Category Archives: State

Rep. Garlick invites all to her report on 1/31

20190131-rep.garlick.medfield flyer

 

Hi Pete.

I hope this finds you well! As you may know, Rep. Garlick’s Report to the Community is coming up on Thursday, January 31st.

Please feel free to share this on your blog if you would like!  A flyer is attached for your convenience and here is the information:

All are welcome to Representative Garlick’s annual Report to the Medfield Community Thursday, January 31, 2019 from 7:15 – 8:30 PM at the Medfield Public Safety Building.

The main topics will be a review of the work and events of 2018, and a preview of 2019.

The evening’s schedule will include:

  • Reception (7:15-7:30)
  • Report (7:30-8:00)
  • Questions and Discussion (8:00-8:30)

Additional Information available at DeniseGarlick.com and by contacting Rep. Denise Garlick, State House, 617-722-2200, Boston, MA.

Anne Weinstein

District Director 

Office of Representative Denise C. Garlick

State House, Room 33

Boston, MA 02133

617-722-2060

REPRES EN TATIVE DENISE C . GARLICK 13TH NORFOLK DISTRICT NEEDHAM. DOVER. MEDFIELD Olsler Peterson 10 Copperwood Rd Medfield, MA 02052 tn4~ filnmmnnfu~alf4 nf Jllitmn1ar4uz~ffz ~nus:e nf ~:epr:es:enfafhrns ~fof:e ~nuz:e, ~nsfan n2133, 1D54 CHA IR J OINT C OMMITTEE ON M ENTAL H EALTH. S u esTANCE U se AND R ecovrnv STATE HOUSE. ROOM 33 TEL. (617) 722-2060 Email: De nise .Garlic k@MAhouse.gov Deary. C?.JL_ ,, Happy healthy New Year to you and yours! As your State Representative for Medfield (Precincts 1 & 2), I am pleased to once again invite you to the "Representative's Report to the Community: 2018 the Year in Review and 2019 the Year in Preview." As you.~ Repres".!ntative, I am actively engaged in the establishment of public policy, the deveI6pment of the budget for our communities and the Commonwealth, as well as a myriad ~f issues and concerns: .~oth municipal and personal to the residents of Medfield. )tis with a great"sense ofrespo~sibility and accountability that I am "reporting back" to· the community of Medfield • ~ • • .. I ; • Our.format for the· evening is as follows: Medfield Public Safety Building 112 North Street Thursday, January 31, 2019 7 :15pm-8:30pm 7:15 pm-7:30 pm Reception 7:30 pm- 8:00 pm Report 8:00 pm -8:30 pm Qmstions and Dismssion Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. I honor your service· to the wonderful community of Medfield, and I am grateful for our wo~J

MFD gets S.A.F.E. grant

MFD

Email today from Chief Carrico (via Kristine Trierweiler) –

=============================================================

I was just notified that Medfield Fire has received the Student Awareness of Fire Education (SAFE) grant in the amount of $6,754.  This is the first time in several years that the department has taken advantage of this award program.  Fire Prevention Officer Lt. Mike Harman was instrumental in putting the grant application together, making sure it was sent out on time, and included key public fire and life safety initiatives planned for Medfield

William C. Carrico II, Fire Chief

Medfield Fire

112 North Street

Medfield, MA 02052

(O) 508-359-2323 Ext 3186

 

CHARLES D. BAKER GOVERNOR December 26, 2018 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR COMMONWEAL TH OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE • BOSTON, MA 02133 (617) 725-4000 Chief William C. Carrico II Medfield Fire Department 112 North Street Medfield, MA 02052 Dear Chief Carrico II: KARYN E. POLITO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Congratulations! We are pleased to inform you that the Medfield Fire Department has been awarded $6,754.00 for your Student Awareness of Fire Education (S.A.F.E.) grant. We look forward to working with you and your community on this public fire and life safety initiative. Additional correspondence, including all the necessary documents needed to execute this award will be provided by the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, Department of Fire Services within the next two weeks. Feel free to contact Cynthia Ouellette at cynthia.ouellette@mass.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Governor Charles D. Baker Lt. Governor Karyn E. Polito

DHCD OK’s Medfield Meadows

The following letter was received by the Board of Selectmen today, wherein Department of Housing and Community Development approved the John Kelly 40B at the corner of Dale Street and Route 27.  –

Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Charles D. Baker, Governor + Karyn E. Polito, Lt. Governor + Janelle L. Chan, Undersecretary October 19, 2018 Mr. Michael Marcucci Chair, Board of Selectman Town of Medfield 459 Main Street Medfield, Massachusetts 02052 Mr. John P. Kelly Medfield Meadows, LLC 18 Forest Street Sherborn, Massachusetts 01770 RE: Medfield Meadows, Medfield, Massachusetts REeEIVEO OCT 2 fl l0 1B MEDFIELD SELECTMEN Determination of Project Eligibility under the Local Initiative Program (LIP) Dear Messrs. Marcucci and Kelly: I am pleased to inform you that your application for project eligibility under the Local Initiative Program (LIP) for the proposed Medfield Meadows project has been approved. This approval is based on your application that sets forth a plan for the development of 36 residential units: 12 homeownership units and 24 rental units. The proposed sales prices and rents of the LIP units are generally consistent with the standards for affordable housing to be included in a community's Chapter 408 affordable housing stock. As part of the review process, Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) staff has performed an on-site inspection of the proposed project sites. DHCD has made the following findings: 1. The proposed project appears generally eligible under the requirements of the Local Initiative Program, subject to final program review and approval; 2. The site of the proposed project is generally appropriate for residential development; 3. The conceptual plan is generally appropriate for the site on which the project is located; 4. . The proposed project appears financially feasible in the context of the Medfield housing market; I 00 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, Massachusetts 02 11 4 www.mass.gov/dhcd 617.573.1100 Page 2 Medfield Meadows - Medfield, MA 5. The initial proforma for the project appears financially feasible and consistent with cost examination and limitations on profits and distributions on the basis of estimated development costs; 6. The project sponsor and the development team meet the general eligibility standards of the Local Initiative Program; 7. The project sponsor has an executed Purchase and Sale agreement for the site. The proposed project must comply with all state and local codes not specifically exempted by a comprehensive permit. Please provide us with a copy of the comprehensive permit as soon as it is issued. The DHCD legal office will review the comprehensive permit and other project documentation. Additional information may be requested as is deemed necessary. Following the issuance of the comprehensive permit, the specifics of this project must be formalized in a regulatory agreement signed by the municipality, the project developer, and DHCD prior to starting construction. As stated in the application, the Medfield Meadows project will consist of 36 units, 9 of which will be affordable: 12 homeownership units, three of which will be affordable and eligible for inclusion on the Town's subsidized housing inventory; and 24 rental units, six of which will be affordable and all of which will be eligible for inclusion on the subsidized housing inventory. The affordable units will be marketed, rented and sold to eligible households whose annual income may not exceed 80% of area median income, adjusted for household size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The conditions that must be met prior to final DHCD approval include: 1 . A final affirmative fair marketing and lottery plan with related forms shall be submitted that reflects LIP requirements including consistency with the Comprehensive Permit Guidelines, Section Ill, Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans; 2. Any changes to the application it has just reviewed and approved, including but not limited to alternations in unit mix, sales price, rents, development team, unit design, site plan and financial pro forma reflecting land value, must be approved by DHCD; 3. The project must be organized and operated so as not to violate the state antidiscrimination statute (M.G.L. c1518) or the Federal Fair Housing statute I ~ i t ! Page 3 Medfield Meadows - Medfield, MA (42 U.S.C. s.3601 et seq.). No restriction on occupancy may be imposed on the affordable unit (other than those created by state or local health and safety laws regulating the number of occupants in dwelling units); and 4. The Town shall submit to DHCD the finalized details of the comprehensive permit. The Department expects that the development team will work closely with the public safety officials of the Town to address concerns relative to access for emergency vehicles fo all buildings on the property. As the Medfield Meadows project nears completion of construction, DHCD staff may visit the site to ensure that the development meets program guidelines. When the units have received Certificates of Occupancy, the developer must submit to both DHCD and the Medfield Board of Selectmen a project cost examination for the comprehensive permit project. This letter shall expire two years from this date or on October 17, 2020 unless a comprehensive permit has been issued. We congratulate the Town of Medfield and Medfield Meadows LLC on your efforts to work together to increase the Town's supply of affordable housing. If you have any questions as you proceed with the project, please call Alana Murphy at 617-573-1301. Catheri e Racer Associat Director cc: Sarah Raposa, AICP, Town Planner Michael Sullivan, Town Administrator Stephen Nolan, Zoning Board of Appeals Office of the Chief Counsel, DHCD Enc. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COST CERTIFICATION: By your signature below, Medfield Meadows, acknowledges and accepts this approval letter, including the obligation under law to provide the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Town of Medfield with a project cost examination .. Signature: ___________ _ Name (print): __________ _ Date: ---~--~------~ Upon receipt, please make copy of this letter and return a signed copy to Division of Housing Development, Department of Housing and Community Development, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 ATTN: Local Initiative Program Medfield Meadows, ·Medfield, Massachusetts LOCAL INITIATIVE PROGRAM-COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT Sponsor: Medfield Meadows, LLC 18 Forest Street Sherborn, MA 01770 Project Addresses: 41 Dale Street Medfield, MA 02052 This project will provide ownership opportunities according to the following breakdown: Utility #of #of #of Gross Allowance Type of Unit Maximum Sales Units Bdrms Baths SF (Rental) Price/Rent Condo Fee (HO) Market Units 3 1 1 750. $2, 100 (rental) 13 2 1 900 N/A $2,520 2 3 1.5 1,300 $2,990 Market Units 1 2 2.5 1,600 TBD $528,000 (ownership) 8 3 2.5 1,800 TBD $594,000 LIP Units 2 1 1 750 $153.00 $1,089 (net) (rental) 3 2 1 900 $226.00 $1,265 (net) 1 3 1.5 1,300 $286.00 $1,436 (net) LIP Units 1 2 2.5 1,600 TBD $191,500 (ownership) 2 3 2.5 1,800 TBD $210,900 Total Units 3620181019-DHCD-ltr from_Page_220181019-DHCD-ltr from_Page_320181019-DHCD-ltr from_Page_4

