GMHA Board Welcomes New Director, Reviews RAD;
Several Board Members Advocate for Privatization
Geauga Metropolitan Housing Authority (GMHA) - July 21, 2026
Meeting Info: Regular meeting held on July 21, 2026 at 4:00 PM (EST) in the Conference Room at Murray Manor at 385 Center Street, Chardon, OH 44024. The meeting was held in person. Reviewer Note: These meetings are held in person. There are no virtual options or videos available.
Agenda: An agenda was provided at the meeting. It is not available online. The documented
proceedings below follow the agenda and are presented sequentially.
Attendance: Chairman Jeff Markley, and board members Sandy Grassman, Michael Petruziello, and Walter (Skip) Claypool were present. Susan Kemerrer was not present. Legal Counsel Marshal Pitchford was present. Carrie Carlson, Chief Financial Officer and Anna Ball, Executive Director were present.
Others Present: This Observer and four other members of the public were in attendance in person.
Observer Note: The Executive Director indicated they were recording the audio of the meeting. These recordings are not routinely published.
1. Meeting Called to Order
The regular meeting of the Geauga Metropolitan Housing Authority Board was called to order at approximately 4:03 pm.
2. Roll Call
Roll call was taken. Board members Markley, Petruziello, Claypool, and Grassman were present. Kemerrer was absent.
3. Welcome Dr. Ball, GMHA’s New Executive Director
The Board welcomed Dr. Anna Ball as GMHA’s new Executive Director. Mr. Markley stated that Dr. Ball came from Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority and brought substantial housing-authority experience. He described the search process as involving a large applicant pool and said Dr. Ball was viewed as a strong fit for the Board and agency.
Dr. Ball thanked the Board and staff and said she was excited to begin. She also thanked Ms. Carlson for her work as acting executive director during the prior director’s medical leave and vacation time. Board members discussed recognizing Carrie’s service. Dr. Ball said she was still learning and gathering information and expected to communicate further with Board members in the coming weeks.
4. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
5. Discussion/Approval of Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of the June 15 special meeting and June 16 regular meeting. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes. After brief clarification about attendance at the prior meetings, the minutes were approved. Reviewer Note: Minutes are not available on the website.
6. Financial Statements
The Board received financial statements for public housing, Section 8, and federal funds for June 2026. Staff did not highlight any particular issues, and there were no substantive questions. A motion was made to receive the financial statements. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
7. Commissioner’s Report
Mr. Markley stated that he did not have anything for the commissioner’s report and invited comments from other Board members. No additional comments, questions, or concerns were raised.
8. Report of Counsel
This item was taken later in the meeting after portions of the Director and CFO report and new business.
Mr. Pitchford reported on current legal matters. Two matters were described as open and in the collection stage: one involving a former tenant who had moved out after an eviction, and another small-claims matter in which GMHA had not yet been able to obtain service despite having a forwarding address. Mr. Pitchford also reported that another matter had recently been resolved with a payment plan for the full amount owed.
Mr. Pitchford then discussed paid legal research into possible dissolution or privatization of GMHA or transfer of assets to a nonprofit structure. He said his office had spent significant time on the issue and had prepared a draft memorandum of approximately 13 pages, but further work was needed to clarify the sequence of required steps under state and federal law. The Board discussed whether the process would begin with HUD or the Ohio Department of Development, with reference made to Ohio Revised Code Section 3735.39. Mr. Pitchford said he wanted to prepare a clearer chronology and suggested a possible special workshop or virtual meeting because some issues may be sensitive.
Throughout the discussion, Mr. Claypool returned several times to privatization as a possible future direction for GMHA. He framed privatization as a way to move away from HUD restrictions and allow the agency or a successor entity to operate with greater flexibility. This emphasis shaped portions of the discussion on RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration), dissolution, and long-term strategy. Other participants cautioned that privatization could involve significant legal, financial, governance, and employee-related risks, and that the Board needed a clearer comparison of privatization and RAD before moving further.
Discussion included whether GMHA would lose control of assets, whether there would be a way to reverse course after submitting a plan, whether current GMHA-affiliated individuals could be part of any receiving organization, and whether properties would still need to serve low-income residents. Observer Note: There was no discussion about the possible impacts on Section 8, which is also administered by GMHA. Dr. Ball cautioned that conflict rules could prevent current GMHA-affiliated individuals from being part of a receiving agency and raised the possible impact on employees and pension-eligible positions.
