Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Pickerington leaders warn of $14 million shortfall and ask voters to approve 1.25% school income tax
Loading...
Summary
District leaders said a projected $14 million deficit by fiscal year 2029 would force cuts to staff, electives, athletics and summer school unless voters approve a proposed 1.25% school income tax on the May ballot; the board described outreach plans and answered residents’ concerns about senior impacts.
Pickerington Local School District officials told residents that a proposed 1.25% school income tax on the May ballot is intended to close a projected $14,000,000 operating shortfall that would otherwise begin in fiscal year 2029.
Dr. Smialek, who opened the session, said the district has not asked for increased operating revenue since 2011 and that changes in Ohio tax policy and declining state aid have shifted more of the funding burden to local taxpayers. “We have a $14,000,000 deficit that we project fiscal year 2029,” Dr. Smialek said, noting fiscal year 2029 begins July 1, 2028.
The district presented the income tax as an alternative to a property tax increase because an income tax can offer relief for seniors (it does not tax Social Security) and because the district wanted to avoid a property‑tax option without the same senior relief. Officials said the additional 1.25% would begin collection soon after voter approval, with estimated quarterly effects beginning in January following certification.
Officials outlined the consequences if voters reject the May ask. Dr. Smialek listed possible actions the district would consider, including reductions in administrative and certified instructional staff, cuts to core subjects, elimination of some field trips, cutting return transportation for off‑campus athletic contests, reducing the number of athletic teams, ending summer school and removing on‑campus College Credit Plus courses (more than 45 courses currently offered on campus). “When you're talking about cuts, it’s going to be teachers... principals... counselors,” he said.
At the meeting, a retired teacher said she supports the district but worries that the tax is an add‑on and would strain seniors on fixed incomes. The attendee said many voters interpret the ask as an additional percent rather than a replacement and described personal caregiving and health costs that make extra taxes difficult. Dr. Smialek acknowledged those concerns and pointed to a recent reduction in property taxes as a partial offset — the district is not renewing an expiring bond levy, which officials estimated would lower property taxes by about 3.1 mills — but said the reduction does not fully cancel the proposed income tax.
District officials also discussed alternatives they considered. When asked whether the district joined a statewide lawsuit challenging vouchers, Dr. Smialek said Pickerington is not participating because the per‑student fee to join (about $2 per student, roughly $25,000) made it a disproportionate expense for this district, though the district monitors the issue.
The board emphasized outreach to voters, noting limits on campaign resources. Board President Kathy Olszewski said the board meets frequently with state legislators and is vocal about public education funding, while urging additional communication methods (mailers, signs, neighborhood outreach) to reach residents who are not online.
The district encouraged residents with questions to contact Dr. Smialek, operations lead Rob Weinheimer, board members Bridal Legrosso and Mark Henson, or Kathy Olszewski.
