Great Valley finance committee reviews proposed 2025–26 budget, weighs 4% Act 1 millage increase and federal contingency

Great Valley School District finance committee members reviewed the district’s proposed 2025–26 operating budget, including a recommended Act 1 millage increase, a federal funding contingency built into salaries and benefits, and a prioritized list of new staffing positions.

The presentation, delivered by Ms. Dinsmore, laid out two primary levy scenarios: the full Act 1 index of 4% and a lower alternative of 3.5%. "For a 4% increase... total revenue is 133,891,685," Ms. Dinsmore said, presenting the district’s arithmetic for levied and total revenues and how those figures would change under each option.

Why it matters: the committee must decide whether to propose the full Act 1 increase, a smaller increase, or a hybrid approach before the board’s preliminary vote in April and final adoption before the state deadline on June 30. The choice affects whether the budget can include seven recommended new positions and whether the district holds a $388,227 contingency to cover potential losses in federal Title funding tied to salaries and benefits.

Budget details and fiscal trade-offs The district reported current millage at 24.37. Under the 4% Act 1 index the mill rate would rise to about 25.35; at 3.5% the mill rate would be about 25.22. The presentation included levied local revenue figures (levied revenue shown as $108,342,919) and a proposed total revenue of $133,891,685 under the 4% scenario. The 3.5% scenario reduced total revenue to about $133,336,081, producing a bottom-line difference of approximately $69,238.

Ms. Dinsmore described a federal-title contingency of $388,227 that the budget includes "solely [for] salaries and benefits." She told the committee the district could lose roughly $504,000 of Title grant funding and that the contingency reflects the portion the district would need to pick up if those federal funds do not materialize.

Expenditures and notable cost drivers Committee discussion identified several expenditure lines driving the budget change: employer retirement contributions (discussed in the meeting as PSERS), increasing health-benefit premiums (a proposed 2% planning assumption pending consultant figures), special education service costs, and supplies/technology demand tied to enrollment increases. The district’s presentation showed instructional expenditures totaling $84,113,862 and aggregate support services and other uses that align the proposed expenditures with projected revenues under the 4% scenario.

Staffing proposals and operational priorities Included in the 4% scenario were seven new positions and the federal contingency; the 3.5% scenario would allow five positions and exclude the contingency; a 3% scenario would provide no additional positions with the contingency. The administrative team provided a prioritized list of proposed hires: emotional support and multiple-disability positions at the district’s 5–6 center, math and English support positions at the high school (math lab and co-teaching supports), an English Language Development (ELD) teacher, an instructional coach to support multilingual learners and core teachers, and a world-language (Spanish) teacher with flexible assignment between middle and high school.

Dr. Beck, addressing the instructional rationale, said the change is part of a larger strategy to embed supports during the school day: "We are on a journey here in a continuum to add support in more meaningful ways." Dr. Wexler described hiring realities for special-education roles: "For special education, the pool is light," and urged early posting and decision so candidates can be recruited before the school year.

Federal grants and program continuity Committee members asked specifically about ESSER (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) funding, IDEA and Title grants, and whether certain programs previously supported by ESSER now lack a funding source. The administration said ESSER funds have expired and that most ongoing special-education funding has not been signaled for cuts at the state level; nonetheless, the contingency was included to cover the portion of Title funds that support salaries and benefits if federal allocations change.

Capital transfers, debt and contingency planning The proposed budget retains a $5 million annual transfer into the capital projects fund and a roughly $5.35 million transfer for debt service, for a total interfund transfer out of $10,353,718. Committee members discussed the trade-off of slightly reducing the capital transfer to create additional operating flexibility but noted that would reduce funds available for future maintenance and facilities projects. The largest outstanding debt line remains the 5–6 center financing.

Next steps Ms. Dinsmore told members she will prepare a projected five-year forecast and alternate scenarios (including a hybrid approach) for the board’s April work session and for the finance committee’s April meeting. The board’s preliminary budget vote is scheduled for April 21, and the final adoption must occur prior to June 30. No formal votes or motions were taken during the committee meeting; the session was for presentation and discussion.

Ending The committee left the options open, asking the administration for multiple scenarios that vary millage, contingency, and staffing so trustees can weigh taxpayer impact against service and hiring priorities before the board’s scheduled votes.