 

Primary election this Tuesday, 9/4

election

Primary election this coming Tuesday, 9/4

Please remember to vote this coming Tuesday in the primary election.

 

Please vote for Denise Garlick

I ask those of you in Precincts 1 and 2 to join me in voting for Denise Garlick for state representative in the Democratic primary. 

As our state representative, Denise has –

  • worked hard and actively supported the town’s interests at the sate level, 
  • helped obtain the proper remediation by DCAMM of the former Medfield State Hospital site, 
  • helped the town purchase of the former Medfield State Hospital site,
  • been endorsed by Bill Massaro, our town’s closest observer of all things MSH related, Congressman Joe Kennedy, and a long list of others,
  • reported back to residents annually on what she is doing.

You would all be as disappointed as I was, when I listened to the debate between Denise and her challenger, to learn that her challenger knew so little about our town that he thought the Medfield State Hospital was still open and full of DMH patients – he had no understanding about Medfield’s biggest issue.

denise-garlick-tailgaiting

WEST NILE VIRUS RISK INCREASED TO MODERATE

Email today from the Board of Health –

mosquito

WEST NILE VIRUS RISK INCREASED TO MODERATE

the state has upgraded the ENTIRE state to the “moderate” level due to increase in activity re: WNV exposure.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Officer, MRPC Duty <mrpcdutyofficer@challiance.org>
Date: Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:08 PM
Subject: Situational Awareness: Statewide West Nile Virus Risk Level Change
To:

To: MRPC Stakeholders

 

Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2018

 

Time: 12pm

 

Subject: Statewide West Nile Virus Risk Level Change

 

Description:  MDPH has elevated the West Nile virus risk level to moderate statewide. This wide-scale increase was driven by expanding and intensifying positive mosquito findings. A press release will be issued shortly. The majority of WNV human cases occur during August and September. Please take this opportunity to urge your residents/patients to take personal protective activities to avoid mosquito bites.  Please visit results: http://www.mosquitoresults.com for updated risk maps and positive findings. If you have questions please call Matt Osborne at (617) 983-4366.

 

Regional Impact: Multiple communities across Region 4AB have a moderate risk for West Nile Virus exposure according to  http://www.mosquitoresults.com, the Massachusetts Arbovirus daily update provided by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services

 

MRPC Activation Level: Steady-State Monitoring, non-activated.

