PLSD Board Delays Levy Decision to Seek Community Input

June 26, 2025
By Rachel Scofield

At their June 23 meeting, the Pickerington Schools Board of Education voted 3–2 to table discussion of a possible levy until their July 14 meeting.

Currently, the proposal under consideration is an 8.0-mill continuing operating levy that would generate an estimated $16.97 million annually. For homeowners, that would amount to roughly $280 per $100,000 in appraised home value. (A larger 9.21-mill option was dropped from consideration after Board Member Mark Hensen’s motion to adopt it failed to receive a second.)

However, J.D. Postage urged his fellow board members to delay any vote until the district could gather input from the community.

“I want to make sure that we are engaging in the light of what’s going on right now,” Postage said. “There’s a lot of negativity surrounding property tax, and there are people running around saying, ‘Sign this piece of paper—we’re going to do away with your property taxes,’ and then all of a sudden, we’re asking for more. I’m trying to be as transparent with the public as we can about why we’re asking, what we’re asking, and their thoughts and feelings.”

Community Survey

Incoming Superintendent Dr. Charles Smialek clarified that any levy-specific survey would have to be funded by Vote4PickKids.com, an independent political action committee. By law, school districts cannot use taxpayer dollars to fund ballot-related polls.

Board member Vanessa Niekamp suggested that instead of hiring an outside company to conduct a survey, the district could poll the community itself, similar to how it collected opinions on school start/stop times. She also suggested including information on the constraints the district faces.

“The survey would be a tool to educate the community on what’s coming,” Niekamp said. “Since we posted the proposed levy options on social media, there has been a lot of negativity.”

Board member Cathy Olshefski questioned the feasibility of collecting public input at this stage.

“I’m concerned that doing a survey at this point in the game is too late,” she said, noting that the firms typically used require significant lead time. “We are in the midst of deficit spending. I believe our ask is solid… candidly, I believe we need to double our ask because of our growth.”

Olshefski said she does not want to wait any longer. She also questioned the district’s ability to create a useful survey.

“We are not professional survey writers—none of us is—and I really struggle with us tossing out a SurveyMonkey when we don’t know what we are asking to determine the right response,” she said. “I think this is a waste of time and money.”

Financial Straits

“The district has no money!” Olshefski stated. “It is up to the five of us to have a conversation with the administration to determine what we feel is an appropriate and fair ask of our community. I believe the majority of us believe it is an 8.0-mill levy. We know the community sentiment about raising taxes. Hell, I don’t want to raise my taxes—but we also want to keep solid schools.”

According to Treasurer John Walsh, the district has been operating at a deficit since fiscal year 2022 and will soon exhaust its reserve funds. Additionally, beginning in February, the schools have not hired replacements for all vacated positions—a cost-saving policy titled “Press Pause.”

Hensen agreed with Olshefski. A levy issue would need to be approved by the Fairfield County Board of Elections by August 6 for inclusion on the November 4 ballot.

“I don’t disagree with a survey—I just think it should be disconnected from moving ahead with putting a levy on the ballot,” Hensen said. “For time’s sake, we shouldn’t be trying to delay the levy at this point.”

He added that any district-conducted survey could not address levy specifics but would instead cover broader topics such as school finances, facilities, and programming.

Hensen believes the board needs to move from the “listening” phase to educating the community about the severity of the district’s financial constraints. He noted that delays in action have contributed to the need for a higher millage than in neighboring districts.

“We haven’t requested additional operating funds since 2011—something I don’t consider a point of pride,” Hensen said. “Going on the ballot with an operating levy back in 2019, due to significant enrollment projection increases, would have meant less need now. It would have also facilitated lower class sizes over the past several years and allowed us to better value our staff.”

Postage, Niekamp, and Board President Clay Lopez voted to table the issue until the July 14 board meeting, while Olshefski and Hensen dissented.

Expressing the Need

At the conclusion of the meeting, Jackie Bahas, a parent from Violet Elementary and a volunteer with Vote4PickKids, spoke against the postponement.

“I am extremely disappointed in this board and what just happened,” Bahas said. “I do not understand why this issue has been out there and this discussion did not happen sooner. We are on borrowed time. We need to change so many minds, and I am ready to knock on doors and drop off pamphlets!”

The volunteers on the Vote4PickKids committee want to be in the community informing their neighbors how a lack of funding impacts the schools—but they cannot do that until the board places a levy on the ballot.

“We can’t tell the stories we need to make this a human experience for our voters,” Bahas said. “We need to talk about the teachers who are going to lose their jobs. We need to talk about the students who are going to be crammed like sardines in classrooms with 30+ kids. My child has already experienced that once—I do not want to go back to that. Please don’t table this talk now. Make action happen!”

The discussion will resume at the July 14 board meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. in the district administrative offices located at 90 N. East Street.

Community members are encouraged to share their thoughts: