Budget & Finance Committee

SPRING GROVE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

DATE/TIME of MEETING:   April 21, 2025 @ 3:30 PM

LOCATION of MEETING:    Educational Service Center, 100 E. College Ave., Spring Grove, PA

The following School Directors were in attendance: Doug White (Chair), Eric Barshinger, Karen Baum, Ben Ramsay, Rachel Rohrbaugh (arr. 4:42 PM), Rodney Shearer, Doug Stein, Nicole Wilson

The following Spring Grove Area School District personnel were in attendance:  Dr. Joseph Bradley, Superintendent, Dr. Steve Guadagnino, Assistant Superintendent, Jen Leppo, Accounting Manager, Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

---

A Budget and Finance Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Monday, April 21, 2025.  Doug White called the meeting to order at 3:31 PM.

Financial Overview 

Mark Czapp referred to the March 31, 2025, Budget & Finance Committee Presentation and noted the reason for the meeting was a continued review of 2025-2026 budget projections.  Czapp stated that the 25-26 Proposed Budget approved by the board at the April 14, 2025, DSF/Voting meeting would be used as the preliminary starting point for the discussion, adding that items listed can still be changed.  He projected the 25-26 Budget Summary with potential tax increases for consideration in the discussion and opened the floor to board members to provide direction with attritional savings proposed.

White asked for clarification on listed staffing positions to confirm that restructuring does not translate to a furlough or layoff.   Bradley stated that due to existing retirements/resignations, capacity exists to existing teacher schedules. Through analysis, teachers currently being pulled to cover duty or duty-adjacent (co-teaching) assignments, for instance, may be better served to teach more students during those times.  Specificity with scheduling specialized classes comes at a cost. 

Bradley stated that ultimately, filling or not filling positions is a board decision.  There is a difference between a principal saying they “can” versus they “want to” make scheduling adjustments through attrition.   

Referring to a High School Math position, Guadagnino noted it was a leave of absence that carried over from 23-24 year.  There is no need for the position, and it can be removed.  Guadagnino also stated that three additional resignations / retirements were received that have not yet come to the board for acknowledgement that should be folded into the discussion. 

Ramsay suggested going through the listed positions one by one.  Czapp indicated the proposed Director of Curriculum added in 23-24 remains unfilled.  Barshinger questioned if the position should be removed. 

Ramsay stated that each time a position opens, the board/administration should be evaluating the vacancy to determine if it is needed and what positions would be affected if not filled.  The board needs details of classes, class sizes, and capacity ratio to ultimately make those decisions.  If class sizes are low, and a teacher has a reduced caseload per day, why would the board not look at reallocating that teacher’s schedule?  A board would be considered irresponsible not to do that. 

Stein stated that it is difficult to say that teachers are not being cut.  The district cannot remain at a zero tax increase when everything else is under inflation.  Enrollment may not be rising, but charter school costs are going up. 

Ramsay stated that the board must decide on a budget and answer questions without having variables in place from the state and federal level. 

Barshinger stated that with 3.7%, the business office has put concerted effort toward tracing historical spend.  Part of the problem is that the board is only looking at numbers and should be addressing education. White asked the administration for recommendations. 

Bradley shared that proposed attritional savings are not a reflection on teachers, but the result of looking at scheduling with the number of classes.  The majority of classes are at 20 students or below (at the secondary level).  Sometimes the content dictates that the class size gets smaller.   It is a capacity question. 

Barshinger stated that a vision is needed.  Ramsay agreed; but stated there is a need now to move forward by going through each item, understanding that things can be modified.  Czapp stated the difficulty in projecting what things will look like in future years, but the administration is moving closer to historical spend for the board to make decisions. 

Barshinger questioned the need for future building renovations and what the plan is for finding that money.  He added there could be potential cost for updating curricula, as recently done with K-6 Math.  Czapp stated that the federal government is looking at only having taxable bonds in the future, which will impact how the district borrows money. 

Rohrbaugh arrived at 4:42 PM.

