GMHA Board Moves to Restart Legal Counsel Search;
Approves Buildingwide Valve Upgrade in 3–2 Vote
Geauga Metropolitan Housing Authority (GMHA) - January 20, 2026
Meeting Info: Regular meeting held on January 20, 2026 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 - 4:04 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 Alan Kobe, Maintenance Manager were present. Carrie Carlson, Chief Financial Officer was absent.
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 made public.
3. Pledge of Allegiance - Recited
4. Discussion/Approval of Minutes: December Regular Meeting
Minutes from the December regular board meeting were unanimously accepted by the board.
5. Financial Statements
The financial statements were not yet ready to be approved. So no motion nor vote was made.
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”, below.
8. Report of the Director
December Programs Report
-
Staff discussed current waiting list size and admissions activity.
-
A figure “just under 250 families” across waiting lists was mentioned, with the clarification that a “family” could be a single person or multiple people.
Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Presentation
Ms. Farrell indicated that Mr. Nathan Bondar of LIHTC Development Group, who attended remotely and presented information regarding the pursuit of RAD for GMHA during the last board meeting, was still preparing his proposal for services. No further action was taken on this topic during the meeting.
Reviewer Note: See the LWVG Observer Report for December 16, 2025 for a summary of a presentation made by Mr. Bondar and other information about RAD.
Legal
A major portion of the meeting was devoted to the ongoing effort to secure legal services in a way that complies with procurement expectations associated with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding and oversight. The discussion reflected both urgency—Mr. Claypool repeatedly emphasized the need to “get this done”—and frustration with the slow pace and procedural complexity.
Ms. Farrell summarized the status of the current Request for Proposal (RFP) process and why it has not produced a desirable outcome. Two proposals came from out-of-state locations (notably “D.C.” and “Texas”). Counsel questioned whether those firms could realistically serve a local housing authority with day-to-day operational needs. Ms. Farrell cautioned, however, that geographic location alone may not be permissible grounds for disqualification under HUD procurement principles, and that proposals must be evaluated against the published criteria rather than rejected informally.
The board also discussed the mechanics of moving from the current RFP track to a new approach. Ms. Farrell recommended shifting to a qualifications-based Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process, describing it as a cleaner way to evaluate capability first and negotiate terms later. Several members agreed that a qualifications-based approach could broaden the pool and potentially attract better candidates than the prior proposal-driven method. At the same time, there was a strong desire to avoid unnecessary delay; Mr. Claypool pushed whether an “exception” pathway exists under procurement rules that would allow the authority to proceed more quickly with a small number of plausible candidates rather than restarting a lengthy cycle.
A key governance issue emerged around who should evaluate candidates and how directly the board should be involved. Mr. Claypool stressed that counsel represents the board and the agency and therefore the board has a duty to be deeply involved—understanding qualifications, seeing candidate submissions, and ensuring transparency. Ms. Grassman emphasized efficiency and established practice: staff (sometimes with outside evaluators) performs the detailed review and then brings a recommended firm or candidate to the board for approval, with the board retaining final decision-making authority but not running the screening process. This exchange was one of the more pointed moments of the meeting, reflecting different ideas of what “proper oversight” should look like.
The discussion then turned to the procedural requirement to close out the existing RFP phase correctly. Ms. Farrell indicated that proposals were still sealed/“not opened” due to the ongoing debate, which complicated immediate rejection. Board members nevertheless reviewed language in the RFP that appeared to reserve GMHA’s right to reject proposals and terminate the process when it is in the agency’s best interest. That language helped move the group toward formal action rather than continued uncertainty.
By the end of the discussion, the board’s direction was to reject the RFP proposals and pivot to an RFQ for legal services, with counsel review as needed and board approval required at the final selection stage. Members also offered practical outreach improvements—suggesting distribution through bar associations or legal-circulation channels—to ensure the RFQ reaches attorneys and firms more likely to meet the GMHA’s needs.
Continuum of Care (CoC) Grant
Ms. Farrell noted that a Continuum of Care (CoC) grant had reopened, and they were awaiting confirmation on whether GMHA would be able to apply.
City of Chardon
Ms. Farrell described a planned meeting with the City of Chardon’s manager to provide context on the agency’s work, noting the city has appointments to the board. Specifically, board member Ms. Kemerrer, whose term is up in April, has indicated she will apply for the next term.
Good News
The board heard a positive resident email praising a maintenance staff member who completed bathroom-related work (bathtub enclosure) and was described as professional and thorough. The board acknowledged the compliment.
9. Old Business
Murray Manor Plumbing shut-off / isolation valves project (major old business item)
Mr. Kobe, maintenance manager, presented an estimate and rationale for installing shut-off/isolation valves across units.
