Urban schools and the growth machine: When public education and development policy conflict

ABSTRACT

The following case study explores the durability of conflict between urban growth machine policies, public-school finance, and educational equity in Columbus, OH. The City of Columbus is one of the fastest growing cities in the Midwest, but it’s largest urban public school district (Columbus City Schools) has grown smaller, more segregated, and poorer. Historical development policies enabled the city’s growth but undermined the school district. Contemporary conflict has emerged related to the impact of tax abatement programs on public school funding. Our Franklin county analysis suggests previous statewide estimates of public schools revenues lost to abatements were underestimated. Analysis of the relationship between abatements and school finances for all public-school districts in Franklin County finds a weak relationship with per pupil spending, but a strong relationship with district demographics and classroom expenditures. Our case analysis suggests planners should focus greater attention on the intersection of economic development policy and public schools.

KEYWORDS:

• tax abatements
• urban education
• growth machine
• educational equity

Introduction

In states that are highly reliant on the property tax base for school funding,development policies can have a direct impact on school finances. The following case study explores the durability of conflicts between urban growth machine policies, public-school finance, and educational equity in Columbus, OH. The City of Columbus is one of the fastest growing cities in the Midwest, but it’s largest urban public school district (Columbus City Schools) has grown smaller, more segregated, and poorer. First, we introduce historical development policies (related to annexation) which dramatically altered the trajectory of the city and school district’s growth. Our analysis finds the City of Columbus’s growing fiscal and economic health were a direct result of aggressive annexation policies, but to achieve this outcome and counter suburban resistance to annexation, the Columbus City school district was excluded from the benefits of the city’s rapid growth.

Second, we follow this historical context with an analysis of the contemporary conflict between urban growth policies (specifically tax abatements) and school funding. The city’s aggressive use of tax abatements for urban redevelopment directly impacts the local property tax base for Columbus City schools. Debates about the scope and impact of tax abated school revenues has spurred strong opposition from education stakeholders in the community and the teachers’ union. Education stakeholders identify unmet financial needs for student support services and physical facilities.

Third, we explore the growth of abated revenues and their relationships to school finances and educational equity. Despite ongoing public policy debates on the impact of tax abatements, data limitations have made it difficult for past analyses of abatements to estimate the true size of abated revenues, the trends in abatements over time or the impact of abatements on the school district. However, recently developed longitudinal abatement data now provides an opportunity to gauge the true extent of abatement school revenues in Franklin County, OH. Although the policy tools to support the city’s growth have evolved, conflicts persist between urban development policies and educational equity. We close with a discussion on the need for greater integration of development policies and public education systems.

Growth machine politics and policies: Contemporary debates approach, methods and analysis

The City of Columbus is a contemporary example of the urban political theory of the “growth machine.” A growth machine is characterized by the intensification of land use in a locality in which land-based elites exercise power over communities and governmental authorities to achieve capital gains and urban growth (Molotch, 1976). This tendency has been framed as value-free development, in which land is viewed solely as a market commodity (Molotch & Logan, 1984).

In a growth machine regime, the interests of land-based elites and entrepreneurs drive development, often at the expense of other opportunities for marginalized communities. That is, a city is a means to produce growth for those in power – growth in population, labor, industry, commerce, land development, and general financial activity (Molotch, 1976, 1993). In Columbus, city and governmental leaders have adopted a pro-development agenda commonly known as “The Columbus Way.” This agenda invites the growth machine to thrive by orienting city leaders as highly amenable to the interests of the business and development community. The growth machine aligns well with neoliberal paradigms of power which impose political and economic arrangements on urban areas (Lipman, 2011, 2013). The growth machine theory has been applied to understand several dynamics of urban redevelopment including gentrification, urban revitalization, and “green” growth (Hackworth & Smith, 2001; Hackworth, 2007).

Contemporary manifestations of neoliberal growth machine policies often emphasize public-private partnership, tax incentives and other forms of subsidy to attract financial and social capital into urban areas. There are several forms of incentives that local governments can use to attract businesses and development to their areas. In addition to tax abatements, spatial incentive programs such as Enterprise Zones (EZs), Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs), and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) are utilized extensively to encourage investment (Halbert, 2019; Lipman, 2011). For the purpose of this case study, we are primarily focused on property tax abatements. Tax abatements have been identified as a mechanism of growth machine regimes which stimulates investment but reduces local tax resources for urban education (Weber, 2003).

Cities with residential tax abatement programs can distribute abatements by designating geographic areas as zones where all new development is eligible for residential tax abatements (Dalehite et al., 2005). For example, St. Louis MO, Philadelphia PA, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus OH are all cities that have long-standing residential tax abatement programs. Similar to other forms of tax abatements, residential tax abatements can be detrimental to public school finances, particularly in states where school districts are highly reliant on property taxes (Wen & LeRoy, 2021). Across the state of Ohio, research shows that intrastate tax competition significantly influences the size of an abatement offered by a local government to an investor (Cassell & Turner, 2010).

The variety of tax incentive programs and vague state guidance on abatement approval policies further complicate the implementation of tax abatements. For example, Ohio state law and policy guidance to establish Community Reinvestment Areas recommends school district engagement but does not require approval for CRA designation in all cases. Newly abated properties in older CRA areas generally do not require school board approval or require any supplemental compensation to be provided to the school district (Halbert, 2019).

Even when approval is required, research indicates that incentive packages are still granted approval by school boards, because of the immense pressure by other local politicians to provide abatements in order to generate economic growth (Nuamah, 2020). Research also shows that promised jobs from incoming corporate developers often fall short of their mark, with fewer jobs than promised actually being created by new businesses (Halbert, 2019).

