M. Hensen: “Simple (but not easy)” – Pt. 4

Pickerington Online welcomes readers to submit Letters to the Editor. The opinions expressed in these letters are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor or staff. Letters emailed to editor@pickeringtononline.com will be posted on both the organization’s website and social media within a few days of receipt, unless the contributor specifies a preferred publication time.

More Students, Not Enough State $, and Deficits

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 4: More Students, Not Enough State $, and Deficits

PLSD received projections of significant enrollment growth in 2019, and those projections have been exceeded.

  • Projected to grow by 1,000+ students in the next 5 years
  • Projected to grow by over 2,000 students in the next 10 years
  • PLSD grew by 1,000+ students in the last 5 years

State funding projections show us getting $51.5M+ less than anticipated from FY26-29

  • State legislature effectively abandoned the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP) in the FY26/27 budget cycle
  • In 1999, the state funded 48% of local public education; that was down to 37% in 2025 and is projected to be as low as 32% by 2027.
    – Unless reversed, this dynamic will force every Ohio school district to seek local revenue more frequently in the future

PLSD started generating deficits (expenditures exceeding revenues) in Fiscal Year 2020 and has had a deficit every year since (except FY21 had a small surplus).

  • We will also have a deficit in FY26 at the end of June
  • If a levy had been placed on the ballot in ANY year since FY20, the current “ask” would have been smaller
  • Every year we wait, the “ask” grows larger – because our cash balance shrinks
    – A 45-day cash balance policy applies
    – The “ask” can be smaller IF we make further reductions
    – The proposed 2026 reductions are over $15M and cover the $14M+ shortfall in FY29
    – EVEN IF ALL those 2026 cuts are made, WITHOUT a new levy, there’s still a $15M+ deficit in FY30, and still MORE cuts will have to be made.

Other Entries in “Simple (but not easy)“