 

Follow up: The MRPC will continue to monitor the State’s West Nile Virus severity in the region and will provide updates from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health as they become available.

 

Attachments: None.

 

MRPC Duty Officer

Pager: (857)-239-0662

Email: mrpcdutyofficer@challiance.org (not monitored 24/7)

Community Preservation Act primer

This comes from the newsletter that I get from the Division of Local Services (DLS) at the DOR –

DLS

Discussing Community Preservation
Jared Curtis – Bureau of Accounts Field Representative
Tony Rassias – Bureau of Accounts Deputy Director

Each year, the Bureau of Accounts distributes a Budget Bulletin in the spring addressing issues that cities, towns, regional school and other districts should consider for the upcoming fiscal year’s revenue and expenditure budgeting and other related matters.

One particular topic that appears annually in the Bulletin and always generates inquiries is the Community Preservation Act (CPA) as it relates to state matching funds estimate for cities and towns. The following represents a discussion between Tony Rassias, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Accounts, and Jared Curtis, the Bureau’s subject matter expert, covers a variety of topics related to the CPA. We hope you find it helpful.

Tony Rassias: Jared, for cities and towns that haven’t accepted the CPA, could you first explain what the Act is all about?

Jared Curtis: Sure. Cities and towns that accept the CPA impose a surcharge on each parcel of taxable real estate up to an additional 3% of the bill, less any exemption to the surcharge adopted by the city or town as allowed by the CPA law. Total surcharges received are then reserved into a local CPA fund for community preservation purposes to preserve open space and historic resources, create affordable housing and develop outdoor recreational facilities. A state trust fund, created from recording fees at the Registry of Deeds and Land Court, provides an additional source of revenue to the local CPA fund through state matching funds.

TR: How do cities and towns accept the Act?

JC: Cities and towns have two acceptance options. Under the first option, the CPA is accepted under M.G.L. c. 44B, §3(b) and a surcharge up to 3% of the tax assessed on each parcel of taxable real estate is approved. This is called the “traditional” CPA. Under the second option, the CPA is accepted under G.L. c. 44B, § 3(b1/2) and (1) a surcharge of at least 1% is approved and (2) an appropriation of other municipal revenue is made into the Community Preservation Fund (CPF) which when added together with the surcharge will not exceed 3% of the taxes assessed on real property. This is called the “blended” CPA.

If a city or town has adopted a “traditional” CPA, it must follow the amendment procedure under M.G.L. c. 44B, § 16(a) to adopt the “blended” CPA. Adoption of the CPA under both options requires either (1) legislative body approval and voter approval of a ballot question or (2) a petition process and voter approval of a ballot question.

TR: What happens to the CPA surcharge receipts?

JC: Surcharges, and the other revenue appropriated to the Community Preservation Fund by a “blended” CPA community, are credited to the local CPF and may be appropriated on the recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee for community preservation purposes under the CPA law.

TR: What are state matching funds?

JC:  A Community Preservation Trust Fund is established at the state level which is funded by surcharges on recording fees at the Registry of Deeds and Land Court. All municipalities imposing a surcharge the previous year receive a first round state match.

TR: Our Budget Bulletin begins with a total number of cities and towns that have accepted the CPA that are eligible for state matching funds in the upcoming fiscal year.  How does BOA know the correct number of acceptances and are they all eligible for state matching funds?

JC: Once the CPA has been accepted by either (1) a majority vote of the municipal legislative body followed by a majority vote of the electorate or by (2) a majority vote of the electorate after filing a local ballot question petition signed by at least 5% of the municipality’s registered voters, municipal clerks are required to submit a CPA Notification of Acceptance form to the Municipal Databank in the Division of Local Services (DLS). This notification is important, not only for tracking acceptances, but for distributing the state matching funds because the Municipal Databank is responsible for the distribution.

Because a municipality must commit one fiscal year of surcharges prior to receiving a state match, cities and towns where the CPA takes effect on July 1, 2018 will receive their first state match distribution in November of 2019, in FY2020. In FY2018, 172 municipalities committed the CPA local surcharge and will be eligible for the State match in FY2019. In FY2018, 162 cities and towns received just over $24 million for the FY2018 state match.

