which this information is available.
On or before June 30 of the following year, PERAC shall notify any entity submitting
this summary of any concerns that the commission may have or any areas in which
the summary does not conform to the requirements of GASB 45 or other standards
that the commission may establish.
PERAC shall file a summary report of the information received under this subsection
with the chairs of the house and senate committees on ways and means, the
secretary of administration and finance and the board of trustees of the Health Care
Security Trust.
8
http://www.mass.gov/anf/srbtf.html
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).
Custodian and Investment Agreement, Exhibits, and Opinion of Counsel.
Exhibit A – Sample language of resolution/vote of a government entity authorizing the HCST to invest such government entity’s
OPEB liability funds. Vote must be certified.
Exhibit B – Investment Services Agreement (ISA) between HCST and PRIM.
Exhibit C – PRIM Operating Trust Agreement.
Exhibit D - HCST and PRIM Administrative Services Agreement.
Exhibit E – HCST Policies and Procedures.
Sample of boilerplate language for government entity’s Opinion of Counsel letter, i.e., what should be included in the letter .
Draft of Certificate of the Clerk of City/Town. May be customized for type of entity (e.g., an authority, county, district,
light department).
Checklists for government entities investing in SRBTF under Chapter 32B, §20, under Chapter 32A, §24, or under
Special Legislation.
Downloadable Documents Posted to SRBTF Web Page
9
Governmental Entities Participating in the SRBTF
1.Town of Acton
2.Town of Amherst
3.Town of Bedford
4.Town of Boxford
5.Town of Burlington
6.Town of Chelmsford
7.Concord Area Special Education (CASE) Collaborative
8.Town of Cohasset (Asset transfer pending)
9.Town of Harvard
10.Town of Hingham
11.Town of Ipswich
12.Town of Marblehead
13.Massachusetts School Building Authority
14.Mass State Retirees
15.Town of Needham
16.Town of Tewksbury (Asset transfer March 1, 2014)
17.Town of Wakefield
18.Wakefield Municipal Gas & Light Department
19.Town of Wellesley
Participant assets, excluding Mass State Retirees, were $75.8 million as of December 31, 2013.
Total SRBTF assets were $587.0 million as of December 31, 2013.
10
Municipal Outreach
Acton-Boxborough Regional School District
Ayer
BiCounty Educational Collaborative, Franklin, MA
Braintree
Brewster
Brookline
Chelmsford Water District
Dartmouth
Greater Lawrence Sanitary District
Leominster
Lowell Regional Transit Authority
Lower Pioneer Valley Educational Collaborative
Manchester-by-the-Sea
Manchester-Essex Regional School District
Middleton
Massachusetts Housing Finance Authority
Newbury
Newton
Northborough
Pilgrim Area Collaborative, Pembroke, MA
Stockbridge
Waltham
West Newbury
Westwood
11
1. Benefits to Investing in the SRBTF
Municipal OPEB liability trust fund assets are professionally managed within a
governance structure that has layers of fiduciary oversight, in the same manner
that the Massachusetts Retirement Systems’ assets are managed :
Pension Reserves Investment Management (PRIM) Board: 9 Appointed and Elected
Trustees.
Four Advisory Committees (Investment, Real Estate, and Administration & Audit
Committees, and Compensation Committees that are comprised of PRIM trustees and
industry professional volunteers).
32-person full-time professional staff (Investments, Legal, Financial Operations, Client
Service).
Four preeminent investment consultants for Public Markets (Long Only Investments), Real
Estate, Private Equity & Private Debt, and Hedge Funds.
29 Public Securities Managers Investing in 38 Portfolios; 10 Real Estate, Timber & REIT
Managers; 100+ Private Equity and Private Debt Managers (200+ Partnerships); One
Hedge Fund-of-Funds Manager, and 22 Direct Hedge Fund Managers.
PRIM’s Custodian Bank – No need to use separate custodian bank for OPEB assets.
Outside Independent Public Auditing Firm audits the PRIT Fund.
12
2. Benefits to Investing in the SRBTF
As with Retirement System’s assets…
Municipalities enjoy low costs resulting from economies of scale (55 basis points, or
0.55%, total cost of operation in PRIT’s most recent audited fiscal year). Total cost of
operation includes ALL expenses of managing the PRIT Fund and PRIM operations. There
are no additional administrative fees charged by PRIM.
Municipal OPEB liability trust funds have full exposure to the PRIT Fund’s strategic asset
allocation and fully diversified portfolio:
Seven Major Asset Classes: Global Equity (includes U.S., non-U.S Developed, and
Emerging Markets), Core Fixed Income, Value-Added Fixed Income (includes High
Yield Bonds, Bank Loans, Emerging Markets Debt, Private Debt), Private Equity
(buyouts and venture capital), Real Estate (includes both private and public real
estate markets), Timber/Natural Resources, and Hedge Funds).
The PRIT Fund is diversified among and within asset classes. Portfolio risk is
mitigated when asset classes have low correlations to each other.
The majority of PRIT’s global public equities are “passively” managed using index
funds, which costs less in fees than if the portfolios were “actively” managed, i.e.,
designed to outperform a specific market index (e.g., the S&P 500 ).
By participating in the SRBTF, a municipality has access to “alternative assets”,
such as Private Equity, Private Real Estate, Direct Hedge Funds, Timber, and
Private Debt that are otherwise cost prohibitive many smaller municipal trust
funds.
13
3. Benefit to Investing in the SRBTF
Municipalities , HCST, and PRIM’s interests are totally aligned:
PRIM is a retirement board, as defined in M.G.L., Chapter 32, and is
statutorily established to invest the assets of any Massachusetts
contributory retirement system that opts to join the PRIT Fund.
Additionally, recent legislation has mandated that the Health Care
Security Trust (HCST) Board employ PRIM to invest the SRBTF, ensuring
that a municipality’s liability trust funds and retirement system’s assets
will always be managed identically.
There are no financial incentives for PRIM staff to “accumulate assets”, as
is the case for most private investment and consulting firms.
14
4. In Summary…
Municipalities' OPEB liability trust funds are invested the same way the Massachusetts Retirement System’s
assets are managed.
The PRIT Fund’s General Allocation Account, aka PRIT Core, which holds ALL of PRIT’s investments.
Diversification, diversification, diversification!
Lowers overall portfolio risk.
Municipalities’ OPEB liability trust funds gain access to PRIT’s alternative investments, which are unavailable to
smaller investors due to cost and minimum investment requirements (i.e., Private Equity, Direct Hedge Funds,
Timber, Private real Estate, Private Debt).
Municipalities’ OPEB assets are managed at a very low cost due to economies of scale.
Fifty-five basis points, based on PRIT’s most recent audit. This includes ALL expenses incurred by PRIM and PRIT.