Residential tax abatements are commonly utilized tools in community reinvestment areas to stimulate new housing investment. Policymakers have traditionally targeted CRA and other abatement programs to neighborhoods that have experienced substantial disinvestment and poor housing market conditions. By reducing development costs, tax abatement use in areas of disinvestment can help stabilize neighborhoods through physical development and improvement. Some research suggests that abatements can provide a net fiscal benefit through new construction and property rehabilitation in areas with a high degree of distressed properties (Rosentraub et al., 2010). Past research has documented the impacts of TIF’s and corporate tax abatements on school funding, with findings indicating that increased prevalence of corporate abatements leads to inequities in school funding (Farmer & Poulos, 2015; Wen & LeRoy, 2021) and public criticism of this form of tax incentive has grown (Rigney & Wen, 2021).

Kenyon et al. (2020) analyzed the impact of residential tax abatements on property values and school taxation rates in Franklin County, OH and determined the abatements had no negative effect or a minor positive effect on school finances. Their study could only estimate the volume of abatements (density of CRA abatements by census tract) and did not look specifically at the actual values of taxes lost to individual agencies (such as school districts). Although analyses by Kenyon et al. suggest a minimal or positive impact of abatements, they recommend targeted and strategic use of abatements. The analysis looking at school districts across the County also did not account for the differential resource needs of the diverse school districts in Franklin County. Older, larger and higher poverty districts have unique financial needs, due to dilapidated facilities and educational barriers facing lower income children.

Previous research also has not explored the longitudinal effects and persistence of abatement programs after neighborhood housing markets improve. Journalists in both Cincinnati and Philadelphia have found most abatements in those cities were primarily serving high wealth urban neighborhoods, which had experienced substantial gentrification (Andrews, 2014; McGinnis, 2019). The overt concentration of abatements in predominately White gentrified and high-income neighborhoods spurred a class action civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Cincinnati African American homeowners in 2020, with residents demanding an end to the city tax abatement program (Horn, 2020).

Understanding the impact of abatements on school funding is challenging due to poor and inconsistent data collection (Wen & LeRoy, 2021). The data collection issue has resulted in underreporting of abated revenues. Even with incomplete data, the most recent nationwide analysis of lost revenues (based on GASB 77 disclosures) found over $2.4 billion in school tax revenues lost annually (Wen & LeRoy, 2022).

Approach, methods and analysis

The study utilized a single case study approach (Yin, 2014). The premise for this approach is viewing the Columbus example as a critical case selection. Critical case selection can increase the potential analytical generalizability of a case (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Patton, 2014). Residential tax abatements are a common urban redevelopment tool applicable to many cities throughout the nation. Conflicts regarding residential tax abatements and school funding are particularly common in states which are highly dependent on property taxes for school funding. An analysis of the Columbus case may provide useful insights into the process and outcomes of residential tax abatements in cities across the United States which have used abatements in similar ways (such as the aforementioned Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Cleveland areas).

The City of Columbus is an exemplar for case analysis because of its aggressive embrace of tax abatements. Ohio ranks sixth nationally in the amount of school taxes abated and reported in “GASB77” disclosures ($134 million in 2019) (Wen & LeRoy, 2021).¹ The city of Columbus is recognized as a leader in aggressively embracing public-private partnerships. This approach, known as “The Columbus Way,” has been featured in case studies by the Brookings Institution and the Harvard Business School (Rivkin 2015 & Cox, 2021). Similar to Chicago, Columbus is one of the few urban school systems where the teachers’ union (Columbus Education Association) has identified tax abatements as a critical policy conflict in union negotiations with district leadership (Pearlman, 2019).

The State of Ohio’s inequity in school funding has been long documented. The state has had a series of four state Supreme Court decisions from 1990 to 2002 (the DeRolph rulings) which found the state’s over-reliance on property taxes for school funding unconstitutional (Obhof, 2005). Despite four court rulings, the State Supreme Court was unable to force the legislature to reform the state’s dependence on local property taxes. As a large central city urban school district experiencing the effects of both economic and racial segregation and aging building infrastructure, the Columbus City school district is not unique. Conditions mirrors many of the challenges experienced in large central city urban public schools nationally.

This case analysis triangulates three sources of data. First, longitudinal quantitative data for abatements, district demographics, and district finances explore the breadth of abatement activity and its relationship to school finances. Second, a content analysis was conducted of public statements in the media from local stakeholders pertaining to the tax abatement debate and financial conditions for Columbus City schools. Third, a semi-structured interviews and member checking of preliminary findings were conducted with local stakeholders. Tax abatements were analyzed temporally utilizing a recently developed database of abatements at the parcel level from 2014 to 2022 for Franklin County, OH. Analysis of school district budget and tax revenues utilized financial data produced by the Ohio Department of Taxation, Ohio Department of Education and the Columbus City Schools.

Content analysis focused on public statements in various forms of social and public media from educational stakeholders, including board members and administrators from Columbus City Schools and representatives of the Columbus Education Association. We supplemented our quantitative data analysis and content analysis with semi-structured interviews with local stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in collaboration with researchers from Good Jobs First with a local suburban school board member and staff (to understand how abatements are managed in a district without as much conflict related to abatement activity), the President of the Columbus Education Association and the President of the Ohio School Board Association.

Member checking included three participatory engagement and preliminary data sharing activities with local youth development and educational stakeholders. These engagements were conducted with the Equity Now Coalition of Columbus, staff from Franklin County Children’s Services and members of the Columbus Education Association. These engagements included a presentation of preliminary results of the abatement analysis, followed by a facilitated discussion with stakeholders.

Case analysis

The case analysis focuses on the largest public-school district in Ohio, Columbus City Schools. The district enrolls over 45,000 students and is the 95th largest district in the nation. The district is one of sixteen school districts located in Franklin County, OH. The school district’s enrollment has been declining since the 1970’s. In contrast to the school district and peer cities in the rust belt, the City of Columbus is growing rapidly, with the city gaining nearly a quarter million residents in the past 20 years. Columbus now ranks 14th in population among all US cities. The City of Columbus was the only city in the Midwestern U.S. to add more than 100,000 residents between 2010 and 2020 (Warren, 2021). Current census data indicates that much of the State of Ohio’s population and labor force growth is in the Columbus metropolitan region (Greater Ohio Policy Center, 2022). The state’s total population grew by 3% between 2000 and 2020, but without the growth in the Columbus region, state-wide population would have declined by 1% during this twenty-year period.

