Pickerington Local outlines phased cuts after May levy defeat, seeks public input on lower levy options

The Pickerington Local School District board met June 1 for a special work session to review the financial impact of a failed May levy and to consider a multi‑phase plan of budget reductions aimed at closing a projected $19 million deficit by fiscal year 2029.

The meeting, called by board President Cathy Schevsky, was described as an informal work session; the board voted only on the agenda and to adjourn. Administration briefed the board on a three‑phase reduction plan the superintendent and finance staff say will bring the district back into balance if additional revenue is not secured.

Superintendent Dr. Smileik told the board that "the deficit for fiscal year 2029 has grown to 19 million" after updated labor and forecasting assumptions. Financial staff said the reductions are calculated across phases: phase one (immediate operational and position changes), phase two (larger program and course reductions if a November levy fails, with a Jan. 1, 2027 effective date for some cuts) and phase three (additional reductions beginning July 1, 2027) to reach the modeled target.

Administration emphasized the cash‑balance policy that shapes the district's options. "Our cash policy says we have a 45 days normal operating expenses cash balance," said Mr. Walsh, who asked the board to consider whether to adhere to Policy 6210.01 or suspend it; the board's decision on that policy will affect future revenue asks and the depth of cuts required.

Phase one examples in the packet include reclassifying or eliminating certain central‑office roles (the EL and assistive‑technology coordinator positions would be repurposed rather than eliminated entirely), a net reduction of one assistant principal, replacing two secondary librarians with monitors (estimated savings $144,273), eliminating general‑fund support for field trips (approx. $52,000), increasing pay‑to‑participate fees (estimated $175,000) and discontinuing return transportation for off‑campus athletic events (estimated $320,000). Administrators estimated roughly $3.28 million in annual line‑item reductions that, when applied over three years, were presented as about $9.8–$9.9 million toward the $19 million goal.

Phase two would cut additional certified instructional support, reduce some high‑school elective offerings and eliminate on‑campus College Credit Plus options; staff estimated the course/elimination component at roughly 24 FTE reductions (about $1.107 million annual savings) and modeled a $1.7 million annual savings for the phase. Phase three, described as the deepest set of cuts, would fold some foreign‑language offerings into later implementation, reduce transportation radius, and further reduce electives and district‑office positions to reach the full modeled amount.

Board members raised two recurring concerns: equity and timing. Several trustees warned that relying on PTOs and boosters to fund field trips or transportation risks unequal access for students across schools. One trustee said, "If parents want field trips we need everybody who can to get out there and go yes," urging clarity about the district's role versus booster responsibilities.

Trust and messaging after the May loss were another central theme. Board member Mr. Newman said the board must balance following the plan presented to the community with demonstrating responsiveness to voters: "I think it's important to stick to what we said we were going to do," he said, while other members argued that the wide margin of defeat means the district should rethink the ask and what cuts the public will accept.

To inform that choice, the board asked staff to prepare scenario models showing the fiscal and programmatic consequences of alternative levy asks (examples discussed included 0.50%, 0.75% and lower than the original 1.25%) and to provide materials the public can compare during the scheduled listening sessions. Administration agreed to prepare parallel forecasts that map revenue levels to years of solvency and required reductions, noting that the board also can suspend its 45‑day cash policy if it chooses.

No formal actions to adopt cuts were taken at the session. The board directed staff to schedule and run the public listening sessions beginning June 2 and a public meeting on June 23 and to return with modeling and clearer materials for the board and public before making final decisions.

What happens next: administration will produce the requested levy‑level scenario models and job/operations documentation (job descriptions and functions for administrative positions) so trustees and residents can weigh trade‑offs; the board will hold additional public listening sessions and consider timing of any implementation (midyear January changes versus fall implementation).