Municipalities receive a concise monthly capital account statement from PRIM identical to the one the
Participating and Purchasing Retirement Systems receives each month.
Proven long-term investment performance track record.
Since inception (2/28/1985), the average annual return of the PRIT Core Fund was 9.69% as of December 31,
2013.
Municipalities, HCST, and PRIM’s interests are totally aligned.
There are no financial incentives for PRIM staff to “accumulate assets”, as is the case for most private
investment and consulting firms.
Municipalities have a responsive and dedicated client services team at PRIM representing their needs.
15
NAV $ (M)
Actual
Allocation % Month QTD FY '14
Calendar
YTD 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year
Since
Inception
GENERAL ALLOCATION*
554,124 100.0% 1.70 4.71 9.88 14.80 14.80 14.25
CLOSED PORTFOLIOS
59 0.0%
CASH
(235) 0.0%
TOTAL
553,948 100% 1.70 4.68 9.82 14.66 14.66 9.98 11.37 7.03 7.21
PARTICIPANTS CASH
33,067 0.01 0.02 0.04
TOTAL FUND**
587,015 100% 1.69 4.67 9.81 14.65 14.65 9.98 11.36 7.03 7.21
POLICY BENCHMARK 1.04 3.91 8.61 12.60 12.60 8.43 11.75 6.40 6.70
ACTUAL ALLOCATION BENCHMARK 1.58 4.31 9.33 13.85 13.85 9.26 11.36 6.87 7.09
•The inception date for the HCST's investment in the PRIT Fund General Allocation Account (PRIT GA) was 10/31/2011, when 82% of the fund was
transitioned from separate accounts to PRIT GA. The remaining 18% of separate account assets were transitioned over the following 14 months with
100% of assets invested in PRIT GA by 12/31/2012. This ITD value reflects the inception-to-date return for PRIT GA assets only.
** The inception date for the TOTAL FUND was 11/30/2001. This ITD value reflects the true inception-to-date return for all HCST assets including legacy
separate account investments as well as the PRIT GA investments.
16
The PRIM Board and the PRIT Fund
Steven Grossman, Treasurer and Receiver General, Chair
Michael G. Trotsky, CFA, Executive Director and Chief Investment Officer
17
PRIM is a Retirement Board with Layers of Fiduciary Oversight
Pension Reserves Investment Management (PRIM) Board
9 Appointed and Elected Trustees
PRIT Fund - $57.9 billon as of 12/31/2013
29 Public Securities Managers Investing 38 Portfolios
10 Real Estate, Timber & REIT Managers
100+ Private Equity and Private Debt Managers, 200+ Partnerships
1 Hedge Fund-of-Funds Manager, 22 Direct Hedge Fund Managers
Public Markets, Private Equity, Hedge Fund and Real Estate Consultants
PRIM Staff – 32 Professionals
Beneficiaries: 88% of All Retirement Boards:
Mass Teachers’ Retirement System
State Employees’ Retirement System
& 91 Local Retirement Systems
Investment, Real Estate, Administration and Audit and
Compensation Committees
24 Industry Professionals & Board Members
18
PRIM Board Composition
Treasurer or Designee (Chair) Treasurer Steven Grossman
Governor or Designee Secretary Glen Shor
Treasurer’s Private Citizen Appointee Alexander E. Aikens, III, Esq.
Governor’s Private Citizen Appointee Anthony E. Hubbard, Esq.
Governor’s Public Safety Union Appointee Dana A. Pullman
Teachers’ Retirement Board Elected Member Dennis J. Naughton
State Retirement Board Elected Member Theresa F. McGoldrick, Esq.
Member Elected by Teachers Retirement Robert L. Brousseau
Member Elected by State Employees Paul E. Shanley, Esq.
19
PRIM Advisory Committees
Investment Committee
Treasurer Steven Grossman, Chair PRIM Board Chair
C. LaRoy Brantley Cambridge Associates
Michael Even, CFA Numeric Investors
Constance M. Everson, CFA Capital Markets
Edward W. Kane HarbourVest Partners
Paul E. Shanley, Esq. PRIM Board Member
A&F Secretary Glen Shor PRIM Board Member
Glenn P. Strehle, CFA MIT (Retired)
Timothy L. Vaill Retired Chair/CEO
Boston Private Financial
Real Estate Committee
Alexander E Aikens, III, Chair PRIM Board Member
Treasurer Steven Grossman PRIM Board Chair
Jill S. Hatton, CRE Blackrock (Retired)
Anthony E. Hubbard, Esq. PRIM Board Member
Jack Lutz, PhD Forest Research Group
William F. McCall, Jr. McCall & Almy, Inc.
Garlan Morse, Jr. CRE Morris & Morse Co, Inc.
Peter F. O’Connell Marina Bay Company
Audit & Administration Committee
Robert L. Brousseau, Chair PRIM Board Member
Theodore C. Alexiades Hingham Retirement
Patrick E. Brock Hampshire County
Karen E. Gershman, CPA Health Advances
Treasurer Steven Grossman PRIM Board Chair
Shanti A. Fry Finance Professional
Renée M. Landers, Esq. Suffolk University Law
Theresa F. McGoldrick, Esq. PRIM Board Member
Dennis J. Naughton PRIM Board Member
A&F Secretary Glen Shor PRIM Board Member
Michele A. Whitham, Esq. Foley Hoag
Compensation Committee
Michele A. Whitham, Esq.,Chair Foley Hoag
Patrick E. Brock Hampshire County
Robert L. Brousseau PRIM Board Member
Shanti A. Fry Finance Professional
Treasurer Steven Grossman PRIM Board Chair
20
Organizational Chart
Executive Director
Chief Investment Officer
Michael G. Trotsky, CFA
August 18, 2010
Senior Investment Officer
Real Estate and Timberland
Timothy V. Schlitzer
March 21, 2005
Investment Officer
Real Estate and
Timberland
John F. LaCara
August 4, 2008
Senior Investment Officer
Director of Private Equity
Michael R. Bailey
February 26, 2013
Senior Investment Officer
Private Equity
OPEN
Investment Officer
Private Equity
Peony K. Keve, CFA, CAIA
July 21, 2008
Investment Officer
Private Equity
OPEN
Senior Investment Officer
Director of Public Markets and
Investment Research
Sarah N. Samuels, CFA
June 27, 2011
Senior Investment Officer
OPEN
Investment Analyst
Public Markets
Michael Carritte
October 13, 2011
Senior Investment Officer
Fixed Income
Chuck LaPosta, CFA
September 30, 2013
Senior Investment Officer
Hedge Funds and
Low Volatility Strategies
Eric R. Nierenberg, Ph.D.