Ramsay recommended the board wait until the end of June to approve a tax rate.  He does not suggest voting in May before the board has answers about the state/federal budget.  Stein stated the timeline is the same every year.  Rohrbaugh stated that the district will run into problems with timing when hiring for the start of the new school year.  She does not want to disrupt the student day by deciding not to fill positions. 

Stein restated his concern about the decreasing reserve and making payroll. 

Rohrbaugh questioned current positions that were originally funded by grants that have expired. 

There was discussion concerning music sectionals (practices) and sports (competitions / performances).  Bradley noted there are two music teachers dedicated to sectionals.  If the board wishes to replace a music teacher to continue that schedule, it is going to come at a cost. 

Ramsay left the meeting at 5:27 PM.

Bradley noted there are three retirement resignations that the board has not yet seen that can be added to the list for consideration. White asked if the administration looked at every department, including support staff and substitutes for reductions?  Rohrbaugh agreed and asked to look at positions that do not have an impact on the student day, including secretarial.  Substitute positions have been evaluated, overtime among maintenance and custodial staff have been scrutinized, and extracurricular positions have been reviewed.  Coaching positions have yet to be evaluated.  Bradley explained that there is an analysis process in place by departmental administrators to evaluate the need and the value of each retirement/resignation. 

Barshinger asked about the $430K that was removed from the budget.  Will those items be a future expense in addition to future curriculum needs? 

Czapp reported that all transportation routes will be reevaluated during the summer by Ms. Pepperman.

Next Steps

Czapp requested a recommendation from the board to include with the May 5^th budget presentation in advance of a final budget projection to propose for approval at the May 19^th voting meeting.  The board requested the administration restructure the attrition list in order of priority. 

White adjourned the meeting at 5:43 PM. 

Respectfully Submitted, Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors
Monday, April 21, 2025 @ 3:30 PM
Educational Service Center
100 East College Avenue, Spring Grove, PA

 

Agenda 

Call Meeting to Order, D. White

Financial Overview  

a.     Copy of March 31, 2025, Budget & Finance Committee Presentation – Continued Review of Budget Projections

b.     25-26 Proposed Budget (preliminary starting point)

c.      25-26 Budget Summary with Possible Tax Increases

Action Items and Next Steps

Adjourn Meeting                                                                                                

SPRING GROVE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

DATE/TIME of MEETING:   March 31, 2025 @ 4:00 PM

LOCATION of MEETING:    Educational Service Center, 100 E. College Ave., Spring Grove, PA

The following School Directors were in attendance:  Doug White (Chair), Eric Barshinger, Karen Baum, Ben Ramsay, Mike Ritz, Rodney Shearer, Doug Stein, Nicole Wilson

The following Spring Grove Area School District personnel were in attendance:  Dr. Joseph Bradley, Superintendent, Dr. Steve Guadagnino, Assistant Superintendent, Jen Leppo, Accounting Manager, Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

---

A Budget and Finance Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Monday, March 31, 2025.  Doug White called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM.

Financial Overview, J. Leppo

Updated Account Balances / Year-to-Date Financial Position

Jen Leppo presented an overview of the 2024-25 budget, noting a slight change since the last meeting largely due to a transportation subsidy received at more than $700K.  The Business Office is investigating as to what the allocation is comprised of and why it was received.  EIT revenue came in 5.6% higher than estimated. 

Presentation / Staffing Considerations

For 2025-2026, the Ready to Learn grant amount will double.  Leppo continued a review of 2025-2026 budget projections and included a proposed list of staffing reductions through attrition and reduced departmental spending previously requested by the board.

Barshinger questioned how many of the listed items are going to be returned to future budgets in a subsequent year and what is going to be removed permanently.  Items such as vehicles and athletic equipment were confirmed, with many of the other items considered on an as needed basis.  Ramsay acknowledged that some of the listed items appear to be a “want” - not a “need.”

Leppo stated that departments were advised to align with historical spend with no room for overbudgeting.  Bradley added that by attacking the budget this way, it brings greater equity to all buildings K-12. 

White voiced concern about removing things that take away from students where there is a need.  Shearer stated some items, like iPads previously purchased, are an unnecessary spend.  Leppo noted that through thorough investigation and proactive timing, refreshing items such as the iPads can bring greater revenue to the district than waiting until they reach the end of life and spending more to replace. 

