Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board weighs affordable‑housing offer that would affect 3.6 acres of school land; Gong Park proposed as alternative for athletics
Summary
Board members discussed a low‑income housing tax‑credit proposal that would redevelop a 3.6‑acre parcel used for recreation, explored purchasing replacement land and considered using Gong Park (about 8.5 acres) for expanded athletics; members asked staff for maps, cost estimates and coach input before decisions.
The Yellow Springs Exempted Village School Board on Tuesday discussed a proposal tied to low‑income housing tax credits that could convert about 3.6 acres the district currently uses for recreational and athletic purposes.
Administrators said the district and village held an intergovernmental meeting and formed a task force to seek a ‘win‑win’ outcome that would preserve school athletics while enabling affordable housing. The superintendent said elected bodies have “committed to trying to find a win‑win on this proposal if it can be found” and described a walkthrough of the parcel to clarify which programs use the land.
Board members flagged the range of uses on the site — fundraiser activities for boys soccer, disc‑golf and other community events — and urged preservation of existing programs. One board member raised Title IX and access concerns, saying the district is “mandated to do so by title 9 here” when it comes to locker‑room and restroom access if activities move to Gong Park.
The district and village noted Gong Park (described in discussion as roughly 8.5 acres and a municipal park) as a possible site for additional fields and improvements. Administrators said purchase of replacement land remains an option but could be costly; as an alternative, funds from a development might be used to upgrade community facilities. A presenter outlined an illustrative funding source tied to a developer’s tax credit award — discussed in the meeting as approximately $15 million to $20 million — and said rough, preliminary estimates for some park improvements were in the low six‑figure range (an example figure of $700,000 was mentioned during discussion but not formalized).
No formal land sale or funding motion was taken Tuesday. The board directed staff to produce clearer maps showing current field layouts and to convene coaches, athletic directors and other stakeholders to assess feasibility, safety and scheduling for shared use at Gong Park. Administrators and village leaders were asked to return with specifics on cost estimates, timelines and proposed legal mechanisms (cooperative agreements or other instruments) to guarantee school access if the district does not retain fee simple title to replacement land.
Board members emphasized community engagement and stepped‑by‑step vetting: they asked for draft diagrams of field footprints, detailed cost estimates, and clarity about who would pay for ongoing operations and maintenance before any final decision.
Next steps: staff will collect maps and more precise cost estimates, and the board plans to hold follow‑up meetings with coaches and community users before any vote.