December 5, 2012
Hedge Fund Intern
Jiazhu Zhang
June 3, 2013
Deputy Chief Investment
Officer and Director of Risk
David M. Gurtz, CPA, CFA
January 31, 2008
Risk Officer
Donald R. Payne
November 6, 2006
Senior Client Service Officer
Paul W. Todisco
November 5, 1984
Deputy Executive Director
General Counsel
Christopher J. Supple
July 26, 2011
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Thomas A. Hanna, CPA
May 22, 2000
Director of Investment
Operations
Matthew Liposky
September 30, 2013
Manager of Investment
Reporting and Systems
Administrator
Izzy Markov, CPA
February 16, 1998
Manager of Real Estate
and Timberland
Accounting and Reporting
Catherine M. Hodges
March 8, 2004
Senior Financial Analyst
Eileen A. Molloy
July 22, 2002
Compliance Analyst
Ellen M. Hennessy
April 30, 2012
Accounting Assistant
Morgan D. Burns
April 8, 2013
Director of Finance and
Administration
Daniel C. Eckman, CPA
October 14, 2013
Manager of Client
Reporting and Cash
Management
Jennifer L. Cole
February 11, 2002
Financial Analyst
Veronica Williams
January 9, 2006
Office Administrator
Alyssa Smith
February 17, 2004
Accounting Assistant
Nicole E. Gruet
February 1, 2013
Receptionist
Nora Mata Davis
April 8, 2013
Administrative
Assistant
Jill Luci
December 4, 2013
Chief Technology Officer
Anthony J. Falzone
January 3, 2006
Financial Reporting
Manager
Qingmei Li, CPA
August 18, 2011
Executive Assistant
Samantha Wong
October 4, 2010
21
Total PRIT Fund NAV ($Billions)
Calendar Years 2000-2013
$30.3 $28.7
$25.9
$32.0
$36.0
$40.2
$46.7
$53.7
$37.8
$42.7
$48.3 $47.0
$52.0
$57.9
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
22
PRIT Core Fund Asset Allocation Targets - Adopted February 4, 2014
Current New Current vs. New
U.S. Large Cap 15.0%14.5%-0.5%
U.S. Small/Mid Cap 4.0%3.5%-0.5%
International 17.0%16.0%-1.0%
Emerging Markets 7.0%6.0%-1.0%
Total Global Equity 43.0%40.0%
Core Bonds 10.0%0.0%-10.0%
High Yield Bonds 1.5%1.5%
Bank Loans 1.5%1.5%
EMD (External) 1.0%1.0%
EMD (Local Currency) 2.0%2.0%
TIPS 3.0%3.0%
Long Treasuries 0.0%10.0%10.0%
Total Fixed Income 19.0%19.0%
Private Equity 10.0%10.0%
Private Debt 4.0%4.0%
Real Estate 10.0%10.0%
Hedge Funds 10.0%9.0%-1.0%
Timber/Natural Resources 4.0%4.0%
Total Alternatives 38.0%37.0%
Portfolio Completion Strategies 0.0%4.0%4.0%
Return/Risk Return/Risk
5-7 Year Expected Return 7.1%7.1%
30 Year Expected Return 8.2%8.2%
Risk (Std. Deviation) 12.9%12.3%
Sharpe Ratio 0.43 0.46
23
10.1%
15.2%
9.5%
11.9%
7.7%
8.6%
12.6%
7.7%
10.7%
7.3%
1.5%
2.6%
1.9%
1.2%
0.4%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years
Total Fund Return ex Cash Total Fund Return Total Core Benchmark*Value Added
Total PRIT Fund Returns (Gross of Fees)
As of December 31, 2013
*Includes Private Equity Benchmark
24
PRIT Fund Ratio of Expenses in Basis Points
43 43 42
52
63
54 52 51 54 50 50
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
25
How Are Fees Allocated to SRBTF Participants?
The pro rata share of fees is approximately 55 basis points, which is PRIM’s management fee
expense and is the combination of the following:
Direct investment management fees paid to third party managers, paid by PRIM check
or wire.
Consultant and advisory fees paid to third party consultants and advisors, paid by
PRIM check or wire.
Costs for maintaining and operating PRIM’s offices, paid by PRIM check or wire.
Indirect investment management fees which are charged against investments by
commingled funds and private investment managers (private equity, real estate.
Hedge funds, etc.).
Each month-end, a participant in the PRIT Fund is allocated a share of these costs according to
the percentage of the PRIT Fund that the participant owns. For example, if a participant owns
one-fifth-of-one-percent of the PRIT Fund, the management fee shown on the monthly capital
acount statement will reflect one-fifth-of-one-percent of PRIT’s monthly costs. In addition to
PRIM fees, there is the shared cost among SRBTF participants in funding the operations of the
Health Care Security Trust (HCST)Board (the entity that oversees the SRBTF), which equates to
less than one basis point. Again, such fee is allocated on a pro rata basis, with the state paying
the largest share of that fee, as it is the largest participant in the SRBTF, with assets over $500
million.
NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Regional School Assessment--Statutory Method
% of Students 46.27780%22.71680%19.87720%11.12820%100.00000%
Member Town Brewster Eastham Orleans Wellfleet Total
Budget $25,068,898
W Chapter 70 -$3,321,529
Minimum Local Requirement (MLC)-$11,365,672 $5,277,185 $2,574,437 $2,236,324 $1,277,726 $11,365,672
Other Sources of Income -$2,542,503
Amount above Chapt.70 and MLC $7,839,194 $3,627,807 $1,780,814 $1,558,212 $872,361 $7,839,194
Transportation $1,520,431
X Reg. Transp. Income -$557,444
Amount Above Reimb.$962,987 $445,649 $218,760 $191,415 $107,163 $962,987
Debt Service & Capital Articles $1,134,695
Y MSBA Reimbursement Income -$654,591
Amount above Reimb.$480,104 $222,182 $109,064 $95,431 $53,427 $480,104
Z Total Budget $27,724,024
TOTAL ASSESSMENT STATUTORY METHOD $9,572,822 $4,683,075 $4,081,382 $2,310,677 $20,647,957 $20,647,957
Chapter 70 Aid $3,321,529
Regional Transportation Income $557,444
MSBA Reimbursement $654,591
Local Income $2,542,503
Budget Income Cross Check $27,724,024
COMPARISSON OF ASSESSMENT METHODS:
Statutory $9,572,822 $4,683,075 $4,081,382 $2,310,677 $20,647,957
Alternative (Nauset's)$9,555,424 $4,690,557 $4,104,237 $2,297,739 $20,647,957
Statutory over/(under) Alternative $17,398 ($7,482)($22,855)$12,938 ($0)
Attachment A and Attachment B
Bulletin 11-04: MSBA Project Scope and Budget Vote Bulletin for Regional
School Districts and their Member Communities
Attachment A
FORMS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMBER TOWN MEETING ARTICLE
AND MOTION
Article ___. To see if the Town will approve the $2,438,439 borrowing authorized by the Nauset
Regional School District, for the purpose of paying costs of the partial roof replacement of the Nauset Regional
Middle School located at 70 Route 28 Orleans MA 02653, including the payment of all costs incidental or related
thereto the Middle School Roof Project, which proposed repair project would materially extend the useful life of
the school and preserve an asset that otherwise is capable of supporting the required educational program, and for
which the Nauset Regional School District may be eligible for a school construction grant from the
Massachusetts School Building Authority (“MSBA”), said amount to be expended at the direction of the Nauset
Regional School Building Committee. The MSBA’s grant program is a non-entitlement, discretionary program
based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any Project costs the Nauset Regional School District incurs in
excess of any grant approved by and received from the MSBA shall be the sole responsibility of the Nauset
Regional School District and its member municipalities. Any grant that the Nauset Regional School District may
receive from the MSBA for the Project shall not exceed the lesser of (1) thirty seven point three two percent
(37.32%) of eligible, approved project costs, as determined by the MSBA, or (2) the total maximum grant amount
determined by the MSBA.
