Patrick Henry Local

TY2023 to TY2024 # ↑ Contents2021-20242021-2024 — tax years, a calendar year of valuation and levy. Source: Department of Taxation, Table SD-1.

This district is above the 20-mill floor, so H.B. 920's reduction factors are fully operative. Its Class I effective rate moved +0.0102 mills against a 0.25% change in value. The factors reduce the rate on existing levies against existing property, and neither newly voted millage nor new construction is subject to them — so a rate that holds or rises above the floor means one of those outweighed the reduction, not that the reduction stopped.

Statewide the split is stark. Of the 416 districts that began TY2023 above the floor, 301 saw their effective Class I rate fall by TY2024; of the 193 that began at it, 9 did. 97.1% of every effective-rate reduction in Ohio happens above the floor — the mechanism working exactly as written, and the reason floor status is the highest-leverage single fact about a district's local revenue.

With one qualification worth making, because the split above invites treating floor status as a fixed property of a district and it is not. 54 districts sit above the floor by less than a twentieth of a mill, and 82 crossed 20.0000 in one direction or the other between these two tax years — most of them by under five hundredths. For those the binary is decided in the fourth decimal place and will likely read the other way next year. It is a real threshold with real consequences, and for roughly a district in eight it is also a coin toss.

Tax charged is not money received. A tax year is collected across the following calendar year in two settlements, so a levy passed in November is charged in full for that tax year and arrives across two fiscal years. Any comparison of a charge to a year's spending inherits that gap, and it is largest exactly where a levy has just passed.

What voters approved, and what the factors left # ↑ Contents20242024 — tax year, a calendar year of valuation and levy. Source: Department of Taxation, Table SD-1.

Voters approved 35.90 mills and the district charges 23.01. That gap is not a rebate or a rollback anyone voted for: H.B. 920's reduction factors have removed 36% of the approved rate over the life of the levies, a hundredth of a mill at a time, as reappraisals raised the value of property that was already there. Statewide the median district has lost 42% the same way — the median voted rate is 42.31 mills against an effective 23.40.

What the factors alone predict

The charged rate is 0.07 mills above what the factors alone predict. They apply to existing levies on existing property and to nothing else, so the excess is millage they never reached: a levy passed in the interval, or new construction added to the base after the reduction was computed. This page cannot tell you which — Table SD-1 publishes the outcome, not the levy history that produced it — but it can tell you the reduction factors are not the reason.

This is the local half of the formula in one number, and the reason a millage comparison between districts means almost nothing on its own. One mill raises $248 per pupil here against a statewide median of $227, so this district reaches the median district's revenue with 0.92 mills of effort. A lower rate here is not necessarily a lower commitment. Across the state one mill runs from $63 per pupil to $21,025, a spread of 336 times, which is the inequality the state share exists to offset.

What the tax base is made of, TY2024 # ↑ Contents2021-20242021-2024 — tax years, a calendar year of valuation and levy. Source: Department of Taxation, Table SD-1.

63% of this district's tax base is Class I — residential and agricultural. That class carries its own reduction factor, separate from everything else. Total taxable value is $320,188,000, or $375,447 per pupil.

The split matters because the two classes are reduced separately. A district whose base is mostly residential and one whose base is mostly commercial respond differently to the same reappraisal, and their effective rates diverge over time even if voters approved identical millage.

Against what the district spends # ↑ Contents20242024 — tax year, a calendar year of valuation and levy. Source: Department of Taxation, Table SD-1.

A ratio between two different things, and worth reading as one. The numerator is a tax year charge and the denominator a fiscal year of spending; they overlap but do not coincide, and a district that passed a levy in the interval shows a numerator its denominator's year never fully received.

3 districts are charged more than they spend — Danbury Local at 138%, Put-In-Bay Local at 117%, Mayfield City at 103%. For the first two that is arithmetic rather than policy: a district whose valuation per pupil pins it to the minimum state share has to raise essentially all of its own cost, and the residual definition of state aid leaves nothing else for it to do. The third is the timing gap above — a levy passed in November 2024 is charged in full for TY2024, and roughly half of it did not reach the district until the following fiscal year.