Columbus’s growth is a result of historical annexation throughout Franklin County, OH and contemporary reinvestment in many of the city’s core urban neighborhoods. The city has multiple successful urban redevelopment efforts situated in proximity to the city’s major anchor institutions (Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University) (Kelleher et al., 2018). The Columbus City government and the Columbus City School district are distinct government entities with limited direct financial relationships. Local tax revenues for Columbus City Schools primarily come from real estate taxes collected by the Franklin County government, while the City of Columbus generates most of its revenue from the City’s income tax (Columbus City Schools, 2020 and Columbus City Government, 2022). Due to its aggressive annexation policies, the City of Columbus is much larger than the Columbus City school district and its boundaries overlap nine suburban school districts (Figure 1). Four additional smaller independent school districts are associated with smaller older suburbs (Bexley, Grandview Heights, Upper Arlington and Whitehall) and are landlocked by the City of Columbus.

Figure 1. Map of areas of the city of Columbus annexed by the city but not served by Columbus city schools.

Notes: Numbers indicate suburban school districts serving children living in annexed areas: 1 Dublin City; 2 Hilliard City; 3 South-Western City; 4 Hamilton Local; 5 Groveport Madison Local; 6 Canal Winchester Local; 7 Reynoldsburg Local; 8 New Albany Plain Local; 9 Westerville City. Source: The Columbus Dispatch.

Historical context: Sacrificing city schools for suburban annexation

After the Brown v. Board decision in 1954, the Ohio legislature approved municipal annexation without school district expansion in 1955. The result of this state reform allowed cities to annex nearby suburbs, while assuring White suburban households that they would not be integrated into the City’s public school district (Jacobs, 1998).

Unlike other midwestern regions, the City of Columbus is an elastic city, meaning the city has been able to utilize annexation to grow the city’s land area during the second half of the 20th century (Rusk, 1993). Former Columbus Mayor Jack Sensenbrenner (mayor from 1954–1960 and 1964–1972) was the leading political figure associated with the annexation. Sensenbrenner was concerned by the growth of suburbs outside of Cleveland and Cincinnati that effectively landlocked the state’s two historically largest cities (Tebbens, 2013). The city utilized infrastructure policy to push annexation as the region suburbanized. The city controlled much of the County’s water infrastructure, and the “Columbus First” policy enacted in the 1950”s refused water service expansion to emerging suburbs without annexation. The aggressive annexation policy was successful in doubling the land area of the city in the 1950”s, adding more than 50 square miles to the city in just a decade. Since 1950 Columbus would grow from approximately 55 square miles to 219 square miles.

The city would benefit from the post Brown v. Board state law allowing school district decoupling from city boundaries (Jacobs, 1998). Suburbs were less likely to defy annexation if they did not have to be incorporated into the Columbus City schools. The Columbus City School District made multiple attempts at expanding its district boundaries during this time frame and Black leaders in Central Ohio called for district consolidation and integration. Suburban political influence and resistance to desegregation in the State government would create more barriers for the district (Jacobs 1988). In 1965 the school district requested nine transfers of annexed lands into the City school district. The State Board of Education would block eight out of these nine requests. With school district boundaries effectively frozen from 1955 to 1985, the city’s annexation activities had an adverse effect on the Columbus City schools. Newly annexed areas benefited from suburban growth, while older urban areas within the Columbus lost population and tax base. By 1979, nearly 40% of children living within in the City of Columbus’s incorporated area were attending suburban schools (Jacobs, 1998). As described by Jacobs (1998), racial tensions and fears of school desegregation would play a substantial role in the design of the city’s approach to annexation.

“The complicity of city leaders in the expansion and development of the common areas (annexed areas not served by Columbus City schools) indicates that, from the beginning, they viewed desegregation itself as incompatible with growth. The common areas thus proved a unique and effective safety valve, preserving both public-private and city-suburban cooperation in the economic and geographic growth of the metropolitan area” (Jacobs, pg. 139).

Excluded from the city’s expansive suburban growth, by the late 20th century, Columbus City schools was deeply destabilized by the city’s growth policies. The city had effectively avoided being landlocked from suburban growth, but the City School district would see increasing poverty, declining student populations and a shrinking tax base (Jacobs, 1998). During the 1980”s the common areas (Columbus neighborhoods served by suburban districts) experienced a property tax base increase of 330%, compared to a 70% increase in tax base in the Columbus City schools” boundaries. By 1990, ninety percent of the City of Columbus households in poverty were located within the Columbus City school boundaries (Jacobs, 1998).

In 1986, the district would finally be stabilized to some degree, through a “win-win” agreement which negotiated an end to annexation without district expansion and provided some modest tax revenue sharing of new development in city neighborhoods served by suburban schools. This revenue sharing agreement would end in 2016 with Columbus City Schools no longer receiving funds from suburban districts (Bush & Edward, 2016). Conditions in the City of Columbus and Columbus City Schools began to diverge over time (Reece, 2021). As a result of the city’s growth policies in the second half of the 20th century the City of Columbus would nearly double in population size since 1970 (growing from 539,000 to 905,000 residents) and Columbus City schools would lose more than half of its student population during this time (from 110,000 students to 45,000). In the 2021 American Community Survey, data for households in the City of Columbus and households within the Columbus Schools indicate large disparities in income, poverty, racial and ethnic makeup and adult educational attainment (Table 1).

Table 1. Household demographics for city of Columbus and Columbus city schools source: 2017–2021 American Community Survey.

