We are asking the voters of our school district to approve an additional 1.25% income tax for the purposes of funding our operations. 

All district residents who earn income will pay 1.25% more of their federally adjusted gross income to our schools. Social security is “held harmless”; it is not included in this tax increase. 

We have gained 17% enrollment since 2011, the last time we passed a revenue enhancement. We have been deficit spending for four years and will exhaust our reserves by Fiscal Year 2028 (July 31, 2027), necessitating either increased revenue or decreased spending.

Our class sizes are already higher than local peer districts and the state average. Our administrative spending per student is lower than peer districts and the state average. In short, we have already strained our staff to be able to balance our budget and provide excellent programs for our students. 

That’s correct! We have bond debt that will be eliminated this tax year in the amount of 3.1 mills ($325.50 per year for the owner of a $300,000 house).

We will begin to cut staff, which means less support for our students. We pride ourselves as a “destination district,” but will have to make hard choices if we cannot increase our revenue.

In the mid-2000s, the state of Ohio began a pattern of less support to local government entities, including schools. This pattern has allowed them to reduce the state’s income tax but ends in cities and school districts having to ask their residents to make up the difference. Specifically, since 2005, local governments receive $1.88 billion less in state aid than before this trend began. Public education used to gain 48% of its funding from state subsidies; this is down to 37% at this time.  

No, actually, even with an additional 1.25% income tax, Pickerington and Violet Township residents will still pay less than those with the same income and housing values in Hillard, Gahanna, Westerville, and Reynoldsburg. Consider the following slide that we presented at our most recent Town Hall:

It doesn’t. We are funding all-day kindergarten by reallocating resources from other departments. We believe that all-day kindergarten, at no charge, should be a fundamental right of all children. 

The staffing projection only accommodates the enrollment growth that our independent consultant has projected. It does not introduce any additional administrators or programs. It simply maintains class sizes in all areas and increases staffing only proportional to the number of students who join our district in each category (elementary, secondary, special education, etc.).

We opted for the income tax for two reasons. First, the political climate in Ohio has very much soured on the sustainability of property taxes. Recent property tax reform has lessened the amount of money we once anticipated collecting by $5.1 million over our current financial forecast and more reforms seem imminent. Second, income taxes hold harmless social security. This helps our senior citizens who rely upon this mechanism for a substantial or exclusive portion of their income.

Our entire "ask" is based upon the need to keep 45 days worth of operating "cash" in our general fund for as long as possible. This 45-day threshold is actually BOE policy and matches generally accepted best fiscal practices. 

Since we proposed our 8.0 and 9.2 mill levies last July and August, the following circumstances have mitigated our financial forecast:

• We did not pass new money in 2025, meaning we cannot collect any additional funds in 2026. This equates to a conservative estimate of $17-19 million in missed revenue. 
• We added staff (five special education staff members) which we do not anticipate being able to reduce during the current forecast. 
• We lost $5.1M in the forecast due to property tax revisions.

45 days of cash as currently calculated as $21.5M. The 1.25% income tax leaves us with a projected balance of $26.1 in 2030. Moving to a 1.00% would have forced us to come back to voters sooner; a prospect we wanted to avoid.

Yes. In addition to the larger reductions being considered, we are also planning for up to a 25% reduction in budgets for items identified as “non-essential” (those not directly tied to student safety) across both district departments and school buildings.

While these items may seem smaller individually, they play an important role in supporting day-to-day teaching, learning, and school culture. Reductions in these areas would be noticeable for both students and staff.

Examples of potential reductions include:

District-level:

• Furniture replacement
• Pavement resurfacing
• Academic programs such as service learning and Global Scholars
• Professional development for staff
• Replacement of paperback novels and classroom materials

School-level:

• Classroom supplies (e.g., dry erase markers, chart paper, basic materials)
• Student recognition and celebration efforts (such as PBIS and academic incentives)