Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Levy Placement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pickerington board moves forward with 0.75% income tax levy for 10 years; certifies rate for November ballot
Summary
After listening sessions and fiscal review, Superintendent Smialek recommended and the board voted to certify a 0.75% traditional income tax levy (10-year cap) for placement on the November 2026 ballot; the board set a special meeting Aug. 3 to vote on the resolution to proceed and will submit certification paperwork to the tax commissioner by the July deadline.
The Pickerington Local School District board voted June 29 to move forward with a 0.75% traditional income tax levy capped at 10 years, directing staff to submit a resolution certifying estimated tax rates to the Ohio tax commissioner ahead of statutory deadlines.
Superintendent Dr. Smialek told the board he and staff held June listening sessions and collected about 190 participants’ responses, which — he said — consistently showed a 1.25% ask was too high and that 0.75% with a 10‑year expiration had greater community support. “0.75 with a 10 year expiration gets it done,” Smialek said, summarizing comments from the sessions.
Smialek and trustees said they had trimmed administrative positions and other expenditures as part of a broader effort to reduce the levy ask: he reported eliminating five district office positions and two assistant-principal positions, estimating roughly $600,000 in savings. He said the 0.75% option keeps the district fiscally sustainable through fiscal year 2031 but that a projected FY2032 shortfall of about $9 million would still require future belt‑tightening.
Board members discussed five levy-design options — 0.5% and 0.75% traditional income tax, 6.0‑mill property tax, and 2.0% and 2.25% earned income tax — and narrowed consideration to the 0.75% traditional income tax with a 10‑year cap. Trustees debated distributional effects and the tradeoffs of earned income and property tax approaches; one trustee said an earned-income tax would shift burden from seniors to working families and would require higher rates to yield equivalent revenue.
The board amended the agenda to move the 0.75% resolution into the discussion-action section and then approved the resolution by roll-call vote. The roll call on certification recorded the following votes: Henson — yes; DeGrosso — yes; Holstein — yes; Olszewski — yes; Newman — yes (5–0). The chair noted the next step — a separate 'resolution to proceed' — will require a supermajority of at least four votes; the board scheduled a special meeting for Aug. 3 to take that action.
Treasurer Mr. Walsh confirmed administrative paperwork must be submitted in time to meet the tax-commissioner deadlines (the transcript cites July dates and Mr. Walsh said the paperwork will meet the deadline). The superintendent and treasurer emphasized that levy campaign spending would come from a separate campaign fund, not the district general fund; the superintendent clarified administrative costs to put an issue on the ballot are separate from campaign expenditures.
The board’s certification begins the formal process to place the proposed 0.75% levy on the November ballot; it does not itself impose the tax. The board will consider and vote on the resolution to proceed at the August special meeting before finalizing the placement on the ballot.
