Yellow Springs board agrees to explore sale of 3 acres as part of affordable-housing concept, with conditions for soccer fields and outside funding

The Yellow Springs Board of Education voted to authorize an exploration of selling three acres of Morgan Fields to facilitate a competitive affordable-family rental application advanced by Home Inc., while insisting that the district not use operating funds and that any lost athletic capacity be replaced.

Home Inc. representative Emily Seibel told the board the group is seeking a path to apply for federal tax-credit financing and said the funding round is highly competitive. “If we are awarded, approximately we would receive approximately $15,000,000 in federal tax credits,” Seibel said, describing a concept for a roughly 50‑unit family rental project for low‑ and moderate‑income households. She said projects are scored by a state 'opportunity index' and that the group needs site control — often an agreement contingent on funding — rather than ownership before an application is due.

Seibel and her developer partners outlined a tight schedule: rezoning and design work over the summer and an application due in February, with awards announced the following May. She told the board the proposal was a concept for discussion and that Home Inc. planned additional public engagement.

Parents, coaches and community members told the board that Morgan Fields are a long‑standing volunteer‑maintained community asset. Sarah Wallace, who identified herself as a longtime soccer coach and founder of Yellow Springs Soccer Inc., said volunteers and local groups had invested “tens of thousands of dollars” over many years to improve and maintain the fields and that the programs serve a large share of local youth. “All of those things need to be considered in a win‑win,” she said, urging assurances that teams could continue to practice and compete during any transition.

Board members pressed Home Inc. and its development partner on three constraints they said were crucial: (1) the district must be made whole or 'whole plus' financially if land were sold; (2) any legal and due‑diligence costs should be paid by the village or other outside funders, not district operating funds; and (3) the district must secure replacement athletic capacity acceptable to coaches and families. The board treasurer reported $4,590 had been spent so far investigating the possibility and said legal work to attempt to release a lien on the campus could run “$10,000 to $20,000 and maybe more.”

Board members and Home Inc. representatives discussed technical issues including stormwater, parking and the PUD rezoning process; the developer emphasized those are standard engineering tasks subject to regulatory review. Home Inc. also said it could structure agreements so existing field use would be uninterrupted during construction if the project moved forward.

After hours of public comment and debate, the board approved a motion to continue exploring the option of selling three acres and to ask the village council to defray investigation costs from the village’s affordable‑housing fund. A separate motion to explore purchasing replacement land for the district also passed. Both votes included explicit directions that the district would not commit to any sale or spend district operating funds without future approvals.

Board members emphasized the votes do not approve any sale or development — they only authorize further investigation, contingent on outside funding and satisfactory plans for athletics and fiscal protection for the district. Home Inc. said it would continue stakeholder outreach and technical work while the board and village consider funding and legal questions.

Next steps the board identified include seeking clarification from the district’s bond trustee about the lien on the Enon Road campus, asking the village to consider a funding request to cover legal/investigation costs, and returning to the board with specific terms and a replacement‑fields plan before any final decision.