News / Articles

GMHA Board Discusses Housing Strategy and Governance Issues

Geauga Metropolitan Housing Authority (GMHA) -  February  20, 2026 

Meeting Info: Regular meeting held on February 20, 2026 at 3:00 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 facilitate the five year plan timing by meeting just following the public comment period.  This meeting was in-person only. Observer Note: Had this regular meeting been held on the normal date of February 17, 2026, the Board would not have been able to vote on the five year plan during the meeting, as the 45 day public comment period would not have been closed.  By meeting on February 20, 2026, the Board was able to review the public’s input and vote on the plan.

 

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 - 3:08 pm

2. Attendance: Chairperson Jeff Markley, and board members Sandy Grassman, Michael Petruziello, Walter (Skip) Claypool and Susan Kemerrer were present. Legal Counsel, Todd Petersen, was present.

Staff Attendance: Dawn Farrell, Executive Director, and Carrie Carlson, Chief Financial Officer, were present.

Others Present: This Observer and three other members of the public were in attendance.

Observer Note: The Executive Director indicated they were recording the audio of the meeting. These recordings are not routinely published. 

3. Pledge of Allegiance - Recited

4. Discussion/Approval of Minutes: January 2026 Regular Meeting

Minutes from the January 20, 2026 regular board meeting were unanimously accepted by the board.

5. Financial Statements and Writeoffs
The financial statements from December 2025 and January 2026 were not yet ready to be approved. Therefore, no motion nor vote was made. 

Ms. Carlson reported that the Housing Choice Voucher program was operating at an approximately 3% deficit, while the Public Housing program was operating with a surplus. Writeoffs of $2,704.20 were approved through voice vote. Mr. Claypool abstained from this vote as he had entered the meeting just following the motion. 

6. Commissioner’s Report 

None of the board members had any topics to discuss outside of the planned agenda.

7. Report of Counsel

Discussion of counsel was deferred to be covered under the agenda item for “Legal” under the “Report of the Director” section below.

8. Report of the Director

a. January Programs Report

• No commentary.

b. Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Presentation

Ms. Farrell noted that Mr. Nathan Bondar of LIHTC Development Group recommended pursuit of the Capital Needs Assessment (additional commentary on the CNA is shown in the New Business section of this report below).

c. Legal

Mr. Petruziello asked how staff knows that legal firms applying to GMHA are providing truthful information; he asked how this information is validated. Ms. Carlson indicated that references are contacted.  

Mr. Claypool indicated that it was the responsibility of the board to “drive the process” of sourcing legal counsel.  Additional discussion on this topic ensued later in the meeting and is documented in the Legal Counsel Recruiting Process Discussion portion of this report below.

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

Ms. Farrell reported hearing back regarding NSPIRE-related items: some components were successful and others were not. She described the process as difficult and “still sending paperwork” late in the cycle. A specific issue noted was that work orders submitted to demonstrate completed work were allegedly not matching addresses “on their end,” requiring additional back-and-forth to resolve discrepancies.

e. Funding

Ms. Farrell shared correspondence from an affordable-housing support organization warning that public housing agencies nationwide are facing continuing pressure from low federal funding levels combined with new HUD (Housing and Urban Development) regulatory requirements. She noted that these conditions are likely to make it increasingly difficult for agencies to rely solely on traditional subsidies to provide and maintain affordable housing.

In that context, Ms. Farrell discussed ongoing exploration of a community land trust approach in coordination with regional housing partners, including representatives connected to Habitat for Humanity-style homeownership programs. Under this model, a nonprofit entity would retain ownership of the land while an eligible family purchases the home. When the home is later sold, resale restrictions preserve affordability and a portion of the appreciation returns to the land trust, allowing the original subsidy to be reused. Compared to conventional down-payment assistance — which may require substantial one-time support for each household — the land-trust structure could reduce the subsidy needed for future buyers and allow the GMHA to assist multiple families over time.

Ms. Farrell characterized the model as a potential long-term strategy for sustaining the GMHA’s mission despite uncertain funding and rising costs. She indicated additional follow-up discussions are underway and more information will be presented to the Board as details develop.

f. Good News

Ms. Farrell shared positive feedback regarding a valve replacement project (or similar maintenance work): the company and staff were described as professional, easy to work with, and confidence-building.

9. Old Business

Ms. Farrell explained that the agency initially believed it could solicit legal services using a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) format, but after consultation determined a Request for Proposals (RFP) was required/appropriate. Ms. Farrell sought a board resolution to ratify the decision to issue the legal services solicitation as an RFP.

A voice vote on the motion was held: Markley-Yes; Kemerrer-Yes; Petruziello-Yes; Grassman-Yes; Claypool-No. The resolution passed. 

10. New Business

a) Public Hearing – Five-Year Plan (2025–2030) and required HUD certifications

A public hearing was held concerning the agency’s Five-Year Plan covering 2025–2030. Notice had been issued and the plan made available for public review and commentary for approximately 45 days. Ms. Farrell reported receiving no public comments.

The board then considered a resolution to execute/submit required certifications to HUD (including a Public Housing Agency (PHA) Certification, Civil Rights Certificate, and other required forms), authorizing the Board Chair to submit the certifications. Discussion clarified:

• The plan includes capital planning elements and policy components (referencing items like Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) and administrative policy changes). Reviewer Note: HUD/Exchange states: “While federal statutes and regulations require PHAs to adopt certain governing and operating policies for the Public Housing Program, HUD grants PHAs considerable discretion in establishing and implementing many policies. PHAs communicate those policies, rules, and requirements concerning their operations, programs, and services through the ACOP. The ACOP is generally the principal document describing in detail the PHA’s policies with respect to key topics such as eligibility, tenant selection, admissions preferences, waitlist procedures, rent determination, utilities, transfers, occupancy guidelines, grievance procedures, pet ownership, and the community service and self-sufficiency requirement. The ACOP is an important document for tenants, prospective tenants, community members, and HUD staff when inquiring about specific PHA policies.” More information is available here regarding ACOPs. The plan had been previously discussed, and this action was needed because the public comment window had concluded.

A voice vote on the motion was held: Markley-Yes; Kemerrer-Yes; Petruziello-Yes; Grassman-Yes; Claypool-Yes. The resolution passed unanimously. 

b) Service Fee – proposed charge for unnecessary emergency maintenance trips

Ms. Farrell raised concerns about increased calls to the emergency maintenance line where:

• Residents could not be reached after making the request, or

• The situation was not an emergency, yet staff had already mobilized after-hours (overtime, travel, fuel).

A $50 charge was proposed for “unnecessary trips,” conceptually compared to penalties for excessive false alarms. The board discussed multiple concerns and implementation questions:

• Whether charging residents is appropriate in subsidized housing.

• Whether it would require lease addenda and resident notification procedures.

• How to define “unnecessary” fairly, and how to avoid unintended impacts (including concern about children/household dynamics).

• Whether a warning system should precede penalties, and how repeat offenders would be handled.

• The need to see draft policy language before voting, and possibly pull call data to quantify frequency (a figure of roughly “five or six times a month” was mentioned, with a suggestion to run a report).

Outcome: The group did not finalize a resolution. General agreement emerged to draft clear policy/addendum language, have it reviewed (legal review referenced), and bring it back for board action after members have time to read it.

c) Bostwick Scholarship – awarding two $1,000 scholarships

The board discussed the current scholarship account balance (stated as approximately $5,908.20) and whether to award two $1,000 scholarships (consistent with the prior year’s approach). Discussion covered:

• Purpose: supporting students connected to the agency’s programs and income-eligible county residents, with first priority described for public housing/HCV (Housing Choice Voucher) participants and those in good standing with a self-sufficiency program; eligibility includes county residency and enrollment in accredited college/trade/vocational programs or graduating seniors; minimum GPA 2.5; relatives of employees/contractors ineligible; prior winners considered only if insufficient new applicants.

• Sustainability concern: the fund is declining over time and not replenished; members discussed whether expanding fundraising or partnerships could strengthen scholarship impact.

Vote outcome: The board unanimously approved awarding two $1,000 scholarships.

d) CNA – Capital Needs Assessment contract approval ($27,000 not to exceed)

Ms. Farrell presented a proposal to hire a national firm to complete a HUD-required Capital Needs Assessment (CNA), stating that to be compliant it must be performed by a national company and fit HUD’s reporting requirements. The RAD consultant (Mr. Nathan Bondar of LIHTC Development Group) recommended Partner Engineering and Science based on experience, turnaround, and cost.