Leppo reported that in the case of the Rocketry Program, the budget was reduced, and the program will now be defined as a club to align with other clubs.  Doing so will also bring standardization as with all clubs and establish the same accountability process. Bradley added that all clubs will now be treated equitably, not to say that all clubs will receive the same amount of money.  They can also fundraise.  There will continue to be allocations in the budget, such as stipends for advisors, and additional monies for the classroom if there is a class associated with the club. 

Guadagnino reported that PTO organizations are still covering field trip costs at the elementary level.  He added that most teachers K-12 have figured out how to do field trips without seeking a substitute.

Leppo explained that at the April 14^th Directors’ Study Forum, the Business Office will present the 2025proposed final budget for the board’s consideration.  To prepare, Leppo presented three options reflecting varying millage rates, projected revenues and expenses, and requested the committee’s direction for what to include in the proposed board action:

Option 1 / key points: 

·       Makes the most significant additional reductions to the budget

·       Tax increase of 1.5%

·       Full attrition model (Nurse, psychologist, counselor at the high school are not on the list; the recommendation is that the be replaced to meet PDE requirements.)

·       Removes all extracurricular stipends

Ramsay questioned reductions negatively impacting or reducing students’ education and requested more detail and breakdown for each of the listed items be presented at a future meeting.  Barshinger questioned the social worker.  Guadagnino replied that without replacing, there would be a reduction in services and others would need to pick up services. 

Option 2 / key points:

·       Supply reductions are not as deep

·       Retains a couple positions (if no figure listed in the column, recommendation is to keep in budget)

·       Tax increase of 3%

Option 3 / key points

·       Retains most positions

·       Tax increase to 5.4%

Leppo stated that all options were prepared using a 2% increase in salaries and reminded board members that the district is still in negotiations. 

Barshinger stated that a tax increase needs to happen.  Zero increase is off the table.  Baum agreed but does not want to cut all things on the list.  Barshinger wants the percentage to align with need and does not want to do a maximum increase to bring back positions that are not needed. 

Stein stated that in recent years the board has refused to raise taxes.  The district has lost its D & B rating and its fund balance, and students are suffering because of it.  He believes the district is going in the wrong direction.

Wilson is not yet ready to raise taxes.  She does not see evidence of students suffering and disagreed with Stein.  At this point, the board is looking at where to save.  Wilson will review the options to determine how the proposed cuts may or may not impact students.  There may be a way to select items from all options (mix and match) that will not raise taxes.  The impact of a tax increase to the elderly and lower income families would be huge. 

Bradley reported that the impact from staffing changes is hard to predict.  There are pros and cons with changes.  White stated that positions on the list could be reorganized. 

Ramsay suggested that receiving more information recently has enabled the board to make more informed decisions and find balance in what needs to be done within a short window of time.  He does not want to see students’ education suffer, but there are areas to consider that if removed will not negatively impact students.  Reductions presented align with buildings’ actual spend.  Negotiations are continuing, and the board needs to settle a contract before continuing the budget process accurately.  

Shearer stated he is not interested in raising taxes.  He is more interested in moving forward to support students’ education, like purchasing textbooks for students, than talking about building projects.

Barshinger asked for the superintendent’s vision to help guide the board’s decision for next steps with the budget and questioned if the proposed considerations include long term planning such as future educational buildings, curriculum and/or programs, and what the board wants for students after graduation.  Bradley suggested that direction begins with board members.  He has considered a K, 1, 2 building when looking at projections of lower kindergarten numbers. Bradley referred board members to pros and cons, with proposed recommendations listed on the spreadsheet.  By observation and evaluation, the administration can move people based on teacher certifications. 

Baum stated concern about losing 7 staff members to resignations, not retirements.  Wilson suggested that attracting and retaining good teachers should be the board’s priority. White agreed.  

Guadagnino stated that it is hard to make recommendations without knowing what the tax increase is and/or where the district will be with negotiations.  He added that what could not be predicted was the decrease in kindergarten numbers, which has resulted in gaining space in two of the elementary buildings. 

