School board updates on proposed affordable‑housing site and flags ethics, legal questions

The Yellow Springs Exempted Village School Board on Aug. 8 provided an update on a potential low‑income housing tax credit (LIHTC) application that would require rezoning and subdividing 3.6 acres of district property and could bring roughly $15,000,000 toward about 50 affordable family apartments.

Board Chair (Chair) told the board and the public that the district had agreed at a previous meeting to request rezoning of the 3.6‑acre corner to RC and to subdivide it from the larger Enid Road parcel to address density needs. "If the project was able to win that, it would be $15,000,000 towards 50 affordable family apartments," the Chair said.

Why it matters: the board’s decisions could change school‑district land use and affect local recreation. Board members said any sale or option would include plans to replace the lost recreational acreage used by youth soccer, and they asked for appraisals and timelines before approving next steps.

Village Council representative Brian Hausch told the board that a draft intergovernmental agreement to coordinate the lien‑removal and other steps should be available for review within days. "A draft of the intergovernmental agreement should be ready tomorrow morning or by the beginning of next week," Hausch said, adding that clearing the lien is waiting on the survey.

Survey and funding: board members reported the district’s surveyor, Doug Sutton, is finishing a survey paid by private fundraising and routed via Home Inc., an affordable‑housing nonprofit. Board members and public commenters asked for written documentation of who paid the fees and how the funds were handled. One board member urged caution, saying funds coming from an outside advocacy group could create an appearance of influence.

On legal clearance and next steps: several board members urged the district to await formal guidance from the Auditor of State (AOS) before incurring additional expenditures or taking binding steps. The board’s counsel, David Lampy, had advised the district that the board has the authority to buy and sell land but recommended seeking outside opinions if members remained concerned; Chair said Lampy saw "no problem with it" but acknowledged members could pursue an AOS or attorney‑general opinion.

Ethics concerns: public speakers and some board members raised questions about transparency and the possibility that individual board members’ donations to a local advocacy group that raised funds for the survey could create conflicts. A board member asked the Ohio Ethics Commission be consulted about whether participation by donating members creates a disqualifying financial interest; the Chair agreed that further advice could be sought.

Financial and timeline details: Hausch and board members discussed possible per‑acre appraisal assumptions (discussed informally at about $75,000–$100,000 per acre) and preliminary estimates for replacing recreational fields (informal estimates cited roughly $44,000–$100,000 depending on site). Board members stressed the district must be "made whole" — that is, have funds or replacement land to preserve the athletics program.

What’s next: the IGA draft will be circulated to boards and counsel for review; the board said it will not proceed with final approvals or expenditures until clearer legal and written funding documentation is provided. Several members requested AOS guidance and a written pledge from the village on who will cover legal costs related to lien removal.

The board framed the update as informational and did not take a binding vote on land sale, rezoning or the IGA at the meeting.