Find a district › Fairborn City

Fairborn City

What moved this district's funding from FY2025 to FY2027, line by line — on total state support, and on the foundation aid this site models — and where it sits among its county's districts.

Across Greene County Contents

FY2026 and FY2027 models, nominal dollars

On total state support, Fairborn City moved −5.4% (−$1,379,593) from FY2026 to FY2027: the 2nd-largest fall of 7 in Greene County.

Beavercreek CityBellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalXenia CommunityCityCedar Cliff LocalYellow SpringsExempted VillageGreeneview LocalFairborn City+4.1%−5.4%−5.5%
Beavercreek CityBellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalXenia Community CityCedar Cliff LocalYellow Springs ExemptedVillageGreeneview LocalFairborn City+4.1%−5.4%−5.5%
Beavercreek CityBellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalXenia Community CityCedar Cliff LocalYellow Springs Exempted VillageGreeneview LocalFairborn City+4.1%−5.4%−5.5%
The values
  • Beavercreek City: +4.1% (+$610,639) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local: +0.5% (+$31,452) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Xenia Community City: −0.3% (−$58,344) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Cedar Cliff Local: −1.1% (−$47,669) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Yellow Springs Exempted Village: −2.4% (−$59,958) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Fairborn City: −5.4% (−$1,379,593) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Greeneview Local: −5.5% (−$390,699) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027

On foundation aid, Fairborn City moved −6.7% (−$1,491,299) from FY2026 to FY2027: the 2nd-largest fall of 7 in Greene County.

Xenia CommunityCityBeavercreek CityBellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalCedar Cliff LocalYellow SpringsExempted VillageGreeneview LocalFairborn City0.0%−6.7%−8.2%
Xenia Community CityBeavercreek CityBellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalCedar Cliff LocalYellow Springs ExemptedVillageGreeneview LocalFairborn City0.0%−6.7%−8.2%
Xenia Community CityBeavercreek CityBellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalCedar Cliff LocalYellow Springs Exempted VillageGreeneview LocalFairborn City0.0%−6.7%−8.2%
The values
  • Xenia Community City: 0.0% ($0) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Beavercreek City: 0.0% ($0) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local: 0.0% ($0) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Cedar Cliff Local: −1.2% (−$46,573) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Yellow Springs Exempted Village: −5.0% (−$117,654) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Fairborn City: −6.7% (−$1,491,299) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Greeneview Local: −8.2% (−$473,205) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027

Every district the department attributes to Greene County, as a percentage of its own FY2026 figure, so a city and a village can be read on one scale. The two measures can rank the same county in different orders: a district held at its base does not move on foundation aid at all, whatever its other lines do.

By line Contents

Every line the department pays this district through, in the three years. Total state support, the last row, is all of them; foundation aid, the first, is the narrow measure — core foundation funding and the guarantee, the part this site models. FY2025 is the department's final payment report; FY2026 and FY2027 are its models of those years, not payments. Every figure is in nominal dollars.

Line FY2025 paidFY2026 modelFY2027 model FY2026 to FY2027
Foundation aid (the narrow measure)$22,588,758$22,369,578$20,878,279−$1,491,299
Transportation$1,690,726$1,792,942$1,902,605+$109,663
Special education transportation$319,264$399,358$381,903−$17,456
Preschool special education$587,131$620,030$594,262−$25,768
Supplemental targeted assistance (repealed by H.B. 96)$0$0$0$0
Formula transition supplement$0$0$0$0
Base funding supplement$0$108,081$157,175+$49,094
Enrollment growth supplement$0$0$0$0
Performance supplement$0$208,156$204,327−$3,828
Total state support (the wide measure)$25,185,879$25,498,144$24,118,551−$1,379,593

The lines sum to total state support in every year, to within cent rounding. Supplemental targeted assistance keeps its row after FY2025 because its going is part of the change: H.B. 96 repealed it, and the base funding and enrollment growth supplements it created are separate lines, not its replacement under another name.

The phase-in Contents

Foundation aid is paid as the funding base plus the The share of the gap between what the formula computes and a district's older base that is actually paid. A district below its base is held at the base, so a higher phase-in does not reach it.'s share of the gap between what the formula calculates and that base, and the guarantee holds it up where the result would fall. These are the department's own three figures for each year. FY2025 is the department's final payment report; FY2026 and FY2027 are its models of those years, not payments. Every figure is in nominal dollars.

Stage FY2025 paidFY2026 modelFY2027 model
Funding base$16,658,065$16,658,065$16,658,065
Calculated by the formula$25,553,660$23,512,155$20,878,279
Paid through the phase-in$22,588,758$22,369,578$20,878,279
Guarantee$0$0$0
Foundation aid$22,588,758$22,369,578$20,878,279
  • FY2025: +$5,930,693 above its base. The formula calculates $25,553,660, $8,895,595 over a $16,658,065 base, and the phase-in pays $5,930,693 of that gap.
  • FY2026: +$5,711,513 above its base. The formula calculates $23,512,155, $6,854,089 over a $16,658,065 base, and the phase-in pays $5,711,513 of that gap.
  • FY2027: +$4,220,214 above its base. The formula calculates $20,878,279, $4,220,214 over a $16,658,065 base, and the phase-in pays $4,220,214 of that gap.

The phase-in statewide counts the districts paid exactly their base in each year, which a higher rate does not reach, and what it paid above everyone else's.

What moved underneath Contents

Three inputs and the measure each reaches the dollars through. The files publish the inputs and the payment but not how much of the payment's change each input is, so nothing here divides the change between them. The FY2025 payment report carries no capacity inputs at all, so state share and enrollment start at FY2026. Dollar figures are in nominal dollars.

  • State share went from 41.6% in FY2026 to 36.0% in FY2027. It is the part of base cost the state pays after the district's local capacity is charged, so it reaches the dollars through foundation aid, which moved −$1,491,299 over the same two years. Reappraisal and the state share sets the fall beside every district's valuation change, by the share it started at.
  • Assessed valuation went from $980,542,900 in tax year 2023 to $1,009,144,245 in tax year 2025 (+2.9%). Valuation is the larger part of local capacity, which is what sets the state share above — the route by which a reappraisal reaches foundation aid at all.
  • Enrolled ADM went from 4,003.0 in FY2026 to 3,929.4 in FY2027, as each year's file states it (−1.8%). Base cost is computed per pupil, so enrollment reaches the dollars through the formula's calculated figure on the phase-in card.

Transfers and net funding Contents

What the department deducts from total state support before it pays the district — the educational service center's charge and other adjustments — and what is left. FY2025's report publishes the transfers as one total; FY2027's itemizes them; FY2026's publishes none, and that column says so rather than showing a zero. FY2025 is the department's final payment report; FY2026 and FY2027 are its models of those years, not payments. Every figure is in nominal dollars.

FY2025 paidFY2026 modelFY2027 model
Total state support$25,185,879$25,498,144$24,118,551
Service center chargenot itemizednot published−$3,004,260
Other adjustmentsnot itemizednot published−$239,638
Transfers, in total−$3,614,190not published−$3,243,898
Net state funding$21,571,689not published$20,874,653