Ramsay exited at 5:35 PM.

White stated he was in favor of items included with option 1, with a 5.4% tax increase.  He surveyed board members to give direction to Leppo for the proposed final budget board action on April 14, and to determine what key things are needed for the next meeting. Leppo reminded board members there is time to make changes after adopting the proposed final budget.

Barshinger suggested option 2 with a 3% tax increase and would go higher if the administration has a proposal for better academics for students.  He would like to look at sports and stipends. 

Wilson would consider option 2 or 3, and requested with option 2, a breakdown with proposed tax increases of 1.5%, 3%, and 5.4%.  Wilson is not interested in raising taxes to put away to maintain a “rainy day” fund. 

Leppo acknowledged that all school districts are required to use the same Chart of Accounts from PDE for accounting purposes; however, how a district decides to code charges may vary.  This results in variances when comparing district to district. 

Stein requested a breakdown of what items on the list of proposed budget cuts will be postponed and what will not be needed in the future.  He also asked if there was a way to determine what may have been historically.

Next Steps

Leppo was directed to include items listed with option 2 and use a 3% projected tax increase when preparing the board action for the 2025-2026 proposed final budget to be presented at the April 14^th meeting.

White adjourned the meeting at 5:48 PM. 

Respectfully Submitted, Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors
Monday, March 31, 2025 @ 4:00 PM
Educational Service Center
100 East College Avenue, Spring Grove, PA

Agenda

I.             Call Meeting to Order, D. White

II.            Financial Overview, J. Leppo

a.     Updated Account Balances / Year-to-Date Financial Position

b.     Presentation – Continued Review of Budget Projections

• Additional Option C 

c.     Staffing Considerations and Impact to Future Budgets

• Pros and Cons with Potential Attrition Savings

III.          Action Items and Next Steps

Adjourn Meeting

SPRING GROVE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

DATE/TIME of MEETING:   March 17, 2025 @ 3:00 PM

LOCATION of MEETING:    Educational Service Center, 100 E. College Ave., Spring Grove, PA

The following School Directors were in attendance:  Doug White (Committee Chair), Eric Barshinger, Karen Baum, Rodney Shearer, Doug Stein, Nicole Wilson

The following Spring Grove Area School District personnel were in attendance:  Dr. Joseph Bradley, Superintendent, Dr. Steve Guadagnino, Assistant Superintendent, Mark Czapp, Director of Business Operations, Jen Leppo, District Accounting Manager, Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

---

A Budget and Finance Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Monday, March 17, 2025.  Doug White called the meeting to order at 3:02 PM.

Budget Summary

Budget & Finance 3.10.25.xlsx

Czapp shared the current financial status and year-to-date financial position by reviewing state and federal revenues and projected expenditures. He noted the district is currently looking at a potential deficit of $1.3 million and a projected $10 million unassigned fund balance.  What makes up the difference of the deficit from projected to actual ($2.4 million) are the existing salaries of unfilled positions, site administrators staying within their historical spend, and collecting slightly higher real estate and earned income taxes than projected.  The district also received funding for cyber/charter schools that was not counted on.

Projected figures for 2025-2026 include a 2% salary increase and no tax increase.  Estimated ending fund balance is projected at $3 million.  Figures also do not include any of the suggested cuts for next year.

Czapp presented a pie chart of projected revenue showing 37% from state sources, 62% from local revenue, and a small amount of federal revenue for Title monies.  There are rumors regarding a loss of these monies due to removal of the federal department of education, which could translate to approximately $700 thousand.  The district also receives IDEA monies administered through LIU #12 Passthrough funds that could add to the federal fund loss of approximately $800 thousand.  The total loss the district could experience could be $1.5 million.

Czapp presented a pie chart of projected expenditures reflecting approximately $58 million, or 2/3 of the overall spend, as salaries and benefits. 