Motion ___. That the Town hereby approves the $2,438,439 borrowing authorized by the Nauset
Regional School District, for the purpose of paying costs of the partial roof replacement of the Nauset Regional
Middle School located at 70 Route 28 Orleans MA 02653, including the payment of all costs incidental or related
thereto the Middle School Roof Project, which proposed repair project would materially extend the useful life of
the school and preserve an asset that otherwise is capable of supporting the required educational program, and for
which the Nauset Regional School District may be eligible for a school construction grant from the
Massachusetts School Building Authority (“MSBA”), said amount to be expended at the direction of the Nauset
Regional School Building Committee; that the Town acknowledges that the MSBA’s grant program is a non-
entitlement, discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any Project costs the Nauset
Regional School District incurs in excess of any grant approved by and received from the MSBA shall be the sole
responsibility of the Nauset Regional School District and its member municipalities; provided further that any
grant that Nauset Regional School District may receive from the MSBA for the Project shall not exceed the lesser
of (1) thirty seven point three two percent (37.32%) of eligible, approved project costs, as determined by the
MSBA, or (2) the total maximum grant amount determined by the MSBA; [provided that the approval of the
Nauset Regional School District’s borrowing by this vote shall be subject to and contingent upon an affirmative
vote of the Town to exempt its allocable share of the amounts required for the payment of interest and principal
on said borrowing from the limitations on taxes imposed by M.G.L. 59, Section 21C (Proposition 21/2)]; and that
the amount of borrowing authorized by the Nauset Regional School District shall be reduced by any grant amount
set forth in the Project Funding Agreement that may be executed between the Nauset Regional School District
and the MSBA.
4/2011
Attachment A and Attachment B
Bulletin 11-04: MSBA Project Scope and Budget Vote Bulletin for Regional
School Districts and their Member Communities
Attachment B
FORM OF SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMBER TOWN BALLOT QUESTION
Shall the [City/[Town] of __________________] be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition
two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay the [City/Town]’s allocable share of the bond issued by
the Nauset Regional School District for the purpose of paying costs of the partial roof replacement of the Nauset
Regional Middle School located at 70 Route 28 Orleans MA 02653, including the payment of all costs incidental
or related thereto?
4/2011
February 28, 2014 DRAFT: Charge for Brewster Government Study Committee
The Board of Selectmen (the “BOS”) wishes to ensure that Brewster’s government is
transparent, responsive, efficient, and effective in its governance and in the delivery of town
services by our various departments. The BOS seeks to improve our town government in
order to provide the best service to its citizens, and therefore, will appoint a seven-member
Brewster Government Study Committee (the “BGSC”) to study our town departments,
boards, committees, and commissions according to the following charge.
The BGSC is hereby charged with conducting an in-depth review of the town’s current
organizational structure including the role of Town Administrator, the various town
departments, boards, committees, and commissions. The study will examine the clarity of
duties, span of responsibilities, methods of internal and external communication and
coordination. The study will compare how these factors are dealt with in Town policies and
in practice. The BGSC will deliver the results of its study to the BOS based upon the
following definition of scope and timeline.
1. SCOPE
The BGSC will conduct an in-depth review of the following:
a. Organizational structure. Is the structure is too tiered or too flat from a management
perspective?
b. Definition of duties. How clearly are the duties of the Town Administrator and
various departments defined? Are there gaps or overlaps with respect to duties and
responsibilities? Is the span of responsibilities for individual departments too broad or
too narrow?
c. Management appointments. What person or entity is responsible for appointing
departmental managers and does the process build the proper accountability?
d. Communication and coordination. Are there adequate and effective channels of
communication between the BOS and the Town Administrator; the Town
Administrator and the departments; amongst the departments, and within each
department?
e. Staffing. Does the organizational structure provide for optimal staffing levels? Is there
adequate succession planning?
f. Performance management. How well are supervisory functions defined and executed?
How is the performance of departments and department heads evaluated and
communicated to the BOS and to the public? How effectively is the performance of
department heads and staff managed by the appointing authority?
The BGSC will examine our town’s boards, committees, and commissions (the “BCC”):
a. What is the relationship between the BCC and the staff that supports the unit, and is
the support sufficient and effective?
b. Examine and understand the policy-making responsibilities of the BCC versus the
regulatory responsibilities.
c. Is the BCC appointed or elected, and does this make sense when considering the
BCC’s duties and responsibilities? Does the BCC’s status naturally provide for
appropriate accountability and transparency?
d. With respect to appointed BCC: does the appointment process sufficiently and
successfully recruit members, and is the process transparent and balanced?
2. PROCESS
Phase 1: Assess current conditions and issues. The study will include a review of relevant
Town bylaws and policies, interviews with the Town Administrator, department heads, BCC,
Board of Selectmen, and other key staff.
In addition, the BGSC will gather the public‘s perspective through various mechanisms of its
choosing such as surveys, focus groups and/or open forums.
At the end phase one, the BGSC will identify the key issues, challenges, and opportunities for
strengthening our town government and improving its effectiveness. The Committee will
present a report of these findings to the BOS.
Phase 2: Identify best practices and relevant experiences from other towns. Focusing on the
issues, challenges, and opportunities identified in phase one the BGSC will work with a
consultant who will charged with identifying best practices and experiences from other
towns that might serve as models for Brewster.
