Students Suffer as Pickerington Schools Split Over Levy Disputes

Pickerington School Board Decides Against Operating Levy on November Ballot

The Pickerington School Board recently made a decision that will impact the district’s financial planning and future operations. On Monday, the board voted not to place an operating levy on the November 4 ballot. The resolution failed to meet the required four-vote majority, with three members voting in favor and two against. This outcome has sparked a range of reactions from community members, educators, and parents.

The board was considering two different levy proposals. One option aimed to generate nearly $17 million annually at a rate of 8.0 mills, which would cost homeowners approximately $280 per year for every $100,000 in home value. The other proposal would have raised more than $19.5 million per year at 9.21 mills, with a cost of $322 annually per $100,000 in home value. Despite these options, the board ultimately decided not to move forward with either proposal.

Three board members—Clay Lopez, Mark Hensen, and Cathy Olshefski—supported moving the levies to voters in November. However, the remaining two members, Vanessa Niekamp and JD Postage, opposed the proposals. This marked the first time the district had considered a new operating levy since 2011. The proposals were brought forward due to increased enrollment, rising operational costs, and concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability.

Superintendent Charles Smialek emphasized the district's commitment to transparency and community engagement, even though the vote delayed the levy process. “While this vote delays a levy, our commitment to transparency, strategic planning, and community engagement remains unchanged,” he said in a statement. He also thanked residents for attending town halls and participating in discussions about the future of the schools.

However, some community members expressed frustration over the decision. Brad Harris, a teacher at Pickerington North High School, criticized the board for not giving the community a chance to vote on the issue. “We’ve been making the case to our board for years now about how overloaded our staff is, the increase in behavioral issues, and the growing needs of students,” he said.

School Board President Clay Lopez defended the need for the levy, stating that without new revenue, the district would face deep cuts that could harm students’ education and well-being. “This levy isn’t about ‘want.’ It’s about need,” he said. Lopez argued that the current funding model, including the 20-mill floor, is only a temporary fix and does not address the district’s growing needs.

Joie Moore, president of the Pickerington Support Staff Association, echoed similar concerns. She noted that discussions about the importance of a levy have been ongoing since 2023, but the board’s decision shows a lack of commitment to those conversations.

Several parents and staff members voiced concerns about the potential for larger class sizes if the district lacks additional funding. Superintendent Smialek highlighted the issue during a recent interview, noting that the average class size is currently 26 students, far above the state average. “We would be putting upwards of 30 students in elementary classrooms, which is not a great environment for learning in 2025,” he said.

Parents like Michelle Leasor, who moved to the area for the schools, worry that without a new levy, essential programs such as fine arts and electives could be cut again. “Without another operating levy, these classes could be eliminated, leaving students behind,” she said.

Board member Vanessa Niekamp opposed the levy, citing concerns about property reappraisals. “We are just above the 20-mill floor, and a countywide reappraisal is expected to significantly increase property values,” she said. Niekamp argued that the automatic revenue growth from reappraisals would make a new levy unnecessary and potentially confusing for taxpayers.

Mark Hensen, who supported the levy, believed that reappraisals might make it harder to pass a levy in the future. “Concerns about our board have made this an uphill battle,” he said. Hensen suggested that the board’s composition may need to change to better support future initiatives.

Parent Michael Sovic questioned the reasoning behind not putting the levy on the ballot. “To be honest, I haven’t heard a strong justification or argument for not putting it on the ballot,” he said during the meeting.

Despite the current setback, District Treasurer John Walsh stated that the district will continue exploring revenue options to support students and staff. Some families and staff members have already begun pushing for a levy to be placed on the ballot in May 2026.