Great Valley board narrows preliminary millage options; staff to return April 21 with 3.75% baseline

Mrs. McGibbony, who led the finance presentation, told the board at the April 7 work session that the finance committee had reviewed three preliminary tax-rate scenarios and asked the five attending board members to indicate which rate to place on the April 21 agenda for the district’s preliminary budget resolution.

The board heard that the district is considering preliminary millage increases of 3.25%, 3.5% and 4.0%. McGibbony said a 4.0% proposal would include seven of nine recommended new staff positions plus a larger contingency line; a 3.5% option would fund fewer positions and a smaller contingency; and 3.25% would fund still fewer positions but produce small year-one and year-two deficits before projected surpluses in later years.

The discussion mattered because the board must submit a preliminary rate and backup paperwork to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and post the preliminary budget for public inspection. McGibbony said the district must submit preliminary paperwork by June deadlines and that the final budget must be adopted no later than June 30, with a special board adoption meeting planned June 2.

Board members pressed staff on the consequences of each option. McGibbony provided a five-year projection showing that choosing 3.25% would create modest near-term deficits that become manageable in years three through five; by contrast, the 4.0% option would raise multi-year expenditures by roughly $3.2 million compared with the baseline. She said the nine recommended new positions, including salary and benefits, total about $948,000 and average roughly $106,000–$115,000 per position, so which positions the board approves will materially affect multi-year totals.

Board members repeatedly asked about the contingency line that had been increased in the 4.0% scenario. McGibbony explained that an additional $388,000 in contingency had been included to cover salaries and benefits for three positions in the event federal funding does not materialize. She described that federal program funding was uncertain and that contingency funds are intended to cover unknown shortfalls in federal or other revenues rather than recurring costs.

Several board members said they wanted a larger contingency because of federal funding uncertainty and the district’s recent growth; others said they worried about setting a new higher precedent for millage increases. One board member proposed 3.75% as a compromise between staffing needs and taxpayer concerns; multiple members voiced support for bringing that figure back as the working baseline for the April 21 submission while retaining the ability to lower it before final adoption.

McGibbony outlined options for closing year-one shortfalls if the board chose a lower rate: immediately eliminating planned future items, reducing contingency or transfers to capital projects, or reducing the fund-balance transfer (she noted the district used a fund-balance transfer in the current year to cover the 5–6 center). She said the district will continue to monitor state and federal developments and will refine revenue and expenditure details before the preliminary filing.

Board members emphasized that any chosen preliminary rate can be changed at subsequent board meetings prior to final adoption. McGibbony noted that the board submitted 3.5% last year and adopted 3.0% as the final rate, and that similar adjustments would be possible up to the final vote.

The board asked staff to “sharpen pencils” and return on April 21 with details reflecting a 3.75% baseline while retaining flexibility for adjustment before the final vote.

Ending: The board voiced consensus to proceed with 3.75% as the working submission for the preliminary budget filing; staff will present a refined package and the formal preliminary budget resolution for the board vote on April 21.