Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Parks Senior Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beavercreek parks report: $400,000 in reductions force program and maintenance cuts, senior center hours trimmed
Summary
City parks staff told the board that two failed levies and other budget pressures led to roughly $400,000 in reductions for parks and recreation in 2026; staff deferred capital projects, cut contract mowing, and eliminated senior‑center evening and weekend hours, prompting a wave of public comment urging restoration.
Zach, parks and recreation staff, told the Park, Recreation and Culture Board that the department reduced capital spending by $242,000 in 2025 and that the 2026 budget reflects about $150,000 in additional reductions, for roughly $400,000 total, or about 13% of the division's expenditures. Zach said the shortfall stems from two failed levies — a 1.93‑mill levy in 2023 that included funding for Spring House Park and a smaller 0.49‑mill levy in November 2024 intended for ongoing operations and capital — and that those results required deferrals and operational changes.
The cuts have tangible consequences, staff said. Zach said the department deferred playground replacement at Dominic Lafino Park (a playground he described as nearly 24 years old), delayed some ADA upgrades, postponed replacement of two large mowers and a dump trailer, and deferred skate‑park decking repairs. On operations, he said the 2026 budget eliminates senior‑center evening and weekend hours, removes about $40,000 in contract mowing and landscaping (shifting more work to current staff), reduces pesticide and fertilizer applications and will initiate a shelter‑rental fee for park shelters.
Why the reduction matters: Zach told the board the department's general‑fund subsidy for parks is just shy of $900,000 and that roughly $500,000 of that is local match for a multiuse path and other projects. He also referenced revenue numbers: about $1,787,000 in parks revenue this year (noting a timing anomaly with a large county business payment) and an auditor's estimate of about $1,744,000 for next year. Zach warned that, without new revenue, cuts in maintenance, programming, staffing and even the possible sale of park land could be on the table in future years.
Public response: Several senior‑center members and regular volunteers attended the meeting during the public‑comment period to press for restored hours and other solutions. Nancy Bridal told the board the senior center is "a thriving social center" and said cutting evening and Saturday hours excludes many working members, asking, "Where did those allocated funds go?" Joyce Carter and other residents urged forming a task force to pursue fundraising and business sponsorships. Volunteer leaders emphasized the program's scale: attendees and volunteers described roughly 2,700 members at the center and volunteers contributing tens of thousands of hours annually.
Board and staff reaction: Board members repeatedly expressed sympathy and appreciation for the senior center and volunteers but clarified the board is advisory and does not control city budget appropriations. Zach and other staff urged residents to take questions and requests to city council and the city's budget work sessions, and offered to meet with citizens to provide data and answer specific operational or funding questions.
What happens next: Zach said a property‑tax levy, if placed on the ballot and approved, would begin collections in 2027; a voted income tax has a longer timeline to collection. Staff said they will pursue grant and donor opportunities for targeted items (including a senior‑center van) and encouraged continued community engagement and sponsorships.
Ending: The board accepted the report, heard public comment urging restoration of senior‑center services, and directed staff to continue outreach and inform city council about community concerns and possible funding options.
