Find a district › Ontario Local

Ontario Local

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 Richland County Contents

FY2026 and FY2027 models, nominal dollars

On total state support, Ontario Local moved +5.6% (+$459,361) from FY2026 to FY2027: the largest rise of 9 in Richland County.

Lexington LocalPlymouth-ShilohLocalLucas LocalCrestview LocalClear Fork ValleyLocalShelby CityMansfield CityMadison LocalOntario Local+5.6%−3.4%
Lexington LocalPlymouth-Shiloh LocalLucas LocalCrestview LocalClear Fork Valley LocalShelby CityMansfield CityMadison LocalOntario Local+5.6%−3.4%
Lexington LocalPlymouth-Shiloh LocalLucas LocalCrestview LocalClear Fork Valley LocalShelby CityMansfield CityMadison LocalOntario Local+5.6%−3.4%
The values
  • Ontario Local: +5.6% (+$459,361) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Lexington Local: +1.6% (+$149,875) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Plymouth-Shiloh Local: +1.4% (+$94,589) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Lucas Local: +0.6% (+$19,160) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Crestview Local: +0.5% (+$33,679) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Clear Fork Valley Local: +0.4% (+$40,633) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Shelby City: −0.3% (−$28,008) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Mansfield City: −2.0% (−$605,010) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Madison Local: −3.4% (−$676,410) in total state support, FY2026 to FY2027

On foundation aid, Ontario Local moved +5.5% (+$396,532) from FY2026 to FY2027: the largest rise of 9 in Richland County.

Plymouth-ShilohLocalClear Fork ValleyLocalCrestview LocalLexington LocalLucas LocalMansfield CityMadison LocalShelby CityOntario Local+5.5%−5.0%
Plymouth-Shiloh LocalClear Fork Valley LocalCrestview LocalLexington LocalLucas LocalMansfield CityMadison LocalShelby CityOntario Local+5.5%−5.0%
Plymouth-Shiloh LocalClear Fork Valley LocalCrestview LocalLexington LocalLucas LocalMansfield CityMadison LocalShelby CityOntario Local+5.5%−5.0%
The values
  • Ontario Local: +5.5% (+$396,532) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Plymouth-Shiloh Local: +1.2% (+$75,728) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Clear Fork Valley Local: 0.0% ($0) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Crestview Local: 0.0% ($0) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Lexington Local: 0.0% ($0) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Lucas Local: 0.0% ($0) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Mansfield City: −1.9% (−$508,898) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Madison Local: −3.7% (−$693,287) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027
  • Shelby City: −5.0% (−$503,787) in foundation aid, FY2026 to FY2027

Every district the department attributes to Richland 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)$7,126,335$7,234,084$7,630,616+$396,532
Transportation$546,023$583,664$622,869+$39,206
Special education transportation$29,785$37,609$40,447+$2,838
Preschool special education$169,677$175,539$169,772−$5,768
Supplemental targeted assistance (repealed by H.B. 96)$0$0$0$0
Formula transition supplement$0$0$0$0
Base funding supplement$0$50,091$75,268+$25,177
Enrollment growth supplement$0$0$0$0
Performance supplement$0$96,471$97,848+$1,377
Total state support (the wide measure)$7,871,820$8,177,458$8,636,820+$459,361

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$4,252,800$4,252,800$4,252,800
Calculated by the formula$8,562,888$7,830,484$7,630,616
Paid through the phase-in$7,126,335$7,234,084$7,630,616
Guarantee$0$0$0
Foundation aid$7,126,335$7,234,084$7,630,616
  • FY2025: +$2,873,535 above its base. The formula calculates $8,562,888, $4,310,087 over a $4,252,800 base, and the phase-in pays $2,873,535 of that gap.
  • FY2026: +$2,981,284 above its base. The formula calculates $7,830,484, $3,577,684 over a $4,252,800 base, and the phase-in pays $2,981,284 of that gap.
  • FY2027: +$3,377,816 above its base. The formula calculates $7,630,616, $3,377,816 over a $4,252,800 base, and the phase-in pays $3,377,816 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 40.4% in FY2026 to 37.3% 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 +$396,532 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 $424,098,580 in tax year 2023 to $429,184,260 in tax year 2025 (+1.2%). 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 1,855.2 in FY2026 to 1,881.7 in FY2027, as each year's file states it (+1.4%). 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$7,871,820$8,177,458$8,636,820
Service center chargenot itemizednot published−$421,803
Other adjustmentsnot itemizednot published−$70,988
Transfers, in total−$557,441not published−$492,791
Net state funding$7,314,379not published$8,144,029