Census Demographics 2021 American Community Survey
	City of Columbus All Households	Columbus City Schools Households
% Non White and Hispanic	46%	79%
Income	$58,575	$42,035
Poverty Rate	18%	33%
% of Adults with Bachelors	38%	20%
Tenure: % Renters	55%	63%

Source: National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Columbus is not unique in pursuing territorial expansion as a regional growth strategy, the City of Indianapolis would utilize city/county government consolidation to create the Unigov (Owen, 2021). Similar to the Columbus case, Unigov consolidated some aspects of public services but did not consolidate the school districts in Marion County, IN. In the Indianapolis case, suburban opposition and racial tensions were also a primary consideration in intentionally excluding school district consolidation. As summarized by Hunt and Bailey:

“In fact, the exclusion of schools from the merger was integral to the passage of the law. The proponents of Unigov specifically avoided the creation of a unified school district and widely advertised that fact, so as to ‘eliminate certain and strong opposition of any of the eleven school districts’ in the majority-white suburbs” (Hunt & Bailey, 2023, pg. 1).

Similar to the experience of Columbus City schools, the Indianapolis Public School district has experienced a substantial decline in its student population from a peak enrollment of 108,000 in the late 1960’s to enrollment of just under 23,000 students in 2021 (Cavazos, 2016). Demographically, the Indianapolis district also experienced increased racial and economic segregation after creation of the Unigov. Currently just under 80% of the district’s students are Black or Hispanic, and 55% of students qualify for free and reduced lunch (U.S. News & World Report, 2023). In both the Columbus and Indianapolis cases, expansion of city boundaries would be achieved at the expense of the primary central city school district.

Contemporary context: Tax incentives for urban redevelopment

Similar to other urban areas, a small number of Columbus’ core inner neighborhoods would experience redevelopment in the 1990s. Aggressive use of public-private partnerships and tax incentives, aligned with targeted infrastructure investments, would slowly trigger redevelopment activity in many core neighborhoods, although this progress was temporarily stalled due to the 2008 housing crisis.

After the Central Ohio region’s economy and housing market recovered from the 2008 housing crisis, the city has seen rapid population growth and investment in downtown and most core urban neighborhoods (Reece et al., 2022). The city’s Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA’s), which allow 15-year 100% property tax abatements for all new construction and rehabilitation projects, was an essential priority within the city’s growth strategy during this time. While this policy would assist in bringing new investment, population and disposable income into these neighborhoods, the school district would not directly see immediate financial benefits from this reinvestment. In the context of the City of Columbus, tax abatements within CRA areas generally do not require approval authority by school boards, although TIF projects and abatements outside of CRA areas may require Board approval.²

Opposition builds to tax abatement policies

In August of 2022, members of the Columbus Education Association (CEA) voted for a work stoppage (strike) in the State of Ohio’s largest school district, Columbus City Schools (CCS). With more than 4,500 members, the CEA is the largest teachers’ union in the State of Ohio, and the strike received national media coverage (Shapiro et al., 2022). The union had not voted for a work stoppage since 1975 and although traditional labor negotiation topics (such as compensation and benefits) were included in negotiations, school conditions (both physical facilities and support services for students) were primary points of contention.

Undergirding the conflict regarding school conditions was the ongoing tension between the union members and the City of Columbus’s development policies, specifically the city’s aggressive use of tax abatements and their financial impact on the school district. The strike was a manifestation of several years of ongoing protests, public statements, and marches by the union to challenge the growth in tax abated properties in the city. CEA was not the only entity publicly opposing abatement programs. A local political organization (Yes We Can) identified abatement policies, school funding and affordable housing as primary issues of their platform. As described in the organization’s policy platform: “we need to stop giving unnecessary tax breaks to the investor-class in our city. That money should be funding our public schools, not padding the bank accounts of developers” (Yes We Can, 2023).

Changes in property tax valuation and abated school tax revenues

Longitudinal analysis of property tax base by school district in Franklin County indicates substantial differences in the rate of tax base growth by district. Countywide, districts experienced an average increase in property tax base per pupil (APV) of 24% between 1986 and 2020 (in 2020 dollars). The change across districts ranges from a decline of 42% in APV (Whitehall City Schools) to an increase of 96% in APV (Grandview-Heights City Schools). Growth in tax base by Columbus City schools lags the County average. The Columbus City school district APV values have only grown by 4% during this 34-year period (Table 2). Columbus’s City Schools ranking among all districts in Ohio based on AVP has fallen from the 107^th highest APV in 1986 to the 423^rd in 2020 (out of Ohio’s 610 public school districts).

Table 2. Change in annual property valuation per pupil for all Franklin County, OH school districts from 1986 to 2020.

		1986 to 2020 Change in APV (in 2020 $‘s)
	2020 APV	Change in APV	% Change in APV
Bexley CSD	$ 272,220	$ 96,965	55.3%
Canal Winchester LSD	$ 156,056	$ 13,214	9.3%
Columbus CSD	$ 171,803	$ 6,684	4.0%
Dublin CSD	$ 254,886	$ (42,053)	−14.2%
Gahanna-Jefferson CSD	$ 244,600	$ 70,749	4.7%
Grandview Heights CSD	$ 418,499	$ 205,442	96.4%
Groveport Madison LSD	$ 152,477	$ 57,855	61.1%
Hamilton LSD	$ 104,286	$ (1,224)	−1.2%
Hilliard CSD	$ 209,735	$ (21,942)	−9.5%
New Albany-Plain LSD	$ 234,087	$ 85,034	57.1%
Reynoldsburg CSD	$ 123,531	$ 8,774	7.6%
South-Western CSD	$ 143,518	$ 23,537	19.6%
Upper Arlington CSD	$ 386,933	$ 131,083	51.2%
Westerville CSD	$ 209,421	$ 80,111	62.0%
Whitehall CSD	$ 75641	$ (56,870)	−42.9%
Worthington CSD	$ 233,821	$ 921	.4%
Average	$ 211,970	$ 41,142	24.8%

Source: Ohio Department of Taxation, Database of Annual Property Valuation Per Pupil 1986–2020.

