News / Articles

RAD Funding Pathways and Building Security Updates

Geauga Metropolitan Housing Authority (GMHA) -  December 16, 2025 

Meeting Info: Regular meeting held on December 16, 2025 at 4:00 pm (EST) in the Conference Room at Murray Manor at 385 Center Street, Chardon, OH 44024. This meeting was rescheduled from the regular meeting date to accommodate staff availability.  This meeting was in-person only.

 

Agenda: An agenda was provided at the meeting. It is not available online. The documented

proceedings below follow the agenda and are presented sequentially.

1. Call to Order - 4:09 pm

2. Attendance: Chairperson Jeff Markley, and board members Sandy Grassman,  Michael Petruziello and Walter (Skip) Claypool were present. Susan Kemerrer was not present.

Staff Attendance: Dawn Farrell, Executive Director; Carrie Carlson, Chief Financial Officer; and Alan Kobe, Maintenance Manager.

Others Present: Mr. Nathan Bondar of LIHTC Development Group (remotely), this Observer and four other members of the public were in attendance.

Observer Note: The Executive Director indicated they were recording the audio of the meeting.

3. Pledge of Allegiance - Recited

4. Discussion/Approval of Minutes: November Regular Meeting

Minutes from the November regular board meeting were unanimously accepted by the board.

5. Financial Statements 

The chief financial officer, Ms. Carrie Carlson, presented financial statements covering public housing, Section 8, and federal funds through November 2025.

Mr. Petruziello asked about a $4,493 charge relating to tenant move-out. Ms. Carlson explained that current eviction/termination timelines can delay action for nonpayment (referencing longer notice and legal processes).

A motion was approved to accept the financial statements. The motion was carried unanimously.

6. Commissioner’s Report 

Mr. Petruziello reiterated a request to see the driveway work specifications (material, density, etc.).

Mr. Kobe, as a followup to the water expense issue last month, indicated that they had determined that water shut-off valves (for heat/steam) were located outside the building, and there were no interior shutoffs for potable water. Board members empowered Mr. Kobe to recommend unit-by-unit wall shutoff valves if he deemed them necessary.

7. Report of Counsel

Counsel, Mr. Petersen, participated in an extended discussion focused on legal services, procurement requirements, and counsel coverage at meetings, particularly in light of potential RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration)-related work.

• Mr. Claypool questioned whether counsel must attend every meeting versus being engaged as needed. Counsel argued that ongoing attendance improves effectiveness because counsel understands the Board’s operations and can anticipate issues.

• The Board discussed exploring legal options involving Marshal Pitchford as having RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration) experience. Reviewer Note:  This Reviewer did not see any specific RAD experience.  See link above.  Mr. Pitchford is also Chairman of the Board for Ohio Right to Life. 

• Mr. Petersen stated that RAD is specialized and emphasized the importance of legal support with deep RAD familiarity, given how significant a conversion would be for GMHA.

• The Board agreed to gather facts before deciding whether to re-solicit legal services or piggyback on another arrangement.

8. Report of the Director

1. Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Presentation

Mr. Nathan Bondar of LIHTC Development Group attended remotely and presented information regarding the pursuit of RAD for GMHA.

Key points explained by the presenter:

• Under the current public housing (Section 9) model, HUD provides operating and capital funds, but major repair needs can exceed funding as properties age.

• RAD and related programs seek to move units to a Section 8 platform, typically via a 15–20 year contract, improving revenue predictability and enabling capital investment by loosening HUD’s restrictive controls (discussed in terms of releasing HUD’s property lien/“declaration of trust” limits).

• The presenter described tax credits at a high level (4% and 9%), noting that credits are sold to investors and can generate equity for repairs, often combined with other financing, depending on scope.

• The presenter described Section 18 and RAD/Section 18 “blends,” emphasizing that Section 18 units may qualify for higher fair market rent-based revenue in some cases. He highlighted a “small PHA blend” approach for smaller housing authorities. Reviewer Note:  See information here about Section 18 of the Housing Act.

Projected revenue concept (as presented):

• The presenter used a two-bedroom example of current contract rent around $802 and stated that under the blend approach, a large share of units could shift to higher fair market rent levels (examples cited roughly $1,050 to $1,920, depending on property/size, subject to rent reasonableness testing). Observer Note: these rents were in no way meant to resemble those of the current GMHA and were purely hypothetical.

• The presenter stated that increased net operating income would be the mechanism for financing repairs(through loans, bonds, and/or tax credits) and for paying debt service.

Board concerns raised repeatedly:

• Mr. Claypool and Mr. Petruziello continue to be concerned that RAD conversion shifts liability from HUD to GMHA while leaving significant HUD control.

