The budget presentation, detailed by a representative named Kim Crow, revealed that the authority is navigating notable changes, including the cessation of management services from Swansea, shifting these responsibilities and associated costs to Somerset. This transition was a central point in the budget discussion, affecting salary and benefit allocations. Crow emphasized that the redirection of the management fee to Somerset had necessitated equivalent adjustments in expenses.

A critical aspect of the budget was the allocation of salaries, particularly focusing on the reliance on state grants to fund key positions. Nancy’s salary was split between administrative and resident services, with much of her increase covered by a state grant. Similarly, Kelly Melow’s contribution to resident service coordinator tasks was funded through the same grant.

Maintenance salaries, governed by state-set labor rates, also saw adjustments. The maintenance worker’s hourly rate was increased, impacting budget allocations across various housing programs. This adjustment was part of a broader discussion on maintenance costs, which included on-call payments, overtime, and seasonal labor, all of which remained consistent with the previous year.

Insurance costs emerged as a point of contention, with property insurance witnessing substantial increases in the past and anticipated to rise again. This increase in insurance expenses was a concern for the board, as it directly impacts the financial health of the housing programs.

The discussion extended to administrative costs, including legal fees, office expenses, and professional membership dues. A new line item for management fees paid to Somerset was introduced, calculated based on state guidelines, replacing previously budgeted salaries for management roles. Crow informed the board that the authority remained within its state-imposed spending cap of $300,000. However, specific allocations for legal costs were required, with a budgeted amount of $3,000 for legal expenses to be covered by the state.

Crow further clarified the role of state subsidies, which supplement tenant income and cover utility expenses. Special initiatives funded by the state, such as a recent tech grant for digital upgrades, were also highlighted. The budget included $70,000 for the resident service coordinator role, with an additional $5,000 for associated expenses like tenant engagement activities.

In another discussion, the operating budgets for state-aided housing programs were reviewed. The executive director provided an overview, noting a projected total income of $104,000 from the state. The 689 program was a focus, with expectations to add approximately $43,000 to its reserves, achieving a reserve level of 73%, well above the state’s minimum threshold. This financial health was reassuring, as the director noted, “the state does not want you to dip below 35; anything over 50 is great, so 70, 73 is amazing really.”

Occupancy rates were also scrutinized, with a reported rate of 99%. Despite skepticism from a board member, the executive director explained that turnover throughout the year affects actual occupancy rates, yet the financial structure allows for adjustments through state subsidies.

The board approved the operating budget for the 689 program, with revenue projections of $333,200 and expenses of $332,767, requiring no additional subsidy. The same process was applied to the 667 program, with a subsidy request of $1,543, both receiving unanimous support.

Maintenance updates included the successful completion of a water shut-off project ahead of schedule, with positive feedback from tenants. The board approved the project’s substantial and final completions unanimously. Further updates on window replacements and sprinkler system repairs were discussed, emphasizing proactive maintenance.