Board approves four Hampshire Heights change orders; credits refunded to state, commissioners voice vendor vetting concerns

The Northampton Housing Authority approved four change orders tied to the state-funded Hampshire Heights window replacement project, addressing field changes, demolition and abatement scope revisions. Director-level staff read mandatory language for each Fish214126-series change order and the board voted on them individually.

Summary of change orders and votes: Fish214126CR001 was recorded as a credit of $19,890.96 and passed (motion moved by Commissioner Brooks, seconded by Commissioner Healy) with four yes votes and one abstention from Commissioner Tarbutton. Fish214126CR002 (an additional charge of $16,865.29 for bathroom-window demolition/installation) passed by the same margin (4 yes, 1 abstention). Fish214126CR003 (attic-stock windows required for code compliance) for $14,697.75 also passed 4–0 with one abstention. Fish214126CR004 was an abatement credit of $91,650.64 (Battista Environmental subcontract cost came in lower than estimated) and passed by roll call 4 yes to 1 no (Commissioner Tarbutton voted no on this item).

Director and commissioners clarified these funds are state-administered (Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities) and that credits go back to the state rather than into the authority’s operating budget. Commissioners noted the Hampshire Heights site has long-standing water-table and basement moisture issues; several speakers said the state’s investment is intended to mitigate decades-long water damage and improve habitability.

Commissioner Tarbutton repeatedly asked who selected vendors and whether subcontractors were vetted; she abstained on several votes and voted no on the abatement credit because she said subcontractors had not been vetted and she wanted stronger oversight. Commissioners Brooks and Jones defended staff and said the state selects architects and contractors for these state-funded projects; the board's role is to accept or reject change orders.

Why it matters: the approvals move forward work at a property with documented moisture and health impacts for tenants, and the board recorded both financial credits and charges that reduce or increase the state's project costs. Tarbutton’s concerns foreground tenant safety and the need for stronger vendor oversight in state-funded projects.

What happens next: the change orders become effective immediately; refunds or credits are returned to the state’s project account per the funding rules, and Commissioner Tarbutton indicated she will press for better vendor vetting and documentation going forward.