Mr. Claypool and Mr. Petruziello also expressed repeated concern that HUD requirements impose unnecessary burdens on GMHA, especially given the agency’s size and the condition of Cloverdale II. Their comments reflected a broader preference for challenging HUD rules, seeking exceptions, or exploring alternatives such as privatization. However, the repeated return to broader objections about HUD also diverted portions of the discussion away from immediate agenda decisions. Staff and other Board members noted that while HUD requirements may be frustrating, GMHA remains obligated to follow them unless HUD grants flexibility.
No final decision was made on privatization. The Board generally agreed that Mr. Pitchford should refine the legal memo and that the Board needs comparable information on RAD and privatization before making a direction-setting decision. Ms. Grassman questioned whether the Board should continue spending legal time, and money, on the exact steps of privatization before first receiving a clearer comparison of its advantages and risks.
9. Report of Director and CFO
a. June Programs Report
The Board discussed the June programs report, with emphasis on work orders and maintenance costs. Board members asked whether work-order data could be provided in a more usable format, such as a spreadsheet showing recurring problems, units, work-order types, and frequency. Ms. Carlson said the report was year-to-date and included both tenant-generated and inspection-generated work orders.
Mr. Claypool said the goal was not to micromanage maintenance but to understand recurring issues, emergency versus routine work orders, completion times, baseline expectations, and potential efficiencies. Ms. Carlson stated that approximately $300,000 had been budgeted for maintenance labor and about $142,000 had been spent to date. She also stated that GMHA was not currently in the red, with revenue at approximately 43 percent and expenses slightly under 40 percent, but was projected to end the year in the red by roughly $78,000. She noted that tradesmen costs were consuming part of the maintenance budget and emphasized the need to fill maintenance positions.
b. Strickland Arms Insurance Claim
Ms. Carlson reported that the interior work related to the Strickland Arms insurance claim had been completed. The tenant reportedly was pleased with the contractor’s work. The remaining item was gutter work, which still needed to be scheduled.
c. Cloverdale II Update
Ms. Carlson reported that the Cloverdale II demolition remained pending. County funding had been approved, but GMHA still needed to complete HUD-related process steps before submitting the demolition package. Ms. Carlson said materials would be obtained from their HUD consultant for a resident meeting, and that a capital-fund resident meeting was scheduled for July 30.
Mr. Petruziello expressed frustration that HUD process requirements appeared to require resident input for a vacant and condemned property. Mr. Claypool and Mr. Petruziello argued that GMHA should question or challenge HUD’s process rather than simply accept it, while staff explained that the resident-meeting step was part of the required submission package. Dr. Ball stated that she had requested a meeting with a HUD supervisor to ask whether there was flexibility for a small public housing authority. Mr. Markley acknowledged frustration with HUD rules but also emphasized maintaining decorum and respecting staff and other Board members while GMHA works within existing requirements.
d. RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration)
The Board discussed RAD at length. Mr. Claypool said prior information had been difficult to follow and that they needed a clearer explanation of the process, choices, and financial consequences. Discussion included the role of consultant Mr. Nathan Bondar (Reviewer Note: Previously identified in LWVG report of 2/20/2026 as a consultant for LIHTC Development Group) and whether the consultant was providing neutral business advice or primarily explaining HUD’s preferred process. Dr. Ball said she wanted to meet with Nathan and review the consultant contract before advising the Board further.
The Board discussed whether GMHA should place all properties into one CHAP, or Commitment to Enter into a Housing Assistance Payments Contract, whether conversion could proceed one property at a time, whether PBRA (project based rental assistance) or PBV (project based voucher would be preferable, and whether the financial plan could move forward without those decisions. Mr. Claypool and Mr. Petruziello continued to question whether RAD was being presented as the assumed direction rather than one option among several. Mr. Markley emphasized the need for clearer information, including a financial plan, before deciding whether RAD was in GMHA’s best interest.
Board members asked for a clearer presentation of RAD’s pros and cons, financial impacts, possible strings attached, and whether GMHA could back out. Staff indicated that prior consultants had prepared a PowerPoint with property-level revenue information. No final RAD decision was made. Mr. Markley indicated a decision should be made during the next regular board meeting.
e. Housing Services Inc.
Mr. Markley stated that he and Ms. Kemerrer had appointments to make to the Housing Services Inc. board but that he was not ready to make his appointment until he had a better understanding of HSI’s future role. Dr. Ball intends to meet with the appropriate people to further the appointment process. No appointment was made during this meeting. Reviewer Note: See LWVG Observer report for 3/18/2025 for more information about Housing Services Inc.
f. Murray Manor Center Street Ramps
Ms. Carlson reported that there was no substantive update. She still needed to review the project and was waiting for the scope of work.
g. HOTMA (Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act)
Ms. Carlson reported that GMHA had received the wrong recording related to HOTMA and expected to receive the full recording in July. Dr. Ball, Ms. Carlson, and the housing manager planned to review it.