What the mechanism this replaced would charge # ↑ ContentsFY2027 · profile FY2024FY2027 — fiscal year, July to June. Source: DEW FY27 TRAD State Foundation Funding Calculator. And profile: FY2024 — fiscal year, July to June. Source: DEW District Profile Report.

Before the Fair School Funding Plan, a district's own share of its cost was a flat 23 mills against its valuation — the same rate for every district in Ohio, whatever it could actually levy. Holding this district's base cost fixed and substituting that mechanism for the plan's local capacity measure:

This district's effective Class I rate is at or above the 23 mills the charge-off assumes, so it is one of the 300 that could actually levy what the mechanism deemed it able to. The other 309 could not.

The two rows above divide by different pupils. The deemed local share is the profile report's valuation over enrolled ADM; the base cost it is subtracted from is the calculator's, over base cost ADM. Here those counts are 829 and 836, so the residual on the right is 0.8% out on that account alone — before anything the comparison is actually about. The sentence in the first row used to assert the opposite, that the valuation was on the formula's count; it is not.

What this comparison is, and two things it is not. It is a counterfactual at FY2027 inputs — the plan's own computed base cost held fixed, with only the local share mechanism swapped. It is not a reconstruction of any year the charge-off governed: those need the era's formula amount, cost-of-doing-business factor and DPIA, none of which this project holds. It is not a full regime diff — base cost, the guarantee and every categorical have no declared predecessor, so one row of the calculation is all that is comparable.

A correction, because this page said something wrong. It described recognized valuation as an H.B. 920 adjustment that this project did not hold, and warned that every figure was on a wider base. The first half was wrong: recognized valuation is not an H.B. 920 adjustment at all. It phases a reappraisal's inflationary increase into the charge-off base over three years — two thirds deferred in the revaluation year, one third the year after, nothing by the third. Which districts it favors is decided by the Department of Taxation's staggered county calendar, not by any district's tax history. Henry County revalued in 2023, so 6.2% of this district's taxable value is still deferred — worth $555 per pupil of charge-off it is not being asked for. Statewide the deferral is 8.2% of taxable value in TY2024 and $793.0M of charge-off, and correcting it moved findings as well as figures: the median difference goes from $287 per pupil better off under the plan to $47 worse.

One seam inside the arithmetic, stated rather than smoothed over. The deemed local share is per enrolled ADM, because that is what the published valuation per pupil divides by; the base cost it is subtracted from is per funded base cost ADM, the three-year average. Those two counts differ by 0.8% here and by a median of 1.9% statewide, reaching 27% at the extreme. The subtraction is the one regime-diff performs and the one the mechanism's own description implies, and it is not exact.

Where these figures come from, and what they are not # ↑ Contents

Table SD-1, published by the Ohio Department of Taxation — a different department from the one that publishes the funding model every other page here reads. Where the two overlap they agree, in the year they share: this district's effective Class I rate for TY2023 matches the Department of Education's District Profile Report to 0.01 mills, and so does every one of the 606districts carrying both.

That is not the rate in the tile above. The tile is TY2024, this table's latest year, and the profile report's column is TY2023 — a year behind by construction. The two publications agree on TY2024 for only 219 of the 606, which is not a disagreement between departments but the ordinary fact that one of them has published a later year. The sentence above used to state the agreement without the year, three cards below a figure it was not about.

These are current expense levies only. Bond and permanent-improvement millage is excluded, and so are joint vocational operating levies, which are charged on the same property by a different taxing authority. The 34.0% of this district's TY2024 base that is public utility tangible property is neither Class I nor Class II and is not subject to reduction factors at all.

Nothing here is a projection. Valuation moves on a county reappraisal cycle rather than smoothly, which is why the scenario builder holds it fixed: the corpus has two observations per district and cannot forecast a step function.