Source: Authors analysis of Ohio Department of Taxation data.

Analysis of 2022 Franklin County auditor’s data finds 5,071 tax abated parcels representing more than $155 million in all abated property taxes in Franklin County, OH. The vast majority of abated property taxes (more than 90%) are derived from Community Reinvestment Areas. In Franklin County, three of the top four government entities losing tax revenues are serving children (public schools and county agencies). Over 63% of abated taxes are abated school property tax revenues (approximately $98 million). The second highest proportion of abated taxes are from the Franklin County Board of Development Disabilities (7.5%; $11.6 million), followed by local township governments (6.9%; $10.7 million) and Franklin County’s Children’s Services (6.9%; $8.2 million). Not calculated in these totals is the influence of the County’s various Tax Increment Financing agreements, which divert an additional $23.5 million dollars from County school districts.

The parcel data from the Franklin County auditor suggests that previous state-wide estimates of abated school tax revenues based on “GASB 77” disclosures were severely underestimated. Most of Ohio’s 22 older urban legacy cities utilize CRA abatements (Greater Ohio Policy Center, 2022). Analysis by Policy Matters Ohio estimated a loss of $125 million in abated school taxes state-wide in 2018 (Halbert, 2019). This figure is similar to the state-wide estimate of $134 million in abated school tax revenues by Wen and LeRoy (2021). In contrast to earlier estimates, we find Franklin County, OH alone abated $98 million in school property tax revenues in 2022. This discrepancy is possibly due to limitations in data in traditional reporting of “GASB 77” disclosures, and underreporting of the taxes abated through the CRA abatement program throughout the state’s urban areas.

Variation in abatements by Franklin County school district

All but one Franklin County school district abated school tax revenues. The variation in abated values range from a low of $70,000 to a high of $61 million dollars (Table 3). The number of tax abated parcels and the volume of abated school taxes have increased sharply from 2014 to 2022 in Franklin County. Total school property taxes abated increased from $40.2 million in 2014 to $98.0 million in 2022 (growth of 143%). The increase in abated school tax revenues was even larger for Columbus City Schools, which experienced a growth in abated tax revenues from $16.9 million in 2014 to $61.0 million in 2022 (growth of 260%).³

Table 3. Abated school tax revenues and change in abated revenues 2014 to 2022 for all Franklin County, OH school districts.

School District	Abated School Revenues 2014	Abated School Revenues 2022	Change in Abated School Tax Revenues 2014–2022
Bexley City	$ 199,107	$ 127,846	$−71,261
Canal Winchester Local	$ 185,535	$ 2,588,832	$2,403,297
Columbus City	$16,923,030	$ 61,462,439	$44,539,409
Dublin City	$ 242,587	$ 2,411,101	$2,168,514
Gahanna City	$ 1,224,687	$ 1,331,734	$107,047
Grandview Heights City	$ 591,951	$ 2,760,429	$2,168,478
Groveport Madison Local	$ 7,725,269	$ 9,539,160	$1,813,891
Hamilton	$ 1,553,020	$ 1,750,396	$197,376
Hilliard City	$ 962,286	$ 3,966,974	$3,004,688
New Albany Plain Local	$ 6,439,228	$ 4,304,462	$−2,134,766
Reynoldsburg City	$ 5,237	$ 17,687	$12,450
South-Western City	$ 3,634,639	$ 5,787,735	$2,153,096
Upper Arlington City	$ 69867	$ -	$−69,867
Westerville City	$ 204,964	$ 70312	$−134,652
Whitehall City	$ 167,996	$ 1,219,372	$1,051,376
Worthington	$ 60220	$ 634,348	$574,128
Total for County	$ 40,189,623	$ 97,972,827	$57,783,204

Source: Analysis of Franklin County Auditors Tax Abatement Database.

Columbus City Schools represents a disproportionate share of abated school tax revenues. Proportionally, Columbus City Schools represents 27% of all public-school students in the County but the district accounts for 63% of all abated school tax revenues in 2022. The district also represents most of the growth in abated school tax revenues in the past 8 years. The district accounted for 77% of all growth in abated school tax revenue in the County between 2014 and 2021. The district’s proportion of abated school tax revenues in Franklin County accounted for 42% of abated revenues in 2014 and now represents 63% of all abated school tax revenues.

Given the demographic differences in student enrollments across the county’s various districts, we calculated a per pupil abatement value to allow a relative comparison of abated revenues between districts (Table 4). Three districts would abate more than $1,000 in revenues per student, Grandview Heights ($2,502), Groveport Madison ($1,601) and Columbus City Schools ($1,350). Following Grandview Heights, Columbus City Schools would see the second largest growth in abated school revenues per pupil between 2014 and 2022 (increasing by nearly $1,000 per pupil – growth of more than 300%).

Table 4. Abated school tax revenues per pupil and change in abated revenue per pupil 2014 to 2022 for all Franklin County, OH school districts.