• Whether future federal cuts could still occur under Section 8, and skepticism about long-term certainty.

• The need to understand the “other side of the ledger” (repair scope, financing costs, interest, and administrative obligations), not just revenue projections.

• Mr. Bondar stressed that the choice between the current model and RAD is one that may be perceived as a choice between two bad options, but the choice nonetheless. He stressed the benefits of RAD. 

Next steps identified:

• A 20-year needs assessment is required to address projected capital needs to move forward. Commission a needs assessment (with discussion of HUD’s required eTool process and the limited number of firms that can produce compliant reports).

• Develop financing options after scope is established, including potential paths such as pay-as-you-go, debt-only, HUD-backed financing, and/or tax credits.

• Discussion occurred about whether to phase by property (e.g., starting with Murray Manor) versus moving the full portfolio together, with the consultant noting that splitting can increase transaction costs and delay benefits.
  b. November Programs Report

• Ms. Farrell reported limited updates; one notable item was that staff had finally connected with Marshal Pitchford and scheduled a call to explore procurement/legal options

c. Project Based Vouchers

• Most voucher discussion occurred within the RAD conversation, including clarification that project-based vouchers stay with the property, rather than traveling with a tenant.

d. NSPIRE (National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate)

• Ms. Farrell reported a preliminary NSPIRE score of 86, noting 90 is needed for “high performer.” Observer Note:  There was no discussion of why they fell short of the 90 rating. Reviewer Note: Learn more about HUD’s NSPIRE inspection program here. 

• Staff said an appeal could potentially raise the score.

• Mr. Claypool asked what “high performer” affects; staff stated it can mean extra funding and less frequent inspections.

e. 0% HUD Inspections

• Staff reported 100% inspections by HUD were occurring that week, generating more work orders.

• Staff stated HUD inspections typically provide 28 days’ notice and then a defined window.

f. ProPress

• A powered press tool used by plumbers/maintenance staff to join metal piping without soldering or welding is on order to mitigate future adverse potable water impacts.

9. Old Business

None was reported.

10. New Business

Keyless Entry

• Ms. Farrell revealed a plan to install keyless entry systems on:

  • Tenant exterior entry doors at Murray Manor and Harris House

  • Specified maintenance interior doors

  • Office doors

• She said initial quotes exceeded an internal threshold, requiring an Invitation for Bid (IFB) solicitation and legal review.

• The Board clarified scope (this was not for individual apartment doors). The number of doors was described as substantial (estimates suggesting 50+ across the two facilities).

• Discussion included:

  • Security rationale for replacing an old/common key approach and the fact that locks historically had not been changed.

  • Whether the system’s software would be subscription-based or one-time; Ms. Carlson said options would be addressed in the bid.

  • Process concerns: Mr. Claypool urged that the maintenance manager be engaged earlier to shape technical scope, with administrative/procurement staff supporting rather than leading technical requirements. Ms. Carlson said a door consultant was brought in to ensure bidders respond to precise, comparable specifications.

• Action: The Board approved, by roll call vote, a resolution allowing staff to proceed with solicitation/advertising for the keyless entry project after legal review of the IFB.

11. Hearing of the Public

Unit occupancy / fairness concern

• A resident alleged that a unit was effectively being held by someone who does not live there full-time, describing observations such as mail being collected by another person and limited apparent use of the building.

• The resident argued this was unfair given local housing scarcity and very low incomes, and suggested management could verify patterns using cameras.

• The Chair/Board thanked the speaker.

Snow removal timing and safety

• A resident asked why plowing/shoveling occurred around 3:00–3:30 am without time for residents to move cars.

• Staff/Board explained contractors follow route timing, typically focusing on circulation lanes, and cited operational and liability constraints.

• Residents expressed concerns about ice and dissatisfaction with performance compared with a prior year. Staff/Board emphasized winter conditions, noted a contract is in place, and advised residents to use caution.

• One resident complained about snow being blown against windows and items near a maintenance area and asked for more careful directional handling.

12. Executive Session

The board chairman, Mr. Markley, called the board into executive session at 6:05 pm under Ohio Revised Code Section 121.22(G)(1) to discuss compensation of a public employee. The board came out of executive session at 6:25 pm. Mr. Markley noted that there were no votes or decisions to be made resulting from the executive session.

13. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:30 pm.

Next Meeting:  The next regular meeting of the Board is January 20, 2026, at 4:00 pm at Murray Manor.  More information about the Geauga Metropolitan Housing Authority can be found here. 

Observer: David Lewis

Editor: Gail Roussey

Reviewer: Carol Benton

Date Submitted: December 31, 2025

The League of Women Voters of Geauga is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. They do not support or oppose individual candidates or parties. Learn more about the LWVG at www.lwvgeauga.org.