New Business
a. Murray Manor & Harris House Keyless Entries
Ms. Carlson reported that the Board had previously discussed a hard-wired keyless entry system, but the vendor recommended a hybrid system because some doors or areas may not be practical to hard-wire. Board members discussed security, the current complexity of keys and master keys, backup access, and possible benefits for residents needing reasonable accommodations. A motion was made and seconded to proceed with soliciting a hybrid keyless-entry system. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Claypool voted yes but stated that he was not convinced the cost was justified.
b. Policy on Receipt, Safeguarding, and Deposit of Public Funds
Ms. Carlson presented a policy on receipt, safeguarding, and deposit of public funds. The policy was prompted by an audit question regarding a delay between receipt and deposit of checks while staff was working from home. Ms. Carlson explained that the auditor recommended a written policy to provide leeway in such circumstances.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the policy. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Mr. Claypool voted yes but stated that he considered it more of a compliance item than a strong policy.
c. Maintenance Department
Dr. Ball and Ms. Carlson reported that they had reviewed resumes and created a scoring rubric for maintenance applicants. Staff planned to contact applicants about three open maintenance positions and continue working toward full staffing. The Board gave general agreement for staff to proceed.
The Board also discussed hiring a maintenance manager, and there appeared to be agreement that GMHA should do so. Dr. Ball connected the maintenance discussion to broader succession planning.
Dr. Ball proposed changing Ms. Carlson’s title to Deputy Director to better reflect her current duties and align with common housing-authority structure. A motion was made and seconded to change Ms. Carlson’s title to Deputy Director. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
d. Moving To Work Flexibility II Cohort
Dr. Ball presented the Moving to Work Flexibility II Cohort opportunity. She said it could provide GMHA with greater flexibility from HUD rules, including combining roughly $500,000 in capital funds and roughly $500,000 in operating funds into a flexible funding pool. She also described possible waiver flexibility, including limits on vouchers porting out to higher-cost jurisdictions. Reviewer Note: See information here about HUD’s rules on portability - or moving to another jurisdiction but retaining the Housing Choose Voucher (Section 8).
Dr. Ball said the opportunity was time-sensitive, with one available spot for housing authorities under 1,000 units and an application deadline of September 16. She explained that public/resident notice would be required 30 days before the application and that a Board resolution would be needed 15 days before submission.
Board members asked whether MTW would change GMHA’s status, whether it was a pilot program, how long it would last, and whether reporting would require additional staff or cost. Dr. Ball said GMHA would remain in its existing status but would become part of a cohort to be studied. She said the program could last approximately 12 years and would include reporting, workforce, and community-partnership components, but she did not anticipate needing additional staff.
The Board discussed using MTW flexibility to focus on Geauga County priorities, landlord incentives, partnerships with the mental health board, workforce pathways, and possibly Geauga Growth Partnership. A motion was made to authorize Dr. Ball and staff to conduct due diligence and pursue preparation of the application, with a formal resolution to return to the Board. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
e. OHAC (Ohio Housing Authorities Conference)
Dr. Ball requested authorization to attend the Ohio Housing Authorities Conference in Columbus in September. She said the conference included sessions for new executive directors and RAD-related content. A motion was made and seconded to authorize the Executive Director to attend OHAC at a cost not to exceed $1,100. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, with Ms. Kemerrer absent. Dr. Ball said she would send the Board the conference agenda.
10. Hearing of the Public
Mr. Markley opened the hearing of the public and asked that comments be kept to higher-level Board matters rather than individual work orders or issues that should first go through the housing manager. No public comments were made.
11. Executive Session
The Board entered executive session at approximately 5:40 pm under Ohio Revised Code Section 121.22(G)(1), concerning appointment, compensation, and discipline of a public employee. The executive session was limited to the appointed members of the board. A motion was made and seconded to enter executive session, and the motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, with Ms. Kemerrer absent.
12. Any Further Business
The Board exited the executive session at 5:58 p.m.. Mr. Markley stated no actions nor decisions were being made as a result of the executive session.
13. Adjournment
A motion and second were made to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Next Meeting: The next meeting will be a regular board meeting on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, at 4:00 pm at Murray Manor. More information about the Geauga Metropolitan Housing Authority can be found here.
Observer: David Lewis
Editor: Rooney Moy
Reviewer: Gail Roussey
Date Submitted: July 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.