Phase 3: Develop recommendations. Based on the results of the interviews, public input, and
consultant findings, the BGSC will develop recommendations for reorganization and reform
of policies and procedures. The BGSC will develop its draft report in partnership with the
consultant. Final recommendations will be presented to the BOS and to the public.
Recommendations may be short-term, such as management improvements or policy changes,
or long term, such as adopting a town charter.
3. SCHEDULE (TWENTY MONTHS)
Phase 1 will be completed within twelve months of convening the BGSC.
Phase 2 will be completed within four months of the completion of Phase 1.
Phase 3 will be completed within four months of the completion of Phase 2.
4. SUPPORT
The Town will provide secretarial support to take minutes, post meeting notices, distribute
materials and schedule BGSC meetings with individuals and members of the BCC.
The BGSC will establish its own meeting schedule and individual assignments.
Town of Brewster
2198 Main Street
Brewster, MA 02631-1898
Phone: (508) 896-3701
Fax: (508) 896-8089
Office of:
Board of Selectmen
Town Administrator
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN REGULAR SESSION MEETING
DATE: February 24, 2014
TIME: 6:30 P.M.
PLACE: Brewster Town Office Building, 2198 Main Street
PRESENT: Selectman Foley, Selectman deRuyter, Selectman Hughes, Selectman Norton, Town Administrator
Charles L. Sumner, Assistant Town Administrator Jillian Douglass, Sarah Turano-Flores, Hayley Winfield,
Patricia Hess, Denise Rego, Claire Gradone, Vivian Cafarella, Nancy Ellis-Ice, Patricia Curnan, Bob Bersin,
Rich Eldred, Ralph Ingegneri, Chris Miller, Elizabeth Taylor, Ralph Macdonald, Chuck Hanson
NOT PRESENT: Chairman Dickson
Call to Order
Selectman Hughes called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Selectman Foley announced that the Board would be
entering executive session to discuss strategy with respect to pending litigation as an open meeting may have a
detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the Town and to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value
of real property as an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the Town.
Selectman Hughes moved to dissolve regular session at 6:35pm and to go into executive session to discuss
strategy with respect to pending litigation and to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real
property as an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the Town
and to return to regular session, Selectman Norton second. The Board voted unanimously. Selectman
deRuyter- Yes, Selectman Hughes-Yes, Selectman Norton- Yes, Selectman Foley-Yes.
Selectman Hughes moved to dissolve executive session at 7:13 pm and to return to regular session, Selectman
deRuyter second. The Board voted unanimously. Selectman deRuyter- Yes, Selectman Hughes-Yes,
Selectman Norton- Yes, Selectman Foley-Yes.
Citizens Forum
Ralph Ingegneri, Chairman of the subcommittee for the Fire Station Project, announced that this Saturday,
March 1 there would be a public forum on the new fire station and tours of the current facility. There will be a
number of town officials on hand as well as the Owner Project Manager and Designer for the project. Selectman
deRuyter will be the moderator. Mr. Ingegneri thanked all the departments in Brewster for their continued
assistance with this project.
www.town.brewster.ma.
BoS Minutes 2-24-14
Page 1 of 7
Review & Discuss Ellis Landing Concept Plan
This agenda item will not heard this evening as the plan is not ready.
Adopt Order of Taking for Freeman’s Way Property
Sarah Turano-Flores, Town Counsel, explained that at the October 2012 town meeting, a vote was made to
purchase the Copelas property. The Town has since been involved in probate court, but all parties have come to
an agreement. This is a standard form of an order of taking, pursuant to CH.79 of MGL for the taking price of
$660,000 as a friendly taking. Selectman Norton moved to adopt the order of taking as outlined by Town
Counsel, Selectman Hughes second. The Board voted 4-Yes, 0-No. Mr. Sumner thanked Town Counsel and the
Conservation Trust for their hard work. The Town has been working on acquiring this land for 12 years as it is
located next to two important watershed protection areas.
Vote to Approve & Sign Purchase & Sale Agreement for Property on Black Duck Cartway
Ms. Turano-Flores explained that the Board signed this before, but they have made a few minor changes in the
provisions involving a conservation credit and a mortgage re-negotiation that required re-signing it. This land
comprises three acres near the Punkhorn, in a watershed protection area. This agreement involved a parcel of
property that is going to be subdivided; they are taking just a portion of the property. The purchase is contingent
on town meeting vote. Selectman Norton moved to approve & sign the Purchase & Sales Agreement for Black
Duck Cartway, Selectman Hughes second. The Board voted 3-Yes, 0-No. Selectman deRuyter recused himself
because he lives near the property.
Update from Dog Park Development Committee
Hayley Winfield, Chairman, and other committee members are present tonight. The Committee has taken a
different approach this time. They have looked at a five locations, but are treading lightly and two have come to
the surface. One is the area behind the Police Station on Route 124. The Committee has talked to Chief Koch
and he believes they could create access so there is no impact on the police station, but this location does have
potential to be used for something else somewhere down the road as it has no restrictions on it. The other
location which was suggested by Jim Gallagher is the gravel pit off Route 124, on Great Fields Road. This may
be a better sight because it would have very little impact on anyone else as it wouldn’t have another potential
use down the road. Selectman Foley asked how much land they are looking for. Ms. Winfield said they would
really like 4 to 6 acres. The Committee cannot fundraise or move forward until they have a location and are
looking for some direction from the Board. Selectman deRuyter asked who they would talk to about this site.
Ms. Winfield said she has had several discussions with Mr. Bersin, DPW Superintendent and he didn’t see a
reason that this site couldn’t be used, but it was up to the Board of Selectman. Selectman deRuyter asked if they
would create a non- profit that can raise money. The problem with that is the Town would lose some control.
Their Committee met with the Dennis Animal Control Officer to talk about their park. Ms. Winfield also
wondered if they should talk to Harwich about collaborating on this project as it is very near to them. Selectman
deRuyter agreed with the strategy of the Committee to talk in advance to potential stakeholders and wondered if
the abutters in that area should be notified before the Board blesses the sight; perhaps invite abutters to the next
Dog Park Development Committee meeting. It is a 16 acre parcel; they could work around the gravel pit. Mr.
Sumner explained that even though the pit is not being used right now, it has potential for use as a borrow site.
For example, they used it as a borrow site when the landfill was capped. Ms. Winfield said that a survey of the
lot was recently done and they can look at where they can create a dog park concept here and create an access
point. There is an issue of how hot it gets in the pit location and the current access road is very steep on one
side, but the area is already cleared and there is no conservation restriction on it. Ms. Winfield said they are
focused on choosing a site that has the lowest impact. Selectman Norton visited this site several times and it is
very hot there so they may need to sculpt something out. Selectman Hughes said she thinks they should look
into the site in more detail and the Board will look at it as well before launching a website, perhaps flag the area
so people can see where it would be. Ms. Winfield said there are not a lot of other options in Town. Selectman
www.town.brewster.ma.