School District	Student Population 2014	Student Population 2022	Tax Revenues Abated Per Pupil 2014	Tax Revenues Abated Per Pupil 2022	Change in Abated Values Per Pupil 14–22
Bexley City	2,237	2,455	$ 81.10	$ 52.08	$ (29.03)
Canal Winchester Local	3,681	3,669	$ 5.57	$ 705.60	$ 655.03
Columbus City	50,419	45,508	$ 371.87	$ 1,35.59	$ 978.72
Dublin City	15,021	15,800	$ 15.35	$ 152.60	$ 137.25
Gahanna City	7,294	7,857	$ 155.87	$ 169.50	$ 13.62
Grandview Heights City	1,066	1,103	$ 536.67	$ 2,502.66	$ 1,965.98
Groveport Madison Local	5,621	5,958	$ 1,296.62	$ 1,601.07	$ 304.45
Hamilton	3,263	2,925	$ 53.95	$ 598.43	$ 67.48
Hilliard City	15,778	15,874	$ 6.62	$ 249.90	$ 189.28
New Albany Plain Local	4,825	5,009	$ 1,285.53	$ 859.35	$ (426.19)
Reynoldsburg City	6,695	7,065	$ .74	$ 2.50	$ 1.76
South-Western City	21,276	21,480	$ 169.21	$ 269.45	$ 1.24
Upper Arlington City	5,786	6,198	$ 11.27	$ -	$ (11.27)
Westerville City	14,632	14,133	$ 14.50	$ 4.98	$ (9.53)
Whitehall City	3,396	3,124	$ 53.78	$ 39.32	$ 336.55
Worthington	9,707	10,341	$ 5.82	$ 61.34	$ 55.52
Average for County	N/A	N/A	$ 238.52	$ 56.65	$ 322.13

Source: Analysis of Franklin County Auditors Tax Abatement Database. Student enrollment from the Ohio Department of Education.

Compared to Groveport Madison and the Columbus City Schools, Grandview Heights is an outlier. Grandview Heights is the County’s smallest district (1,103 students), has the highest average property tax value per pupil (AVP) in the County ($418,499) and had the highest rate of increase in AVP in the County (96%). The district’s abatements are primarily tied to one very large luxury mixed use redevelopment project of an abandoned warehouse district, The Grandview Yard. Financing for the Grandview Yard project differs from Columbus’s tax abatements program and its structure may relate to the district’s large growth in property values per pupil in the Grandview District. Unlike Columbus’s 100% fifteen-year tax abatement, Grandview Yard’s tax incentive program only provides a 50% abatement for new housing and commercial development (therefore the large project would be a contributing tax revenue to the school district immediately from new housing and commercial properties). An attached TIF agreement also contains a “make whole” agreement for the school district (Froman, 2019). As described by the treasurer of the Grandview Heights School District in media interviews: “But even with the abatements, we’ll be financially ahead of the game, because the reduced amount is still greater than what we are getting now from the undeveloped land” (Froman, 2019).

Associations between abated revenues and school district demographics and finances

To understand the relationship between abated school tax revenues, district demographics and finances, a database tracking socioeconomic conditions and school finance measures was developed by integrating data from the Franklin County auditor, the Ohio Department of Education and the Ohio Department of Taxation. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated for four measures of abatement activity (total abated revenues, abated revenues per pupil, change in abated revenue 2014–2022 and change in abated revenues per pupil 2014–2022). These measures were correlated with several measures of district demographics (race/ethnicity and economically disadvantaged students) and finance (total expenditure per pupil, percent of revenues generated locally, percent of revenues spent on instruction and average property value per pupil). For comparison purposes, small districts (those with fewer than 5,000 students) were excluded from the analysis (Table 5).

Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficients for abatement measures and district demographic/financial condition measures.

	Pearson Correlation Coefficients (Strong Corelations in Italics)
	Abated Revenues Per Pupil 2022	Abated Revenues Total 2022	14–22 Change in Abated Revenues	14–22% Change in Abated Revenues
% of Students Economically Disadvantaged	.36	0.84	0.8	0.85
% of Students Non-White or Hispanic	.57	0.59	0.55	0.59
Per Pupil Expenditure	.24	0.44	0.32	0.46
% of Revenues Locally Generated	−.34	−0.24	−0.2	−0.35
Classroom Instruction as Percentage of Expenditures	-.78	−0.53	−0.42	−0.32
Assessed Property Value Per Pupil	−.36	−0.27	−0.23	−0.3

Source: All school district demographic and financial data is from the 2021/2022 Ohio Department of Education District Report Cards.

Assessed Property Value Per Pupil (AVP) is from the 2000 Ohio Department of Taxation School Funding database.

Note: Pearson correlations below 0.39 are considered a low correlation, moderate correlation range from 0.4 to 0.59, strong correlations range from 0.6 to 0.8 and very strong correlations are above 0.8.

Abated school tax revenues and the increase in abated school tax revenues were all positively correlated with student economic and racial/ethnic demographics. All but one abatement measure indicated a strong to very strong positive correlation (greater than 0.8) with the proportion of students who are economically disadvantaged. All abatement measures indicated a moderate positive correlation with rates of racial and ethnic diversity in the school district (ranging from 0.57 to 0.59 for the four abatement measures). Surprisingly, per pupil expenditures were positively correlated with all of the abatement measures, although this correlation was low to moderate (ranging from 0.24 to 0.46 for the abatement measures). In contrast, negative correlations were found in relation to the abatement measures with the three other measures of financial conditions. The proportion of revenues generated locally had a low correlation with the abatement measures (ranging from −0.2 to −0.35). All but one abatement measure had a moderate to strong negative correlation with proportion of spending on classroom instruction per pupil. The assessed property values per pupil (APV) measure was also negatively correlated with the abatement measures, although this correlation was low (ranging from −0.23 to −0.36).

Abatements are primarily occurring and growing in economically disadvantaged districts with higher non-White or Hispanic student populations. Districts with higher abatement losses are generating fewer resources locally and dedicating less funding to classroom instruction. While the abatements have low but positive correlation with per pupil spending, this may be due to state or federal funds needing to compensate for the limitations of local tax revenues.

Reflection from stakeholder engagements and content analysis

Insights from our qualitative data suggest substantial student needs are unmet in the Columbus City School district. In interviews and stakeholder engagements, stakeholders identified socio-emotional support and physical facilities as the primary unmet financial needs in the district. Socioemotional needs were directly influenced by external challenges facing students, such as poverty, food insecurity, community violence and housing instability. Stakeholders indicated that socio-emotional needs for students have increased in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the racial justice protests of 2020. Stakeholders also indicated that supporting enhanced behavioral intervention services and wrap around support services for students were undermined by district financial limitations.

