After airing concerns over how the Hopkinton Housing Authority handled Community Preservation funds and procurement procedures, the Community Preservation Committee on Thursday night voted unanimously to continue its hearing on the matter.

CPC chair Ken Weismantel gave a long preamble to start the special meeting, recounting the concerns his committee had raised over the management of funds related to an improvement project at the Housing Authority’s properties on Davis Road.

The project, for which Town Meeting appropriated $350,000, included the completion of ADA-compliant seating areas, shading structures, a covered bus shelter and walkways at the Housing Authority. The total cost of the project totaled around $193,000, and construction began earlier this year. Remaining work on the project was halted following the CPC’s notice of default to the HHA regarding its concerns.

“I’m concerned the HHA board failed to provide meaningful oversight into the project,” said Weismantel. “I personally do not have confidence that the HHA board is being good stewards with Hopkinton taxpayers’ money at this point.”

Weismantel voiced two major concerns the CPC identified regarding the way in which the HHA and its executive director, Hayley Fetrow, managed the project. First and foremost was Fetrow’s attempt to invoice a 10% project management fee made out to her consulting firm, HSF Consulting, LLC, for the project. Weismantel asserted that nothing in the CPC’s grant agreement entitled Fetrow to that fee, and that the description given in the invoice for services rendered actually were part of her normal duties as executive director.

Weismantel also raised concerns of potential conflicts of interest when it came to procurement procedures undertaken for the project. While he admitted that Gorman Richardson Lewis Architects (GRLA) was selected before Fetrow joined the Housing Authority by Darlene Hayes, the HHA’s CPC liaison at the time, Weismantel shared he felt the firm was “significantly overqualified” for the project.

“I think that if it had gone through the normal procurement process … you probably would have had a much lower-cost guy,” Weismantel said. 

“It’ll be almost $70,000 on engineering,” he added. “It’s kind of outrageous.”

Additional questions were raised about whether the project would be considered vertical or horizontal construction given the inclusion of a pergola in the project scope. Weismantel noted a “qualification-based selection process” is required for building projects where the cost is greater than $300,000 and the estimated cost of design is over $30,000.

Following comments and questions from other CPC members, Fetrow offered up her defense to the committee. As she had noted in a special meeting with the HHA last week, Fetrow said it had been explained to her when she started in 2023 that she would be eligible for the 10% management fee. She submitted her invoice for the fee without approval from the HHA board on Oct. 1 because of her ability as executive director to sign off on invoices under $50,000.

Fetrow added that she voided the invoice as soon as she learned she would not be eligible for the fee. “I was not trying to do anything that was illegal,” she asserted. “When I understood that that was something that was not accurate, I canceled it because that was the appropriate action to take.”

“How did you overlook the fact there was nothing in the project to pay for a consultant?” asked vice chair Eric Sonnett.

Fetrow responded that she was told the fee had been approved, but at the time she started, the project budget had no room for the fee and she would have to do the work regardless. 

However, when asked by member Jim Ciriello why the invoice was billed to her consulting company and not the Medway Housing Authority, she admitted that had been a mistake. Fetrow works for the HHA through a management contract arranged between the Medway and Hopkinton housing authorities.

Regarding GRLA’s involvement and procurement processes involved, Fetrow stated that the architectural firm already was procured before she came on and started managing the project. She claimed she stressed to the firm that proper procurement processes would need to happen, given this was a project that used town funds.

“I believed throughout the process that we were operating in compliance,” said Fetrow.

HHA member and CPC liaison Beth Malloy voiced support for Fetrow. “I truly believe there was nothing underhanded done by any of us,” she said, noting that the transition from the HHA’s former CPC liaison and Fetrow’s onboarding may have resulted in communication issues.

Members appeared in agreement that the project should be allowed to continue, as long as greater oversight was implemented. Member Steve Levandosky noted he would like to see a budget and plan for the remaining items.

In his remarks, member Parker Happ called for more transparency on both sides. “How do we essentially make sure this doesn’t happen again?” he asked. 

Added Happ: “Ultimately, this is about helping people — I think that’s where our focus should be.”

After reviewing a punch list of remaining work items for the project, Weismantel made a motion to authorize the chair to put together a draft letter with conditions and budget to discuss at the CPC’s next meeting. “We’re just looking for a way to finish this thing and be done with it,” he said.

Weismantel’s motion passed unanimously. The CPC continued the hearing to its next meeting on Nov. 13, where it will review and vote on the draft letter.