BoS Minutes 2-24-14
deRuyter said this site has good potential and they should look into further details. Selectman Foley thought it
was premature to invite Harwich into the discussion until we know what Brewster thinks. Ms. Winfield thanked
Chris Miller and Jim Gallagher for their assistance.
Review Article 7, Human Services Funding
Patricia Hess is here tonight, standing in for William King. The Committee had fourteen agencies who
requested funds. They looked at each request in the context of the number of Brewster residents the agency
served or may be likely to serve. They had eight agencies who are level funded and six with recommended
increases. Selectman Foley suggested that for town meeting in the Human Services section where they report,
they give the numbers of residents served information. Selectman Hughes stated that these decisions required a
lot of work and are difficult decisions. The increase is over the Board’s guidance, but the need is great and they
should find the additional money somewhere. Selectman Norton moved Article 7, Health & Human Services in
the amount of $86,187.00, Selectman Hughes second. The Board voted 4-Yes, 0-No.
Review & Approve Application for New Livery License
Patricia Curnan has a new company called Cape Cod Patient Transport. She saw that there was an area of
people in need with medical issues that require transportation to medical appointments, family events and
activities. She is trying to offer a better service at a more reasonable price. The parent company is out of
Tennessee, but she bought the whole of the New England business. Her home is in Brewster, she has procured
an overhead storage area with fans for the transport. It is a minivan with a platform so someone can wheel into
it, but does not require a mechanical lift. Selectman Norton asked how many runs they expect to do. Ms. Curnan
said about 4,000 in the first 12 months. She is currently talking to nursing homes, assisted living and dialysis
facilities and rehab sites. Selectman Norton moved to approve the new livery license for Cape Cod Patient
Transport, Selectman Hughes second. The Board voted 4-Yes, 0-No.
Review & Approve Health Department FY15 Budget
Nancy Ellis-Ice, Director, stated that everything is the same in her budget. The Board of Health accepted the
VNA’s same bid for nursing service and their expenses are quite similar. The biggest increase is in the wages
which is contractual. Selectman deRuyter asked what the increase in office equipment was for. They would like
to get some new file cabinets. Selectman Foley explained that they are not voting on any budgets right now, but
the Board appreciates that the Health Department budget is usually level funded.
Review & Approve Department of Public Works FY15 Budget & Review Capital Requests & Update on
PAYT Program
Mr. Bersin explained that the wages are contractual, but there is a decrease in longevity because someone
retired. The road machinery line is level funded as they are doing okay with the increase they received last year.
They have added $2,000 to the snow & ice control as they have been trying to push that number up. The overall
general expenses are up 1.8 percent, with a $6,000 decrease in R&M building due to the new HVAC system. In
terms of solid waste, they have increased that line item by 20%, using estimate bag sale numbers from Waste
Zero. Mr. Sumner explained that there is a new cost per bag which is up a little and the tipping fee is being
increased from $45 to $70.00 per ton. It appears that solid waste is reduced since PAYT was implemented by
45%. Mr. Bersin has prepared some spreadsheets of tonnage for October through January as compared to last
year. Mr. Bersin said in the four months since the Town implemented PAYT, there is an overall $19,000
decrease in solid waste and the tonnage has decreased by about 400 tons. The actual reduction is about 55%, but
they used 45% as a more conservative number. The other critical element is the C&D cost and the recycling
costs. Covanta has secured an arrangement with Yarmouth and hopefully, the Town will enter into negotiations
about the recycling products so they can all go to one location. Right now, they haul the glass to Franklin and
the other items to other locations. Mr. Sumner stated that he should have created a solid waste budget that
showed the coat if we did not go to PAYT. Selectman Hughes thought that a lot of people in Brewster would be
www.town.brewster.ma.
BoS Minutes 2-24-14
interested in knowing that information. Mr. Bersin stated that he wanted to caution, on behalf of the Recycling
Commission, that the numbers should not be relied on right now as this is only 4 months of numbers. They
really need 6 months to 1 year’s worth of data to have some accuracy. From October to January, a lot of people
leave the Cape and we don’t know how many residents opted to private haulers. Mr. Bersin does feel that
people are paying more attention to recycling. Selectman Foley said the numbers are skewed as we were
previously accepting commercial haulers who did not recycle. This information is a real quick snapshot; they
will have real numbers after a year. At that point, they may want to look at issues about man power that we are
using at the transfer station; can we use them for other demands. Selectman deRuyter stated that it appears from
these charts that the program is successful and given the information available, this is a good budget number,
but if the number is off, the Board will have to deal with a change in the budget. The summer numbers will be
important. Selectman Foley stated that we need to have some discussion with Covanta to solidify that we will
be getting the $60 per ton number before the budget is finalized. Mr. Bersin also stated that if ultimately they
can bring solid waste and recycling to Yarmouth, they will save on labor, gas and vehicle wear and tear.
Selectman Foley asked what the status of the snow and ice budget is. Mr. Bersin said that as of the Friday
before vacation, they were $63,000 in the hole and then, the storm added about $18,000 in labor plus salt and
they had some damage to vehicles. They are about $81,000 in the hole now. For the capital plans, the
Department of Public Works has $15,000 in fertilization/field maintenance. Mr. Bersin is going to try an
organic turf management product that he used at the Town Hall fields last season at the soccer and babe ruth
field at Freeman’s Way. He will be working with the Golf Department to have assistance with aeration and
slicing, but they will need to hire a company for testing and oversight. Selectman Foley suggested they try to
get the same irrigation equipment as they have at the golf course so they can use the golf course irrigation
technician for issues. For Chapter 90 road work, they currently have $320,000 and it looks like they will get
$320,000 this year. Selectman Foley encouraged Board members to speak to their legislature as there has been a
push to increase Chapter 90 funding. Mr. Bersin said the DPW has been out filling pot holes, picking up brush
and trees. He has received some requests from residents to waive fees on brush at the Brewster Recycling
Center. Other Capital Articles include road drainage in the amount of $150,000. There are a lot of roads with
drainage problems. They were able to put about 20 new drainage sites in last year; quite a few were on
Millstone Rd. and plan on continuing this year. The Pavement Management company has been held up, but they
will be out doing surveys this week. They are currently inputting Mr. Bersins’ data into their program.
