April 6, 2026
From Mark Hensen,
Pickerington Board of Education Member

This represents my views and does not reflect those of the PLSD Board of Education (BOE) or my colleagues. I’m speaking for myself, NOT the board.

The PLSD levy issue on the ballot on May 5th is fairly simple to understand (once explained), but it is not necessarily easy to accept or do. This is a five-part series of letters to the editor – the first two parts address “simple” and the last three parts reflect “but not easy”.

But Not Easy – Part 3: The Request

Request for 1.25% in additional school district income tax for a total of 2.25% overall (multiply .0125 x income amount: Example: .0125 x $50,000 = $625)

• Income is the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) minus exemptions
• Requesting 1%, or less, does NOT facilitate minimum staffing increases for our projected enrollment growth
• A new operating levy has not been put on the ballot since 2011
  – PLSD would have been on the ballot much sooner without our income tax
  – PLSD has received property tax revenue increases only from new construction (one-time) and inside millage, but neither is enough to keep up with cost increases, much less enrollment growth
• An income tax increase is being sought, instead of a property tax increase, because:
  – Current pressures on property taxes, including new PLSD budget losses: $5.1M in FY26/27 from property tax reform legislation
  – More people are involved with the income tax, which spreads the requirement
  – An income tax exempts Social Security income, helping to protect seniors
• An Earned Income tax levy was not pursued, as it would have to be at least 3%, repeat 3%

Other Entries in “Simple (but not easy)“

• M. Hensen: “Simple (but not easy)” – Pt. 1 Revenues – Pickerington Online
• M. Hensen: “Simple (but not easy)” – Pt. 2 Expenditures – Pickerington Online