Stakeholders indicated that the poor quality of physical facilities within the district impaired learning and teaching environments. Columbus City School buildings were criticized for containing mold, pest infestation and malfunctioning heating and cooling systems. Cooling challenges remain a consistent program for the district. In 2019, more than thirty school buildings (representing 28% of total buildings in the district) did not have central air conditioning (Holmes, 2019). The lack of air conditioning has proven extremely challenging with an increase in high temperature days in late summer and early autumn in the region. In the 2018 and 2019 school year, the district had been forced to close numerous times due to heat emergencies.

Our content analysis of media statements also identified degraded physical facilities as a consistent theme and critical need in the district. Climate control issues were extensively profiled in local media and statements from the Columbus Education Association, teachers and students. The lack of focus resulting from excessive heat was captured in a statement from a student who testified to the school board on heat challenges in their high school. “Sweat runs down your face. It gets in your eyes. Your eyes start to burn, and your skin is sticking to the desk. And it makes it very difficult to concentrate and focus on learning” (Holmes, 2019). Excessive heat also has resulted in medical emergencies for students and for staff in uncooled CCS buildings (Holmes, 2019). An investigative analysis of public health department inspections of city school buildings by journalists at the Columbus Dispatch found substantial and chronic building safety concerns. As described by Ferenchik and Henry (2022): “(schools) were reported to have no warm or running water in certain areas, while others had stained ceiling tiles from leaky roofs, chilly classrooms because of faulty heating systems and other safety issues.”

Analysis of capital expenditures in the district would suggest that abated school tax revenues could make an impact on addressing the physical facility needs of the district. The Columbus City School district has recently increased its capital improvement and maintenance expenditures from approximately $40 million in 2020 to $67 million in fiscal year 2021. Considering that the district lost more than $61 million in abated tax revenues in the past year, the district could almost double its capital expenditures if it had abated revenues. The district could easily meet the cost (estimated at approximately $40 million) of installing air conditioning in all of its school buildings with one year of abated revenues (Columbus City Schools, 2021).

Discussion: The complexity in understanding unmet needs in high need districts

What is unclear in our quantitative analysis is if funding is meeting the needs of students in districts across the County, particularly in higher poverty districts. Equal funding is not necessarily equitable funding for districts with extreme rates of student poverty and degraded physical facilities. Qualitative engagement with stakeholders and our content analysis suggest funding is not meeting the current needs of students in relation to supportive services for low income students and in maintaining facilities. Economic disparities facing urban children are correlated with increased educational and socio-emotional need (Tough, 2012). Additional resources for libraries, arts or creative studies, physical education, intervention specialists, trauma informed practices and lower student teacher ratios may be necessary in more economically disadvantaged districts. Limited access to behavioral and mental health services is problematic due to the increased needs for these services among lower income children. Chronic stress and exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE’s) exacerbate mental health needs for lower income youth (Reece, 2020).

Districts like the Columbus City Schools are more likely to have extensive capital facilities that are older and degraded. The nexus of limited funding and older physical school infrastructure creates physically deteriorated and unhealthy building conditions in urban schools (Hudley and Duran, 2012). National studies find higher poverty districts have greater physical facility needs and less capital spending than low poverty districts (National Council, 2021). Physical deterioration of buildings can lead to increased exposure to indoor environmental health risks, such as exposure to mold or extreme temperatures. Inadequate building conditions are directly linked to impaired educational outcomes for youth.

Analysis of the extreme heat exposure in non-air-conditioned public schools has found disparities in heat leads to mental health stress, challenges concentration, and leads to lower academic performance. Lower income students of color were more likely to be attending non-air-conditioned schools with extreme heat conditions, with research estimating that 5% of the “achievement gap” in student outcomes can be attributed to extreme heat in school buildings (Goodman et al. 2019). Disparities in physical conditions in schools also acts as a psycho-social stressor which can limit the ability to concentrate and reduce student engagement and motivation (Durán-Narucki, 2008; Hudley & Durán, 2012). Evans et al. (2010) finds the combination of poor building conditions and housing instability among lower income urban youth exacerbates the impact of these environmental conditions.

Urban public schools are also financially vulnerable due to other neoliberal school reforms such as charter schools and vouchers. In Franklin County, the Columbus City School district loses more revenues due to charter and voucher programs than tax abatements. School choice vouchers were estimated to have diverted more than $40 million in revenues from Columbus City schools in 2022 (Neese, 2022). Columbus City School students attending nonprofit and for-profit charter schools (referred to as community schools by the Ohio Department of Education) diverted another $212 million in revenues from CCS in the 21/22 school year (Columbus City Schools, 2022). These additional financial losses are not accurately captured in per pupil expenditure data. Cumulatively, abatements, vouchers and charters schools reduce district resources by more than $310 million annually, representing 20% of the district’s total $1.5 billion annual budget (Columbus City Schools, 2022).

Residential tax abatements have traditionally been important and useful in neighborhood revitalization efforts, as they can support affordable housing and serve a purpose in undercapitalized spaces. However, the experience in Columbus suggests that when markets return to normalcy or grow hot, abatement programs shift in who they serve, primarily serving the needs of higher-end development and luxury housing (Reece & Abou-Ghalioum, 2020).

Similar to other tax incentive programs, ongoing analysis of neighborhood needs, market conditions and tax incentive impacts should guide implementation and termination of these policies. Sands et. al. (2007) analyzed best practices in Tax Increment Financing districts, recommending that TIF policies “should be used in limited areas for limited durations, and it must include citizen-based planning” (pg. 66). This suggests that, while abatements did serve an explicit purpose of revitalizing areas in distress in the past, their continued use can be detriment to public institutions, like Columbus City Schools, which are highly dependent on property taxes and financially vulnerable.