TR: The Bulletin then indicates a percentage first round state match as determined by the Municipal Databank. Why is this estimate so important?

JC: The CPA calls for up to three distribution rounds. All cities and towns that imposed a surcharge the previous fiscal year will receive first round match distributions. The estimate is important for local Community Preservation Committees to properly budget revenue to be received from the State’s Trust Fund in the upcoming fiscal year. For FY2019, the Databank has estimated a first round match of 11.5% of the municipality’s surcharge imposed in FY2018.

TR: How is the first round match estimate determined?

JC: The process of estimating the first round match is a bit complicated, but here is a very basic overview. The Databank estimates the match by:

  • reviewing the balance in the state trust fund as of March 15th
  • estimating deposits into the fund through October of the next fiscal year
  • splitting 80% of the projected fund balance, after administrative expenses, among the eligible cities and towns
  • estimating growth in the local surcharge commitments

TR: Why did our first round percentage estimate drop from FY2018 to FY2019?

JC: The FY2018 first round estimate was 15%, but the actual match was 17.2%. The actual percentage exceeded our estimate. But for FY2019, the estimate is 11.5%. I see two reasons for the estimate’s decline. The first and main reason is that recent legislative changes to the CPA have attracted 10 additional cities and towns, including several larger cities, to accept the law and these entities are now eligible to receive a state match in FY2019. The second reason is that fees taken in by the Registry of Deeds and Land Court that provide revenue for the match have remained stable. As a result, the percentage of the state match has decreased.

TR: As for the other distribution rounds, which cities and towns are eligible?

JC: We already know that municipalities that imposed a surcharge in the prior fiscal year are eligible for the first round distribution. If monies remain, there is a second or equity round and a third or surplus round distribution to cities and towns that have adopted the maximum 3% surcharge. The most a city or town may receive in state matching funds in any year is 100% of the total surcharge it assessed in the previous fiscal year.

TR: How is the state match determined for a “blended” CPA municipality?

JC: For these cities and towns, the state match is based on surcharge collections in the previous fiscal year plus the amount of the additional revenue appropriated by the municipality to the CPF by June 30 of that fiscal year. To be eligible for additional rounds of state matching funds, the “blended” CPA municipality must have appropriated additional municipal revenue to the CPF so that the total funds, additional appropriated municipal revenues plus surcharge, equal 3% of the real estate tax levy. The most a “blended” CPA city or town may receive in state matching funds in any year is 100% of the total surcharge assessed in the previous fiscal year plus additional funds appropriated in that fiscal year to the CPF.

TR: How many cities and towns have accepted the 3% maximum surcharge?

JC: Currently, for the 172 municipalities that have accepted the CPA, the breakdown of percentages accepted is:

  • 75 at 3%
  • 15 at 2%
  • 39 at 1.5%
  • 1 at 1.25%
  • 1 at 1.10%
  • 40 at 1%
  • 1 at .5%

Included within the 1% and 1.5% categories are five municipalities that have adopted or amended their CPA adoption to a “blended” CPA.

TR: The Bulletin says that the equity and surplus distributions will increase a city or town’s reimbursement depending upon their decile and total surcharge amount. What is a decile, and why will reimbursements increase because of it?

JC: It would probably help if I explain how the second and third rounds work. The 20% reserved in the state trust fund before the first round is calculated is used to determine the second or equity distribution round by dividing the remaining fund balance by the number of cities and towns receiving distributions. This result is called the “base.”

Every municipality’s equalized valuation or EQV per capita and population is then ranked from highest to lowest and the ranks are averaged to get a “raw score.” The “raw scores” are then ranked from lowest to highest and the cities and towns are placed into what are called deciles. Each decile has 35 municipalities, except decile 1 has 36. Each one of the 10 deciles has a percentage of the base assigned to it in descending order from 140% to 50%. Decile #1 is assigned 140%, decile 2, 130% and so on.

By formula, municipalities in the lower deciles (for example 1, 2, or 3) are determined to be those most in need and will receive a greater percentage share of the “base.”

If money is still available in the state trust fund after the second round, there is a third or surplus round. A new “base” is determined just as in the second round that is then multiplied by the same decile percentage used in the second round.

TR: How about a quick example?

