Pickerington Local board warns of looming $5.6M shortfall; urges public levy discussion in November

The Pickerington Local School District board heard a five-year financial forecast on Oct. 13 that shows rising property-tax revenue driven by a 2025 reappraisal but continued, multi-year deficits unless the district secures new revenue or reduces spending. Superintendent Dr. Smialek and district finance staff presented projections and urged the board to start public conversations about possible levies and corrective actions.

Treasury staff told the board the district saw a near $4 million negative cash flow for September, a general fund balance of about $35.3 million and all-funds of about $114 million, while construction and food-service costs are reducing the all-funds balance. The presentation modeled a substantial assessed-valuation gain for tax year 2025 and showed property-tax revenue higher than the May forecast (about $2.17 million higher in the model for FY25), but long-term projections still show increasing deficits.

"Our credit rating was downgraded from Aa2 to Aa3," the treasurer said in the meeting summary, noting Moody's cited "history of deficit spending and inadequate cash balance" as rationale for the downgrade and that it affects borrowing costs rather than day-to-day operations. The treasurer also noted current days-cash at about 78 for September and walked the board through revenue and expenditure drivers in the forecast.

Dr. Smialek framed the urgency: "Two of the most important numbers are 2,028 and minus $5,600,000," he said, and added that "we are out of money as of 07/01/2027." He translated the shortfall into operational terms: roughly 56 teacher positions (his estimate) would be the equivalent of the projected gap if no other revenue or cost changes occur.

Board members asked staff to model levy scenarios for the November meeting. One member asked the treasurer to run three possibilities — a 2.8-mill levy (projected to stabilize reserves through FY29), a 4-mill levy (which staff projected would rebuild reserves beyond FY32), and an intermediate scenario — so the board can show voters how each option would affect solvency. Staff said those scenarios will be prepared for public discussion in November, with a final board vote expected in January if the board moves forward.

The board did not adopt any levy at this meeting; the superintendent and staff said they will continue to refine assumptions as state legislative actions and future reappraisals could alter projections. The district will hold public informational sessions before any ballot decisions.