Selectman Foley said if you did all the drainage on Millstone, you could then go back and grade and re-pave
and put a shoulder in, but Millstone alone is a big and expensive project. Other items on the Capital Plan
include an H9, dump truck with plow. Selectman Foley asked how much they have spent in repairs the last few
years. Mr. Bersin said about $8,300 in the last two years plus regular maintenance. Mr. Bersin is getting an
asphalt hot box trailer, but the water department is going to pay for it. It will last 10-12 years and is much better
for patching and filling. The DPW’s sign cutting equipment died and they need to replace it. They use it for all
the street signs and all the signs at the Recycling Center. There is funding available from an old article. For
PAYT, it would be nice if the Board could get quarterly updates. The next piece of the puzzle is to educate part-
time residents and tourists. They need to track revenue over time of bags and permits. They need to be
consistent with cost as the Town is not in the business of making money. The bag and permit fees will be
reviewed in a year. Selectman Hughes was surprised at the bag revenue of $119,000 from September through
January. Mr. Bersin said a lot of people bought large amounts of bags in the beginning and he is taking the bag
revenue from September and allocating it over 12 months. Selectman Foley said at MMA, there were vendors
that offered scanners for license plates and other technology, other than permits. The Board will review the
entire cost structure in a year.
Review & Approve Assessment, Finance Committee & Legal Expense FY15 Budgets
Selectman Hughes noted that the information on where the legal funds are allocated was very interesting.
Selectman Hughes also asked what the ATB Petition expenses were. Mr. Sumner explained that this was for
their appeal to the State regarding PILOT payments in the Crosby area. The state valued their land at
www.town.brewster.ma.
BoS Minutes 2-24-14
significantly less than what the Town believed it was worth. This expense will be a budgetary transfer out of the
overlay reserve account in the spring. Mr. Sumner increased the Labor Counsel budget by $3,650.00 because
this is a negotiating year. He is not ready for the Board to vote on the Legal Budget yet because he wants to
meet with Sarah Turano-Flores and Lisa Souve to discuss the budget and the cap. Some of the legal expenses
are paid for by warrant articles or CPA or other funding sources. The Assessment’s Budget includes Mosquito
Control, Green Head Fly control, Historic District, Veteran’s District and Pleasant Bay Alliance. Selectman
Norton moved the Assessments Budget in the amount of $45,730.00, Selectman Hughes second. The Board
voted 4-Yes, 0-No. Mr. Sumner explained that for the Finance Committee budget, they increased the reserve
fund by a 2.50 percent increase factor per year and they have increased their expenditures to cover their
administrative clerk. Selectman deRuyter asked that in the future, on an annual basis, the increase to the reserve
fund be consistent with the Board of Selectman budget policy. Selectman deRuyter moved to approve the
Finance Committee’s FY15 budget in the amount of $106, 270, Selectman Hughes second. The Board voted 4-
Yes, 0-No.
Referral of Citizens Petition, Zoning Article, Wetlands Protection Regulations to Planning Board
Selectman Foley explained that they have to refer the zoning articles to the Planning Board for public hearing.
Selectman deRuyter moved that the Board refer the Citizens Petition, Zoning Article, Wetlands Protection
Regulations to the Planning Board for Public Hearing, Selectman Hughes second. The Board voted 4-Yes, 0-
No. Selectman Foley explained that a citizen petition appears on the warrant no matter what the Boards
recommend.
Discuss Citizens Petition for Withdrawal from the Cape Cod Commission; refer to Planning Board to
review
Mr. Sumner explained that he received a legal opinion from another town that this petition is improperly written
and cannot go on the election ballot, but can be discussed at Town Meeting, unless the Selectmen decide to put
the question on the ballot as they have the authority to do so. If it passed at Town Meeting, at that point, the
ballots would already be printed for the election. Mr. Sumner explained that he would prefer that citizens come
and talk to him when they are putting a petition together so it can be written properly. Selectman Hughes asked
if the overall campaign is the same. Selectman deRuyter asked if the next step is to refer this petition to the
planning board. Mr. Sumner explained that it is not a zoning article so they are not referring it, but asking the
Planning Board for input. The Board of Selectmen will take a vote when the article comes up in front of them
and it is typical to invite the citizen in to explain it. Selectman Foley said the proponents should be given the
option to come in, but he wants to hear from Brewster citizens who signed the petition. Mr. Sumner will get the
Board the legal opinion.
Discuss May 5, 2015 Special & Annual Town Meeting Warrant Articles
It was decided not to discuss the warrant this evening.
Discussion on Commerce Park Solar Project
Selectman deRuyter explained that in the 11th hour, another developer came forward with interest in the original
agreement with Broadway. The new developer and Broadway are discussing how to move forward and
someone has made the required payment to keep the project viable, but they cannot say who this evening as
they are not sure it is a matter of public record. They are unlikely to qualify under the State’s S-REC 1 and the
conditions are not the same under S-REC 2. Selectman deRuyter is very skeptical that the project would be
viable based on economics, but they need something concrete for the Board to review. Mr. Sumner stated that if
the Board does not want to entertain a project on this site, now is a good time to say so. He, as a town
administrator is interested in a proposal; but if the Board is not, they won’t go through the process. The new
developer thinks the interconnect costs from NSTAR are too high and they will work on getting it down. Ms.
Turano-Flores explained that it is not just whether or not the Town wants to pursue this site, it reserves Town’s
www.town.brewster.ma.
BoS Minutes 2-24-14
place in the net metering queue for S-REC 1 or S-REC 2 by the payment being made. After S-REC 2, there is
not legislation in place. The new developer could provide soft figures in a week; hard figures could take
months because of legislature. Selectman Foley said he would like to see new figures as they have put in so
much work to this point. Selectman deRuyter said it is worth the Board considering whether it be at this site or
another site. He believes they should focus on providing power for the Town, not excess to be marketed.
Selectman Foley said he doesn’t want to the limit the size of project until they have given a soft proposal.
Selectman Hughes thought it would be good to have numbers, but has a lot of hesitation and reservations about
the project and about CVEC as a partner. She thinks they should let the developer know that they may want
something smaller and at different site. Selectman Norton thought they should ask for the proposal, but it might
make more sense to indicate to them that they would be interested in a smaller project. Selectman deRuyter
agrees and asked the developer today if they would be interested in working with the Town directly, possibly at
another site. The draft regulations for S-REC 2 are out and they point toward brown field development.
Selectman deRuyter asked what the Town’s municipal load is. It is about 2.2 million megawatt hours per year
of which the landfill will produce 1.4 million. Chuck Hanson from the Energy Committee stated that they need
about another megawatt and it is reasonable to ask the developer about a smaller load as the economics are
different for smaller project versus a larger project, the interconnect fees are less, but the PPA is higher.
Selectman Foley asked if the Nauset Regional buildings could be incorporated into a smaller project. Mr.
Sumner explained that the net metering credits belong to CVEC and Nauset could not be included if CVEC was
involved. Selectman deRuyter asked if the net metering credits can be moved to another location. Ms. Turano-
Flores will check into their questions and report back at an upcoming meeting.