Budget Cuts List, Staffing Considerations, and Impact to Future Budgets

Budget & Finance 3.10.25.xlsx

Czapp presented savings currently being experienced because of site administrators’ additional adjusted spend.  Projected savings through attrition include slightly more than $1 million.  Barshinger questioned the impact of not filling those positions.  Dr. Bradley reported that an analysis of the class sizes is currently being completed and cautioned board members when seeing the data, not to compare teacher to teacher, as one may look inflated when compared to another, but to also consider course content and special needs students.  Czapp is also looking at averages across York County to see the dollar amount per student. 

Stein and Barshinger requested that as soon as possible, the administration provide a summary sheet with pros and cons for positions that are not being filled.  Bradley cautioned that attention should be given to the differing roles of board members and administrators and noted that any information providing pros and cons would be subjective.  Wilson noted that level of detail will take time to assemble.  Barshinger reiterated that the exercise would be helpful to the board; there needs to be cuts – a pro might be to save money – a con might be students are going to be losing out. 

White questioned what other schools are doing to provide information to their boards.  Czapp explained that at a recent PASBO conference, the highest attended class among his job-alike peers was potential federal funding cuts.  The list of proposed positions should remain as fluid as possible and suggested that the committee recommend a total figure to be accounted for with attritional savings.

Czapp referenced additional savings recommendations in transportation, software, and technology, to name a few.  If the board does everything proposed and recommends a tax increase of 3%, the district is close to a balanced budget.  Other items currently being discussed were listed. 

Guadagnino commented on a recent review of Extracurricular Advisors/Athletic Coaches and the potential considerations and impact to future budgets.  After going through the matrix, it was decided to select option B to realize additional savings, which will be voted on at the March 24^th meeting.  The administration is also recommending standardizing stipends moving forward.

Capital Projects/Capital Reserve List

District Capital Facility Plan 2024-25.xlsx

Bill Stiles shared a proposed (fluid) list of projects including the budgeted amount vs. actual cost.  The list included projected workflow through 2033 and items for continued review and consideration.  Stiles noted that just because an amount was budgeted, if the district receives a positive report from an inspection, any impending work or purchase related to that capital project could be placed on hold.  This is also done with vehicles.  Czapp noted that all of the items on the proposed list, with the exception of vehicles, would be eligible to use bond funds.

Shearer questioned the bond funds and stated his disagreement with holding the money and questioned what would happen if the board decided to return the money. 

Summary of Debt/Bond Fund Review

Debt Schedules.xlsx

Czapp explained that the bond is currently sitting at $7.78 million.  Czapp reached out to Chris Gibbons, Concord Public Finance, for the updated information presented. 

Barshinger again asked if the board decides to not pause a position, what considerations can then be made to make up the difference and make up that savings somewhere else.  He would like to see that priority list of pros and cons provided to the board.  Czapp indicated that to accommodate such a request, the board should provide direction to the administration.

Action Items and Next Steps

White suggested scheduling another Budget and Finance Committee meeting.  The administration will prepare a list of the positions with pros and cons, as requested, and how the fund balance would be affected to be shared with board members in advance of the meeting.  Czapp reiterated the board should come up with a $2 million reduction in the budget.  The administration will continue to work with site administrators. At the next committee meeting, Czapp is asking that the board come prepared to give direction on the list of proposed items. Barshinger stated that when/if cutting programs, those conversations need to take place in the public. 

Bradley is working with the Middle School and High School to finalize proposed staffing numbers at the secondary level.  The elementary level proposed numbers were already shared with the board.  Bradley also elaborated on cyber education funding and encouraged board members to reach out to local legislators about cyber education reform.   

April 14^th is scheduled to include the proposed final budget presentation which must be publicly viewed prior to submitting the final budget in May.  The next budget and finance committee meeting was scheduled for Monday, March 31^st at 4:00 PM at the Educational Service Center.

