Pickerington board weighs operating-levy options as educators urge November vote

The Pickerington Local School District board of education on May 12 discussed multiple operating-levy scenarios for the November ballot as district finance staff warned of multi-year budget shortfalls and teachers’ representatives urged swift action.

The board’s work session centered on a “press pause” staffing approach for fiscal 2026 and on levy options that administrators say would restore policy-directed cash reserves and fund planned staffing increases. Pickerington Education Association President Brad Harris, speaking during public participation, told the board: "I urge this board to place an operating levy on the November ballot....Passing this levy is essential to preserve the educational quality people have come to expect from this district." He said delays have already forced cuts to programs including summer school and imposed a hiring freeze.

Board and administration officials framed the levy discussion around two property-tax options they will bring back for formal consideration at the next meeting: an 8-mill proposal and a 9.21-mill proposal. Finance staff showed scenarios that a 7-mill levy would move the district to a 45-day cash balance in fiscal 2029; larger levies would raise more revenue and reduce the risk of staffing cuts. Administrators also reviewed income-tax options (quarter-point and half-point increases) but said those take longer to ramp up — roughly 18 months — and produce smaller near-term revenue (finance staff estimated roughly $350,000 in the first partial year from a 0.25% increase).

District staff described the “press pause” approach used to limit new hires for FY26: the administration narrowed the FY26 additions to a smaller set of positions (they cited about 26 FTEs as the FY26 add under press pause), will monitor summer enrollments weekly, and said they would re-evaluate next-year staffing as enrollment patterns firm. Administrators cautioned that the levy amount the board chooses should reflect both immediate cash needs and longer-term choices such as start/end time and transportation changes, which were not included in the current scenarios.

On timing, the board and staff reviewed the calendar for placing an operating levy on the November ballot. To meet election deadlines, the district needs a board direction and a resolution of necessity in late May/June and final documents to the board of elections by July. Administration told the board it would prepare more than one resolution so the board could choose a millage at its next meeting.

Board members asked several questions about tradeoffs. Some trustees favored a larger ask to reduce the chance of returning to voters in a short period; others favored a smaller, more politically feasible request. Several trustees and administrators noted new-construction growth and a scheduled bond-debt reduction that would partially offset levy impacts in later years.

Finance staff also briefed the board on statewide budgeting pressures, noting uncertainty in the state’s Fair School Funding process and that the House budget at that time was projecting lower foundation aid than district forecasts. Staff warned that state-level changes and continued enrollment growth create uncertainty for 2028–29 projections.

The meeting ended with the board directing administration to prepare resolutions for at least two millage options (8.00 and 9.21 mills) and to return them for action at the next board meeting, plus fiscal-impact materials showing estimated annual and per-household costs.

The board did not take a final vote on a levy at the May 12 meeting; the items were presented for discussion and direction only.