Review & Approve December 02, 2013 Regular Session Meeting Minutes
Selectman Norton moved to approve the regular session minutes of December 2, 2013, Selectman deRuyter
second. The Board voted 4-Yes, 0-No.
Appointment
Selectman Hughes moved to appoint Virginia Iannini as Alternate to the Conservation Commission for a term
of one year, expiring June 30, 2015, Selectman deRuyter second. The Board voted 4-Yes, 0-No.
Action Items
Selectman Norton moved to approve action items 1-9, but to withdraw action item 8, as recommended by
administration, Selectman deRuyter second. The Board voted 4-Yes, 0-No.
FYI Items
Selectman Hughes had a question on item Q, email from Larry Greeley about LCCAT. Mr. Greeley told
Selectman Hughes, he is interested in going back on the LCCAT Board. Perhaps, we should invite Mr. Greeley
in for quick discussion about the independent evaluation and future allocations to LCCAT.
Liaison Reports
Selectman Hughes said she just became aware that the Planning Board had an informal discussion regarding
village business district as it relates to Ocean Edge. Selectman Hughes thinks that we should be looking at the
whole picture versus multiple zoning articles. Mr. Sumner stated that the Chamber has some interest in this
subject and there is some awkwardness in the current zoning. Selectman Hughes said she thinks it would be
better to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Selectman Norton said the Regional Schools FY15
budget is currently coming in at a 2.53% increase. They also have a proposal to purchase iPads for all students
in grades 6 to 9 with savings from their FY14 budget. There has been some discussion as to why sophomores
and juniors are not getting them as and some finance committees questions using the savings from their budget
to make these purchases. On the flip side, the Elementary Schools have significant reductions to make and are
meeting on Thursday; no cuts have been voted on yet.
www.town.brewster.ma.
BoS Minutes 2-24-14
Topics the Chair did not Reasonably Anticipate
None
Discuss Possible Future Agenda Items
Selectman deRuyter asked that the Board have a discussion on the events from the Tri-Town Meeting and the
proposed $100,000 to $300,000 capital investment, sooner rather than later.
Media Questions
None
Future Meetings
March 3 & 10, 2014
Selectman Norton moved to adjourn at 9:44pm, Selectman Hughes second. The Board voted 4-Yes, 0-No.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna J. Kalinick
Administrative Assistant
Approved: _______________ Signed: _______________________________________
Date Patricia Hughes, Clerk of the Board of Selectman
Accompanying Documents in Packet: agenda, health & human services reports, new livery application, citizens petition zoning bylaw,
citizens petition removal from CC Commission, PAYT update reports, legal budget information, December 2, 2013 regular session
minutes, appointments, action items, FYI items
www.town.brewster.ma.
BoS Minutes 2-24-14
BREWSTER BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014
ACTION ITEMS
1. Designation of Authority to Execute Standard Crosby Property Use Contract Forms
– Attached are the standardized contract forms that Town Counsel has developed for the
rental of the Crosby Mansion Function Hall for weddings and events and the Crosby
Cottages in accordance with the terms of the Special Use Permit and the policies developed
by the Friends of the Crosby Mansion. As property manager, Brian Locke has been signing
the leases and use contracts, but in order to confirm the Board has delegated this authority
to staff, Counsel is suggesting that the Board vote to formally delegate the authority to sign
these standardized agreements to both the Crosby Property Manager and/or the Town
Administrator, individually. We suggest that any special requests, or proposed revision to
standard terms, be deferred to the Board.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the Board vote to authorize the Crosby Property Manager and the Town
Administrator as signatories to approve applications for use of the Crosby Mansion and the
Crosby Cottages.
2. Request for One Day Liquor License – The Brewster Sportsman Club is requesting a
one day all alcohol liquor license for Saturday, March 22 from 5pm – 11pm for their annual
game dinner. The cost of the license is $35.00.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the Board vote to approve this request.
3. Request for Signature – David Telman has filled out a “Disclosure by Non-Elected
Municipal Employee of Financial Interest’ form and is requesting the Boards signature. He
is a member of the Building and Needs Assessment Committee, which is charged with the
Fire Station project. He is also an employee of CC Construction, which plans to bid on the
Fire Station project.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the Board vote to sign the form.
4. Reduction in Fees – There is a group of 6 residents (all abutting properties) that would
like to preform private beach renourishment. Conservation is willing to consider this as one
application, thereby reducing the fees by approximately $2,250.00. This will reduce the cost
to each home owner from approximately $985.00 to $610.00. The Town portion of the
State fee will not be reduced.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the Board vote to approve this request.
5. Declare Surplus Property – Town Hall has 10 yellow cushioned chairs, previously used
in meeting room C that we would like to sell on GovDeals. The Police Department donated
blue chairs that are now being used in room C.
March 10, 2014
Action Items
Page 1 of 2
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the Board vote to declare the chairs surplus and authorize Administration
to sell them on GovDeals.
6. Request for waiver of Disposal Fees - Joan & Chuck Boehm, of 326 Gull’s Way, have
periodically collected dumped trash in the Sheep Pond Woodlands and along the cart-ways
in that area. They noted that they have seen more dumping recently and annually there is
usually an increase between Labor Day and New Years. Currently, there is a pile of snow-
buried tires ($5-$15/ea), a couch ($20), some landscape timbers ($?), brush and some
other garbage ($2/bag). Within the next couple of weeks, Chuck Boehm and Dan Cahill (of
450 Gull’s Way) are going to collect up a dump truck load (or 2) and would like a waiver to
deliver the items to the Recycling Center without charge or the use of PAYT bags. Both Mr.
Boehm and Mr. Cahill have waste disposal permits. Our staff there would normally have
the load(s) go over the scales as mixed bulky waste/C&D to track the amount & to estimate
the waiver of fee (probably about $70). If approved, they anticipate making this request
again, once or twice a year.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
If agreeable, our office would issue letters for Mr. Boehm and Mr. Cahill to bring to the
Recycling Center that would authorize fee waivers for each of their permitted vehicles for 1
trip each within the next 2 weeks. They would still drive over the scales to quantify the
amount of waste delivered.
March 10, 2014
Action Items
Page 2 of 2
FYI ITEMS (MAIL) March 10, 2014
A. Thank you letter from Jackie Courchesne
B. Memo from Jillian Douglass, re; update on fertilizer regulations/bylaws
C. November 20, 2013 Conservation Commission meeting minutes
D. December 3, 2013 Conservation Commission meeting minutes
E. Notice of MDAR public hearings for adoption of plant nutrient application
requirements
FYI – March 10, 2014
Page 1 of 1