White adjourned the meeting at 4:12 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,  Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors
Monday, March 17, 2025 @ 3:00 PM
Educational Service Center
100 East College Avenue, Spring Grove, PA

Agenda 

I.                Call Meeting to Order, D. White

II.             Financial Overview, M. Czapp, J. Leppo

a.     Current Financial Status Report

·       Year-to-Date Financial Position

b.     Review of Account Balances

·       General Fund

·       Capital Reserves

III.           Budget Discussion                                                                                              

a.     Review of Current Budget

b.     Staffing Considerations and Impact to Future Budgets

c.      Extracurricular Advisors/Athletic Coaches - Considerations and Impact to Future Budgets

IV.           Capital Projects and Bond Fund Review

a.     Capital Projects Pending

b.     Long-term Capital Plan (10 year?)

c.      Bond Fund Discussion

V.              Action Items and Next Steps

a.     Review Timeline for Budget Approval

b.     Schedule Next Meeting

Adjourn Meeting

SPRING GROVE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

DATE/TIME of MEETING:   February 21, 2025 @ 11:30 AM

LOCATION of MEETING:    Educational Service Center, 100 E. College Ave., Spring Grove, PA

The following School Directors were in attendance:  Eric Barshinger, Rodney Shearer, Doug Stein, Doug White

The following Spring Grove Area School District personnel were in attendance:  Dr. Joseph Bradley, Superintendent, Dr. Steve Guadagnino, Assistant Superintendent, Mark, Jen, Suzanne

---

A Budget and Finance Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Friday, February 21, 2025.  Doug White called the meeting to order at 11:34 AM.

Czapp presented an overview of the district’s current financial status.  See presentation.  He confirmed the starting point for the fund balance and noted the projected 2025-2026 revenue budget does not include any tax increase.  Local revenue sources include real estate taxes. 

Federal talks include potential interruptions or cessation of IDEA funding.  IDEA monies are pass-through funds used to offset expenses with the LIU.  The district’s potential loss is approximately $800K.  It is very possible that we will not have that amount in our starting point for next year. 

Federal (Title) funding currently provides salary for seven (7) Title I teachers.  Discussions are taking place internally to determine what it may look like if the district loses that funding, resulting in an extremely different deficit.  The board may be called upon to consider adopting the funding of those positions into the general fund.  Stock and Leader, legal counsel, and Mark Holman, Interim HR Director, have confirmed there is specific language about furloughs in School Code and have been helping to navigate conversations internally. 

Projected State revenue includes basic ed subsidy and special ed funding.  The amount is the lowest in the past several years.  Another area of concern is the possibility that districts may not receive cyber funding.

White stated that the board is looking at the possibility of a maximum tax increase despite some board members not wanting to raise taxes.  The board has not consistently been increasing by a small percentage. 

Czapp stated the board passed a resolution that it would not exceed the 5.4% index, which would bring $2.5 million in revenue.  That’s not enough.  We need to have reductions. Shearer stated his experience in municipalities do not present this issue and questioned how the district got here.  Czapp explained special needs students moving into the district can increase expenditures tremendously, without warning.  Additionally, a major impact has been students enrolling in charter school.  Czapp will bring comparisons over other school districts to a future meeting. 

Czapp suggested the board seriously consider current staffing levels.  Board members are given a confidential memo about openings with each meeting agenda.  Every site administrator has been advised of the need to be financially responsible for the entire district, not just the building or department. 

Czapp and Leppo presented a pie chart showing the largest portion of expenditures related to salaries and benefits.  Current openings equate to $1.3 million.  To make a real imprint, Czapp strongly recommended a hiring pause and an analysis of every open position.  Mark Holman stated he has been through this process in other school districts and added that it is a mindset for our culture to build a schedule by looking first at how many teachers we have as opposed to shifting to look first at the number of students.  Spring Grove did this years ago with cafeteria staff, and Czapp reiterated taking control through attrition.

White suggested the administration look at all levels of staff, including administrators and CBA members.  The Business Office is currently compiling an analysis to be presented to the board, including a review of extracurricular programs and positions to be discussed at a future Personnel Committee meeting. 

Czapp also stated there are other opportunities to evaluate how funds are being spent, including the use of supplies.  Insurance costs will likely continue to increase, in addition to electricity and other fixed monthly charges.  Reduction in supplies is for the present only.  Eliminating staff is present and future.  We need to control what we can.

Barshinger questioned how many years it would take to break even and maintain a fund balance that allows to stop cutting staff if the board proposes a tax increase of 4-5%.  Czapp stated that every 1% yields $450K in revenue.  If the board goes to 4% this year, that would address half of the deficit. 

