The Marblehead Housing Authority (MHA) had a hearing Tuesday to discuss the 2025 Annual Plan (AP).
Per the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC), the Annual Plan document is intended to provide transparency “by offering residents and the public with a broad array of information about LHA (Local Housing Housing) operations.” The document is also intended to improve housing authority performance by encouraging housing authorities to set goals, which are then evaluated by the performance assessment review standards (also defined in the AP standards from the EOHLC).
The hearing was marked by significant public criticism of this year’s AP submission. Resident Elaine McGrath, a member of the Informal Tenant Organization (ITO), came prepared to represent the organization with a document outlining issues with the preparation of the AP.
To McGrath, this year’s AP is “very discouraging” for multiple reasons. According to her, the document has boilerplate mistakes suggesting a lack of proofreading. She also said that, for multiple years, the Annual Plans have mostly disregarded resident comments – even when it comes to errors such as the MHA hours of operation listed in official documents.
McGrath added that the lack of any “deferred” work orders listed in the AP was inconsistent with reports from tenants that their maintenance and repair requests would go unaddressed for weeks or months.
McGrath and other residents in attendance requested that the board postpone the vote because of these issues.
The MHA management team representatives Cathy Hoog and Gary Dean responded to some of the complaints brought up by residents. They explained that “deferred” work orders are specifically defined as work orders that are tabled until some condition is met – such as a season change or funds becoming available.
These are not the same as work orders being delayed for other reasons such as lack of availability when other work orders are higher priority. The management team did not want to discuss the details of specific delayed work orders, citing resident privacy concerns.
MHA Board member Terri Tauro went on to raise the issue of a capital expenditure that had not made it into the capital improvement plan (CIP) section of the AP: the need for doorbells that provide an intercom service to residents of Farrell Court, especially those who live on the second floor. This project has been reviewed in the past, and an estimate of $250,000 was mentioned as the expected cost of adding this feature to all units in both old and new Farrell Court.
The doorbell project was left out of the CIP because other capital improvements were deemed a higher priority, such as a multi-development repaving project, because of their health and safety implications. However, the MHA Board decided to revise the CIP to include it as an unfunded project and subsequently seek funding aggressively.
MHA Board member Bill Kuker additionally remarked that voting on the AP Tuesday while it has errors such as typos and potentially missing information, as brought up by McGrath, would be voting on what is ultimately a “false document.” As a result, it was decided without a vote that the vote to approve this AP would be tabled until the next MHA meeting.