JC: Let’s say that Community A accepted a surcharge percentage of 3% and is therefore eligible for three rounds of distribution and let’s say that money will be available in the fund after rounds one and two.

Now, let’s say that Community A collected a previous fiscal year surcharge of $1 million and the next fiscal year’s actual first round match is 17.2%. In the next fiscal year, Community A will receive a match of at least $172,000.

In the second round, Community A’s EQV and population was averaged to give it a raw score which was then ranked against all cities and towns. A base was calculated at $45,000. Community A’s ranking placed it into the fourth decile which allows an equity distribution of 110% of the base, another $49,500 or $45,000 times 110%. In the third round, after a new base of $25,000 is determined, Community A’s 110% decile percentage from the second round allows a surplus distribution of $27,500, or $25,000 times 110%. In total for the three rounds, Community A will receive a distribution of $249,000 from the state trust fund.

TR: Finally, the Budget Bulletin indicates that the estimates are subject to change depending upon Registry of Deeds collections between the time of the Bulletin and October of that year. Why does that time frame make a difference?

JC: The time frame when we issue our Budget Bulletin through October is important because actual Registry of Deeds and Land Court fees will be deposited into the State Trust Fund. The Databank does a great job estimating the amounts that will be collected, however; the actual receipts are what the final distribution in November is based on.

TR: Is there more than one distribution in a fiscal year?

JC: The only distribution for the fiscal year is in November provided the city or town submits to the Databank forms CP-1 and CP-3. Form CP-1 is available in Gateway and form CP-3 is available from Mass GIS after entering your community’s password issued by the DLS Databank. Contact the Databank to obtain a password. Any questions concerning the completion of the CP-3 should be directed to the Community Preservation Coalition at (617) 367-8998.

TR: Thank you for your explanations, Jared. I’m sure our readers will now more fully understand the Bureau’s guidance.

JC: Thanks, Tony!

The authors would like to thank Lisa Krzywicki, Director Municipal Databank/Local Aid Unit, and Patricia Hunt of the Bureau of Municipal Finance Law for their help in reviewing this article. 

DHCD OK’s finances of 67 North Street

The Department of Housing and Community Development administers 40B and part of its task is to verify the limit on the profits that developers are allowed to make for any 40B project.  This letter acknowledges that Bob Borrelli has complied as to the eight unit Cushing House rental project he did at 67 North Street.

~ ·. 1·. ~ , I ~; . . Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Charles D. Baker, Governor + Karyn E. Polito, Lt. Governor + Janelle L. Chan, Undersecretary s~" August 3, 2018 Mr. Robert J. Borrelli, Manager Medfield Holdings, LLC 9 Boiling Spring Avenue Medfield, Massachusetts 02052 Re: Cushing House, 67 North Street, Medfield, MA Local Initiative Program-Cost Examination Dear Mr. Borrelli: The Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is in receipt of the "Independent Accountant's Report" (the "Report") dated April 30, 2018, prepared by Raffol and Company, Inc. for the Cushing House project. DHCD has undertaken a review of the Report pursuant to our responsibilities as the Subsidizing Agency (defined under the provisions of760 CMR 56.02) and Sections 7 and 21 of the Regulatory Agreement and Use Agreement (the "Regulatory Agreement") for the project under the Local Initiative Program (LIP). As part of our review we have sought comments from the Town of Medfield, and the Town has evaluated the Report pursuant to Sections 7 and 21 of the Regulatory Agreement. DHCD has reviewed the Report and found it to be satisfactory. DHCD has concluded that the Developer's Equity and Accumulated Distribution Amounts calculated by Medfield Holdings, LLC does not exceed the Limited Dividend Requirements as defined in the Regulatory Agreement. This letter will constitute DHCD's acknowledgment that Medfield Holdings, LLC has satisfied the requirements of Sections 7 and 21 of the Regulatory Agreement, including for purposes of the Surety Bond issued by Needham Bank. Therefore, we are releasing Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit No. 591096251-1 dated June 15, 2017, issued for Cushing House. Sincerely, Ala~~y~ Deputy Associate Director cc: Michael Sullivan, Town Administrator Kenneth Raffol, Raffol and Company, Inc. Martin Murphy, Esq. 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 www.mass.gov/dhcd 617.573.1100