City planner asks trustees for support on proposed 24‑unit affordable/workforce housing project

Terry Acey, Buffalo’s city planner, presented a proposal July 8 asking the Johnson County School District #1 board for the district’s opinion and possible letters of support on a Housing Solutions development that would pursue low‑income housing tax credits through the state program (WCDA/WCA in the transcript) and that may require a 99‑year lease of city‑owned parcels near Cemetery Road.

Acey said the project under discussion would be roughly 24 units, reserve one unit for an on‑site manager, and rely on an application scoring process that favors community support and proximity to schools and services. He said the proposal is designed to be income‑restricted but is not “Section 8” or a government‑paid rental program: “This is not section 8 housing. This is not government subsidized housing. You don't pay your rent. You're gone,” he told trustees.

The planner said the city’s planning and zoning commission recommended approval and that the Johnson County Community Foundation and other local groups have discussed the idea. His presentation emphasized that the site is in an area slated for medium‑high residential density in the land‑use plan, that the development could reduce district busing costs by placing housing near schools, and that geotechnical and infrastructure tests would be required by developers before any lease or construction.

Trustees and attendees pressed several practical questions: whether the city had evaluated all city‑owned parcels, how household income tiers would be applied and updated, whether infrastructure (sidewalks, water, traffic) was adequate, and why private development had not produced similar housing absent tax credits. The planner said the financing model depends on low‑income housing tax credits sold to investors and that the project’s feasibility often requires public‑sector support such as land lease or partial subsidy.

Board members were clear the board was not voting on the project; they were being asked for feedback to present to the city council, which will consider a related leasing action on July 16. Trustees were invited to submit individual letters or a board letter by that date if they wished to express support or concerns.

Ending: The board did not take action on the proposal. Trustees requested additional details (geotech reports, infrastructure plans and the final application or housing study) before considering a formal board letter of support.