Beavercreek parks face growing deficit after levy failures; city council pauses new levy this spring

Beavercreek Parks, Recreation and Culture staff reported to the board on Feb. 11 that a series of failed park levy measures has put the division into its sixth year of funding and into an initial deficit, requiring $242,000 in deferred capital projects for 2025 and forcing planners to outline deeper service reductions if no new levy is adopted.

The update delivered by Zach, division staff, summarized the levy history and current finances. Zach said the city’s continuous park levy now yields an effective 0.787 mills — “it generates just shy of $1,800,000 a year,” he said — which accounts for roughly 60% of the division’s revenue. Because the division had expected renewal or replacement levies on a roughly five-year cycle, the failed 2023 (1.93 mills) and 2024 (0.49 mill) levies mean the department is now cutting capital and preparing contingency plans.

The board was told why the cuts were needed and what they would mean to services. Zach said the division deferred a playground replacement, ADA accessibility upgrades at Beaver Hall, and replacement of two mowers and a trailer as part of the $242,000 in reductions for 2025. He outlined a projection showing about $140,000 in additional cuts annually beginning in 2026 if no levy is adopted, with escalating reductions through 2028 that could include fewer seasonal staff, cuts to mowing and landscape maintenance, reduced contract labor and fewer community events.

Why it matters: parks operations are mostly supported by property-tax levies, and a prolonged funding shortfall would shift costs to fee increases and to reductions in services many residents use freely. Zach told the board that, with the current levy trajectory, “in 2026 it would eliminate the rest of our capital expenditures, and we'd also have to have a slight reduction in operations.”

Staff described specific service areas and options. Zach said the senior center is relatively insulated because roughly half its budget comes from the Greene County Council on Aging; the senior center’s operations cost about $600,000 annually, with a little over $300,000 from the council. He noted the center also relies on about 160 volunteers and on sponsorships and cost-recovery rates for classes. For recreation programs, Zach said many activities meet or exceed cost recovery targets, but community events that rely on sponsorships could be reduced or scaled back first. The operations team, which does not generate direct revenue, is likely to face the most service-level impacts.

The board heard that some general-fund transfers and grant sources affect the picture. Zach said the city has historically provided a $240,000 annual transfer from the general fund for capital purchases and that, in cases of catastrophic equipment failure, the general fund might need to subsidize critical capital projects. He also explained that grant applications often require local matches (20–50 percent) that could be harder to meet without levy capital funds.

Board members asked about communications and next steps after city council’s recent work session. Zach said city council chose not to place a parks levy on the May ballot and will take a year to “evaluate things as a whole for the city.” He urged residents to follow city communications and an online town-hall recording for more context. On outreach, board members suggested the parks division produce a clear five-year summary showing what levy dollars funded so voters can compare past accomplishments with the service reductions being discussed.

Votes at a glance: The board approved the meeting agenda and the December minutes at the start of the Feb. 11 meeting; the approvals were routine motions during roll call (motions and seconds recorded below). The board later adjourned by motion.

The board discussed required compliance work that still needs funding. In response to a question about ADA work, Zach said the city produced an ADA transition plan in 2020, identified roughly 500 items and created a 10-year plan. He estimated the remaining work is costly — “it’s close to $2,000,000 to complete everything” — and warned that while smaller fixes continue, larger sidewalk and ramp reconstructions require significant capital.

For now the council and staff plan more community engagement and will revisit whether to put a parks levy before voters later in 2025 or in 2026. Zach said, “we will not be on the ballot this spring. I don't know about this fall, and I don't know what 2026 holds.”

Ending: The board did not take a policy vote about a new levy; the session was an informational briefing and the council’s decision about ballot timing will control whether voters see a parks levy in 2025 or later.