What the project is
-
Installation of multiple valves per unit to allow staff to isolate individual units (or smaller sections of a building) during plumbing emergencies or repairs, instead of shutting down water for large portions of a building.
-
The discussion referenced prior work completed in 12 units and the larger total of roughly 76 units overall.
Cost
-
A project estimate of approximately $43,970 was cited.
-
The board discussed how changing scope affected pricing and noted other quotes had been obtained previously (at least three total, with at least one reportedly much higher).
Board debate
-
Supporters, Ms. Grassman and Ms. Kemerrer emphasized risk reduction and resident impact: avoiding displacing residents or shutting down major sections of buildings when a localized plumbing issue occurs.
-
Skeptics, Mr. Petruziello and Mr. Claypool questioned whether the spend was justified given uncertainty about how often major incidents occur and whether the agency could phase work over multiple years.
-
The board also discussed maintenance bandwidth and whether taking on this work would harm work-order turnaround times or other core duties.
Vote
A motion was made regarding proceeding with the project/work. The roll call vote passed 3–2, with Mr. Markley, Ms. Grassman, and Ms. Kemerrer voting yes and Mr. Petruziello and Mr. Claypool voting no.
10. New Business
A. Resolution to advertise for Architectural and Engineering services (services through June 30, 2026)
Staff requested board approval to advertise for RFQs for services. Board members confirmed that RFQs would still come to the board for review/approval as customary. The motion carried.
B. Records disposal / shredding authorization
Staff requested approval to shred a large volume of records in accordance with the board-approved retention schedule, including:
-
37 boxes financial records
-
7 boxes administrative files
-
3 boxes payroll
-
2 boxes personnel
-
43 boxes vacated resident files
-
16 boxes applications
-
14 boxes work orders
A board member asked about cost; staff estimated prior disposal runs at roughly $300–$500. Motion carried.
C. Extension of legal contract
Ms. Farrell indicated this item was already covered by prior authorization (“permission already given”), so no further action was required at this meeting.
D. Next regular meeting date change (Capital Plan / required public comment window)
Ms. Farrell explained that to meet HUD reporting requirements tied to the Capital Plan submission, the agency had to re-advertise a public comment period for 45 days. That timeline created a constraint around the next meeting date.
The board discussed moving the next regular meeting from the usual day to Friday, February 20, at 4:00 p.m. The board agreed to the change. Mr. Claypool will be traveling that date so a teleconference line will be set up so he can attend remotely. Observer Note: GMHA has a policy to permit virtual participation of Board members with some parameters (e.g. individual must be visible on the screen during the meeting).
11. Hearing of the Public
A resident, “Chloe,” offered comments supporting the valve project. Key points:
-
She described complications during prior valve work in her unit (one of the 12 already completed), noting it took significant time due to complications.
-
She expressed feeling safer and more confident if the work were completed comprehensively rather than piecemeal over time.
-
She emphasized the personal risk of being away from home for long work shifts and potentially not noticing a flooding event quickly.
-
She thanked the board and expressed appreciation for the maintenance representative.
12. Executive Session
No executive session was called.
13. Any Further Business
A. RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration) discussion and next steps
Chairman, Mr. Markley summarized their understanding of RAD:
-
RAD could reduce certain HUD reporting burdens and increase flexibility in property management.
-
RAD would not automatically expand the agency’s voucher program; voucher levels remain a local policy decision.
-
RAD may allow market-rate rent components and potentially increase revenue, but would also carry additional obligations and risk considerations.
Mr. Claypool raised a key question about future discretion over the mix of assisted vs. non-assisted units, and whether the agency—acting as landlord—could choose the proportion of non-assisted occupancy. Ms. Farrell responded cautiously, noting existing voucher obligations and that details would depend on the specific RAD/Section 8 structure, financing plan, and rules tied to project-based assistance and any tax credit layers. Reviewer Note: The Statute does not refer to assisted vs. non-assisted units. However, there are variations available, such as those listed in this article about HUD’s new rule concerning Section 18 of the Housing Act of 1937.
The board generally signaled that RAD requires a deeper, dedicated discussion.
B. Work session planning
The board discussed scheduling a work session for strategic planning and to engage consultants/contractors. Scheduling constraints were noted (including travel and personal commitments), with openness to remote participation if needed. No details were determined.
14. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:35 pm.
Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Board is Friday February 20, 2026, at 4:00 pm at Murray Manor. This is a change from the regular meeting day/date due to reasons discussed above. More information about the Geauga Metropolitan Housing Authority can be found here.
Observer: David Lewis
Editor: Harry Rees
Reviewer: Gail Roussey
Date Submitted: 2/4/2026
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.