Several residents used the public-comment portion of the Aug. 25 Westerville City Schools Board of Education meeting to dispute the district’s plan to seek additional local revenues this fall, while other speakers urged support for a 0.75% earned-income levy described at the meeting.

Doug Krinsky, who identified himself as a resident and organizer of a group opposing the levy, criticized the district for seeking more money than a recent, defeated proposal. “The board is asking for even more money than the last levy, which was defeated,” Krinsky said, and he argued the proposed income tax would “overburden working families.” He also said the district narrowed public comment avenues after the last campaign, including removing comments on the district Facebook page and limiting comments at meetings.

By contrast, Kevin Hoffman, who identified himself as co-chair of the committee supporting the levy, praised the board’s decision to place a 0.75% earned-income levy on the November ballot and framed it as a move away from property-tax reliance. “This levy reflects the needs of the community to focus on earned income only,” Hoffman told the board, adding it excludes retirement and Social Security income and is intended to help the district meet inflationary pressures and required services.

Ellis Blackstone, a district graduate, also urged a yes vote based on personal experience of the value of programs and facilities, saying she returned to the community and now wants future children to have equal or better opportunities than she received.

Board members and the superintendent acknowledged those views and used the meeting to underscore the distinction between services required by law and additional programs the district funds. Superintendent Hamburg and other board members said many programs—nursing services, EOS credit recovery, additional mental-health supports—are funded by a mix of state, federal and local dollars and that some of those extras could be reduced if a levy does not pass. President Meyer said administrators plan to present possible reduction options to the board on Sept. 22 if the levy fails.

No formal levy vote was recorded in the Aug. 25 meeting minutes provided at the meeting; public speakers and supporters described the district’s placement of a levy question on the fall ballot and discussed its likely structure and projected local impacts. The board did not vote on levy language or adoption at this public session.

Speakers on both sides urged neighbors to register and vote in November. The meeting’s public-comment period also included requests from community members about special-education access and language support (see related coverage).