Find a district › Beavercreek City

Beavercreek 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, Beavercreek City moved +4.1% (+$610,639) from FY2026 to FY2027: the largest rise of 7 in Greene County.

Bellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalXenia CommunityCityCedar Cliff LocalYellow SpringsExempted VillageFairborn CityGreeneview LocalBeavercreek City+4.1%−5.5%
Bellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalXenia Community CityCedar Cliff LocalYellow Springs ExemptedVillageFairborn CityGreeneview LocalBeavercreek City+4.1%−5.5%
Bellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalXenia Community CityCedar Cliff LocalYellow Springs Exempted VillageFairborn CityGreeneview LocalBeavercreek City+4.1%−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, Beavercreek City moved 0.0% ($0) from FY2026 to FY2027: one of 3 of 7 in Greene County that did not move.

Xenia CommunityCityBellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalCedar Cliff LocalYellow SpringsExempted VillageFairborn CityGreeneview LocalBeavercreek City0.0%0.0%−8.2%
Xenia Community CityBellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalCedar Cliff LocalYellow Springs ExemptedVillageFairborn CityGreeneview LocalBeavercreek City0.0%0.0%−8.2%
Xenia Community CityBellbrook-Sugarcreek LocalCedar Cliff LocalYellow Springs Exempted VillageFairborn CityGreeneview LocalBeavercreek City0.0%0.0%−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)$9,274,783$9,274,783$9,274,783$0
Transportation$2,732,794$3,156,116$3,611,197+$455,081
Special education transportation$657,022$895,564$962,033+$66,469
Preschool special education$718,797$780,662$780,668+$5
Supplemental targeted assistance (repealed by H.B. 96)$0$0$0$0
Formula transition supplement$0$0$0$0
Base funding supplement$0$204,502$299,157+$94,655
Enrollment growth supplement$0$0$0$0
Performance supplement$0$443,088$437,517−$5,571
Total state support (the wide measure)$13,383,395$14,754,715$15,365,354+$610,639

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$9,274,783$9,274,783$9,274,783
Calculated by the formula$7,592,346$7,581,334$7,306,312
Paid through the phase-in$8,153,102$7,863,632$7,306,312
Guarantee$1,121,680$1,411,151$1,968,471
Foundation aid$9,274,783$9,274,783$9,274,783
  • FY2025: at its base. The formula calculates $7,592,346 against a $9,274,783 base, and foundation aid is the base itself — the guarantee pays the $1,121,680 the phase-in leaves short. A higher phase-in rate would not reach it.
  • FY2026: at its base. The formula calculates $7,581,334 against a $9,274,783 base, and foundation aid is the base itself — the guarantee pays the $1,411,151 the phase-in leaves short. A higher phase-in rate would not reach it.
  • FY2027: at its base. The formula calculates $7,306,312 against a $9,274,783 base, and foundation aid is the base itself — the guarantee pays the $1,968,471 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 10.0% in FY2026 to 10.0% 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 $0 over the same two years.
  • Assessed valuation went from $2,702,876,410 in tax year 2023 to $2,759,113,976 in tax year 2025 (+2.1%). 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 7,574.2 in FY2026 to 7,478.9 in FY2027, as each year's file states it (−1.3%). 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 paidFY2026 modelFY2027 model
Total state support$13,383,395$14,754,715$15,365,354
Service center chargenot itemizednot published−$93,648
Other adjustmentsnot itemizednot published−$95,199
Transfers, in total−$199,623not published−$188,847
Net state funding$13,183,772not published$15,176,507