The Gahanna Parks Board reviewed the draft 2026 budget during its regular meeting, pressing staff for explanations of several large line‑item changes and asking for follow-up detail before the packet goes to city administration. Board members focused on increases in taxable revenue for golf operations and rising camp participation, a request for higher materials and supplies tied to a planned senior center move, a large uptick in street‑tree contract spending, and an omitted utilities figure for Hunters Ridge Pool.

Board member Jan Ross and others asked why the projected increase in taxable sales for golf was so large compared with corresponding expense increases. A staff member said the revenue rise reflects “a larger volume of individuals who are utilizing the course,” adding that increased retail sales do not necessarily raise staffing costs because “that doesn't change an expectation of any of the operations.”

The board discussed overall cost‑recovery metrics. One member noted that total revenue in the draft increased about 5 percent from last year’s budget while total expenses declined about 1 percent; board members also raised an internal line showing a small cost‑recovery loss of $7.13 that does not include payroll. A staff member said the draft budget is evaluated on the assumption that appropriated funds could be spent in full, but that seasonal closures, canceled programs and unspent contractual allocations mean realized expenditures and revenue may differ from the appropriation.

Ken Shepherd pressed staff on senior operations, noting the materials and supplies allocation grew from $20,000 in 2024–25 to more than $30,000 in the 2026 request—about a 50 percent increase. Staff explained that the increase is tied to a planned move into a new senior center building in 2026 and that revenue projections for the new site were intentionally conservative until occupancy timing is certain.

Shepherd also asked about the street‑tree budget, noting the packet showed contract services increasing from earlier approved amounts (described in the packet as roughly $212,000 and $24,000) to $427,000 in the current approval column. Staff said the July end‑of‑month figures still omit several expected year‑end charges: a contracted full inventory of city trees (an arbor inventory beyond street trees), a large fall planting contract and paired removals and plantings, and that the street‑tree program remains new and therefore subject to adjustment.

Board members also asked whether fee increases (green fees, cart fees, registration) were baked into the revenue projections for golf and pools. A staff member confirmed fees were anticipated to rise to meet the cost‑recovery model but clarified that the Parks Board approves the cost‑recovery model rather than individual operational fees; those fee changes must remain within the model the board adopts.

On a discrete budgeting error, a board member observed that the 2026 request showed no utilities for Hunters Ridge Pool. Staff acknowledged the omission, stating, “That is an error, and that is not an accurate reflection of what we need.”

Discussion only took place on the draft budget; the board recorded no formal vote on the draft during the meeting. Staff said the draft will be forwarded to administration after board questions are addressed and reminded members that a separate pricing policy review will come to the board in October.

The board requested updated, line‑by‑line clarifications for the next meeting, including year‑to‑date figures and the staff’s assumptions for revenue and expense trajectories.