After many years of public criticism, the City of Columbus is reforming its tax incentive and abatement programs. Broad blanket CRA areas in which all developments qualified for tax abatements are being replaced with a three-tiered system utilizing six measures of neighborhood distress, with tax incentives and affordability requirements tailored for each tier of neighborhood distress (City of Columbus, 2023). “Market Ready Areas” meet only two distress measures and will only provide abatements to mid- and high-rise development. Abatements expire more quickly in this zone and developments must provide 20% of the residential units at less than 100% of area median income or pay into an affordable housing fund.

The second tier of neighborhoods “Ready for Revitalization” meet 2 to 4 neighborhood distress measures and will provide abatements for single family or multi-family residential development with an affordability requirement. Neighborhoods meeting 5 to 6 of the neighborhood distress measures are categorized in the third tier as “Ready for Opportunity,” these neighborhoods utilize the traditional abatement program structure, providing abatements to all new development with no affordability requirement. These recent reforms may provide better oversight, more strategic use of incentive resources and equitable outcomes for the city’s incentive programs.

Conclusion

The City of Columbus’s success in growing its population is directly tied to its historical annexation policies. Annexation worked as a policy to avoid the challenges of landlocked cities, but as it occurred in Columbus, it did not benefit children in the Columbus City School District. Recent contemporary conflict pertaining to tax abatements speaks to the durability of the divide between development policies and urban education. Although the policy tools to support the city’s growth have evolved, the current manifestation of the city’s urban growth machine policies are still in conflict with the City’s urban educational system. Today’s development policies are oriented toward redeveloping the city and not annexing in pursuit of suburban growth; but as this analysis demonstrates, these contemporary policies are reducing local revenues for the educational system.

Our analysis suggests that previous estimates of school resources lost to tax abatements have been underreported and are actually growing rapidly in Franklin County. Schools and agencies serving children are impacted the most by abated revenues. Abatements are much more likely to occur in more racially segregated and economically disadvantaged districts in the County, and these districts are more likely to have a more limited local tax base and lower classroom expenditures. Surprisingly, total per pupil expenditures had a low positive correlation with abatements, suggesting that state and federal funds maybe compensating for abatement losses.

Columbus City School District (CCS) has a disproportionate volume of abated revenues and most of the growth in abated school tax revenues between 2014 and 2022 has occurred in the District. CCS accounts for 27% of the County’s public-school students, but accounts for 63% of all abated school tax revenues and 77% of the growth in abated revenues between 2014 and 2022. While abatement programs have existed for decades, the recent rapid growth of abated revenues in CCS maybe a contributor to the growing criticism of abatements among educational stakeholders.

The Columbus experience speaks to a larger dynamic in which planning and development policy does not engage enough with urban educational systems, which are also under pressure from other neoliberal education policies such as vouchers and charters (Baum, 2004; Lipman, 2013). Abatements are an important tool for redevelopment, but become another factor undermining traditional public education systems, which are high need due to higher rates of child poverty in urban school systems. Urban districts are also vulnerable due to the nexus of aging infrastructure, unstable enrollments, and financial challenges. The long-term consequences of these challenging conditions can lead to extensive school closures, leading to a loss of a critical community asset for community development and other negative community impacts (Bierbaum, 2021; Green, 2017).

Planners and community development practitioners must be more attentive to the needs of public-school systems, particularly in higher poverty high need districts. Planning can be a critical ally in serving the needs of youth and supporting healthy spaces for children through “collaboration, inclusion, and engagement” (Warner & Zhang, 2020). Bierbaum et al. (2022) have found school investment can positively impact community development through four domains (social, institutional, economic, and physical). Educational systems also can support a variety of community development needs through shared use or joint use agreements of school facilities (Talmage et al., 2018; Warner & Zhang, 2022). A number of comprehensive community collaborations have demonstrated the ability to support educational improvement for marginalized youth and greater access to opportunity (Bonilla-Santiago, 2020).

These optimistic scenarios have not been the traditional or contemporary experience in the Columbus case study. As discussed by Warner and Zhang (2022), relationships and power play a role in fostering more successful collaborations. Schools and local governments are more successful in collaborative action when power functions horizontally (power with) rather than hierarchically (power over). In both the historical and contemporary context, the City government has expressed more hierarchical power (power over) the Columbus City School District. Schools can be challenging entities to collaborate with due to their unique external pressures from local, state and federal government, although Biddle et al. (2018) suggest that intentional framing of goals and assuring equitable engagement can produce successful community development and school collaborations. These collaborations have tremendous potential to “address the local complexities of preventing or buffering childhood adversity” (Biddle et al., 2018, pg. 191). We need to be more attentive to the conflicts between growth machine policies and urban education, as demonstrated in the Columbus case. We also must be proactive in elevating the potential for greater integration and collaboration between planning, community development and public schools to holistically address the “wicked problems” facing marginalized youth (Biddle et al., 2018).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. GASB 77 refers to Statement No. 77 of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 77 is a state and local reporting and disclosure policy for governments entering into tax abatement agreements. GASB 77 requires governments to disclose the tax being abated, the authority granting the abatement, methods by which taxes will be recaptured later, commitments made by abatement recipients, the gross dollar amount of taxes abated during an abatement period, and additional commitments made by governments toward the recipient as part of the agreement (Francis, 2015). Although the requirement for reporting of lost revenues has been applicable since 2015, consistent underreporting of abatements weakens the ability to fully capture the impact of abatements using GASB 77 disclosures.

2. In this particular case, the City of Columbus approves abatement programs, and the school board does not have oversight of abatements in traditional CRA areas. Although, a limited number of specific abatements that are outside of the scope of the traditional CRA areas require school board approval. The County government’s primary role in the abatement program is to implement abatements in annual property tax collections and providing data on abatement activities.

3. Figures in text are in constant dollars. If adjusted for inflation to 2022 dollars, total school revenue abatement values increased by 90% for Franklin County and 181% for Columbus City Schools between 2014 and 2022.