Find a district › Tipp City Exempted Village
Tipp City Exempted Village
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 Miami County Contents
On total state support, Tipp City Exempted Village moved +1.4% (+$124,875) from FY2026 to FY2027: the 5th-largest rise of 9 in Miami County.
The values
- Bethel Local: +6.9% (+$1,063,617) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
- Bradford Exempted Village: +4.4% (+$260,636) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
- Covington Exempted Village: +4.4% (+$286,551) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
- Newton Local: +3.9% (+$227,411) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
- Tipp City Exempted Village: +1.4% (+$124,875) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
- Miami East Local: +1.1% (+$65,253) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
- Troy City: +0.3% (+$49,556) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
- Piqua City: −0.5% (−$130,405) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
- Milton-Union Exempted Village: −8.2% (−$629,958) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
On foundation aid, Tipp City Exempted Village moved 0.0% ($0) from FY2026 to FY2027: one of 3 of 9 in Miami County that did not move.
The values
- Bethel Local: +7.6% (+$1,020,609) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
- Covington Exempted Village: +4.5% (+$272,685) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
- Bradford Exempted Village: +4.4% (+$247,426) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
- Newton Local: +4.3% (+$231,763) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
- Troy City: 0.0% ($0) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
- Tipp City Exempted Village: 0.0% ($0) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
- Miami East Local: 0.0% ($0) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
- Piqua City: −0.4% (−$77,415) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
- Milton-Union Exempted Village: −8.5% (−$588,703) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
Every district the department attributes to Miami 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 paid | FY2026 model | FY2027 model | FY2026 to FY2027 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foundation aid (the narrow measure) | $7,506,240 | $7,506,240 | $7,506,240 | $0 |
| Transportation | $655,615 | $757,174 | $866,351 | +$109,177 |
| Special education transportation | $52,793 | $71,960 | $74,434 | +$2,474 |
| Preschool special education | $138,220 | $140,681 | $129,814 | −$10,867 |
| Supplemental targeted assistance (repealed by H.B. 96) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Formula transition supplement | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Base funding supplement | $0 | $62,093 | $89,633 | +$27,539 |
| Enrollment growth supplement | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Performance supplement | $0 | $134,536 | $131,088 | −$3,448 |
| Total state support (the wide measure) | $8,352,868 | $8,672,684 | $8,797,560 | +$124,875 |
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 paid | FY2026 model | FY2027 model |
|---|---|---|---|
| Funding base | $7,506,240 | $7,506,240 | $7,506,240 |
| Calculated by the formula | $6,580,458 | $5,194,476 | $3,394,083 |
| Paid through the phase-in | $6,889,021 | $5,579,847 | $3,394,083 |
| Guarantee | $617,219 | $1,926,393 | $4,112,157 |
| Foundation aid | $7,506,240 | $7,506,240 | $7,506,240 |
- FY2025: at its base. The formula calculates $6,580,458 against a $7,506,240 base, and foundation aid is the base itself — the guarantee pays the $617,219 the phase-in leaves short. A higher phase-in rate would not reach it.
- FY2026: at its base. The formula calculates $5,194,476 against a $7,506,240 base, and foundation aid is the base itself — the guarantee pays the $1,926,393 the phase-in leaves short. A higher phase-in rate would not reach it.
- FY2027: at its base. The formula calculates $3,394,083 against a $7,506,240 base, and foundation aid is the base itself — the guarantee pays the $4,112,157 the phase-in leaves short. A higher phase-in rate would not reach it.
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 21.6% in FY2026 to 13.8% 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 $0 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 $605,786,800 in tax year 2023 to $760,932,850 in tax year 2025 (+25.6%). 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 2,299.8 in FY2026 to 2,240.8 in FY2027, as each year's file states it (−2.6%). Base cost is computed per pupil, so enrollment reaches the dollars through the formula's calculated figure on the phase-in card.
This district is at its base in FY2027, so none of the three reaches its foundation aid that year: whatever they did, the guarantee paid the difference.
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 paid | FY2026 model | FY2027 model | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total state support | $8,352,868 | $8,672,684 | $8,797,560 |
| Service center charge | not itemized | not published | −$1,969,308 |
| Other adjustments | not itemized | not published | −$78,333 |
| Transfers, in total | −$1,858,495 | not published | −$2,047,642 |
| Net state funding | $6,494,373 | not published | $6,749,918 |