Key discussion points:

• Why prior assessments could not be reused: they were described as too old and/or not meeting current HUD requirements.

• Value of staff involvement: board members emphasized the importance of an interactive process to ensure cost estimates reflect local conditions and realistic replacement schedules, and to avoid inaccurate projections.

• How it supports broader planning: members discussed how the CNA would inform longer-range capital planning, a five-year plan, and potentially conversion/strategy decisions referenced in discussion.

Action: Resolution to authorize the Executive Director to sign the agreement with Partner Engineering and Science for CNA services, cost not to exceed $27,000, with work to start within approximately 25 days of execution.

Vote outcome: Approved unanimously by voice vote.

11. Hearing of the Public

Public comment included:

• A Murray Manor resident praised staff member Roseanne for doing a “wonderful job” keeping the property clean; the board indicated the compliment would be shared with staff.

• A question was raised about community gardens being in disrepair and whether repairs would be addressed. No final plan addressing this was stated in the meeting, though the board acknowledged the concern.

• A resident asked about door cameras. Guidance given:

  • Cameras may be permitted if they do not capture areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy (cannot point into apartments or private spaces).

  • They must not be drilled into doors; mounting should be on door frames/jambs in a removable way that avoids damage.

  • Placement must avoid pointing at a neighbor’s doorway/private space; hallways/common areas were discussed as common space, though still agency property.

  • Board members noted the agency may need a clearer policy addressing camera use and data/recording concerns. Reviewer Note:  A policy would clarify if a resident could position a camera at outside entrances and thus capture residents as they came and went to their apartments.

12. Legal Counsel Recruiting Process Discussion

Mr. Claypool requested to return to the discussion regarding the process for hiring the Board’s legal counsel. A central disagreement concerned governance roles. Mr. Claypool maintained that because the attorney serves as counsel to the Board—not the Executive Director—the Board has a fiduciary responsibility to directly run the process. He argued the Board should review proposals, conduct interviews, and control the selection unless it formally votes to delegate that authority. He expressed concern that merely being informed of staff actions amounted to observing rather than exercising oversight.

Ms. Grassman opposed deviating from the well-established process that was being followed. Mr. Petersen, the current attorney, cautioned that the Board risked inserting itself into day-to-day administration. Mr. Petersen also warned that delays were occurring and the agency needed representation soon.

The Board ultimately reached a compromise: all proposals would be provided to the full Board, but a review committee—including staff, the current attorney, and two board members—would evaluate and interview candidates and return a recommendation. The Board would retain final hiring authority. The two board members appointed to the committee by the Board are Ms. Grassman and Mr. Markley.

13. Executive Session

A motion was made by Mr. Markley to enter executive session under Ohio Revised Code 121.22(G)(1) for discussion related to compensation/employment of a public employee (the Executive Director). The board entered executive session. 

The Board reopened the meeting to the public at 5:22 p.m. following the executive session.  The Chairman, Mr. Markley, reviewed the outcome from the executive session and conducted a voice vote regarding the renewal of the Executive Director’s employment contract:

Term: April 1, 2026 through March 31, 2029 (three years)

Base Salary: $93,500 per year

Annual Increase: $1,500 or Social Security COLA, whichever is lower

The board also noted it intends to review and potentially revise minor contract language (e.g., how the Executive Director role is described in relation to the board and responsibility language), with the aim of presenting refinements before the current contract period ends.

Vote outcome: Unanimous approval by roll call: Markley-Yes; Kemerrer-Yes; Petruziello-Yes; Grassman-Yes; Claypool-Yes.

14. Any Further Business

There was no additional business to discuss.

15. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:27 pm.

Next Meeting:  The next regular meeting of the Board is Tuesday, March 17, 2026, at 4:00 pm at Murray Manor.  More information about the Geauga Metropolitan Housing Authority can be found here. 

Observer: David Lewis

Editor: Sarah McGlone

Reviewer: Gail Roussey

Date Submitted: February 22, 2026

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.