Stein suggested the board maintain its capital reserve fund balance.  The Business Department needs to look out 10-15 years, particularly with the conditions of buildings and what is going to be needed with building projects.  Stein questioned if there is a plan beyond moving year to year.  Czapp agreed that this problem cannot be addressed in one year.  Barshinger also agreed and stated that those board members not wanting to raise taxes need to state what should be cut to make up the deficit. 

Czapp requested input on next steps, including the board committee giving direction to the administration on ranges for potential tax increases to bring back to the full board.  White suggested starting at 3% going up to 5.4%. White also agreed with the suggested hiring pause and requested that an itemized list of every employee be shared by the administration to include what they do and where they are located.

Stein suggested that the full board needs to direct the administration and business office to provide recommendations, including projected costs and a list of pros and cons for potential positions to be paused.  Barshinger asked for assurance that it is not just teaching positions that are being considered. Czapp noted that all buildings and departments have been advised to look at needs vs. wants when it comes to staffing, programming, and supplies.  He also cautioned that currently, there is no CBA in place for the upcoming year. 

Czapp presented the potential purchase of curricular materials following the Curriculum Committee tasking administrators to look at K-6 Math.  Over the past year, they have been looking and have now tendered a recommendation costing more than $430K for an investment over a seven-year period, with 2025-2026 being an implementation year to obtain the materials and train teachers.  Mid-year, there will be an evaluation to see if there is a desire to make the full commitment to the investment.  Guadagnino suggested that the board would need to move quickly to make the purchase so teachers can begin professional development before the close of 2024-2025.  The implementation year could be covered by the Assistant Superintendent’s current curriculum budget allotment for resources, but there would need to be buy-in for the full six-year investment.

White stated the board has been focused on the education of students and supports the investment.  Stein requested a presentation to the full board, including costs and how to pay for it.  He agreed there should be a commitment from the board on the seven-year investment.  The administration will include a presentation at the March 10^th Directors’ Study meeting, with a recommendation for approval tentative for the March 24^th voting meeting.  Shearer does not support spending money that can’t be afforded.

Consideration will be made for scheduling a follow up Budget and Finance Committee meeting after the next budget presentation on March 10^th.

White adjourned the meeting at 12:55 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors
Friday, February 21, 2025 @ 11:30 AM
Educational Service Center
100 East College Avenue, Spring Grove, PA

Agenda

I.             Call Meeting to Order, D. White

II.            Financial Overview, M. Czapp, J. Leppo

a.     Current Financial Status Report

• Year-to-Date Financial Position

b.     Review of Account Balances

• General Fund

• Capital Reserves

III.          Budget Discussion                                                                     

a.     Review of Current Budget

b.     Review of Adjustment Discussion (Historical Spend)

c.     Staffing Considerations and Impact to Future Budgets

d.     Curricular Considerations and Impact to Future Budgets

IV.          Action Items and Next Steps

a.     Review Timeline for Budget Approval

b.     Schedule Next Meeting?

V.             Adjourn Meeting                                                                      

SPRING GROVE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

 

DATE/TIME of MEETING:   December 11, 2024 @ 5:00 PM

LOCATION of MEETING:    Spring Grove Area Middle School, 244 Old Hanover Road, Spring Grove, PA

The following School Directors were in attendance:  Doug White (chair), Eric Barshinger, Karen Baum, Rodney Shearer, Nicole Wilson

The following Spring Grove Area School District personnel were in attendance:  Dr. Joseph Bradley, Superintendent, Dr. Steve Guadagnino, Assistant Superintendent, Mark Czapp, Director of Business Operations, Jen Leppo, Accounting Manager, Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

---

A Budget and Finance Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Wednesday, December 11, 2024.  Doug White called the meeting to order at 5:03 PM

Mark Czapp provided a high-level overview of the current budget, beginning with the Treasurer’s Report ending October 31, 2024.  Czapp included current revenues with historical trends from the state and tuition received from out-of-district students.  The district will conclude the year with revenues above what was budgeted at $86.8 million.  On the expenditures side, also including a historical trend and although very early in the year, there is very little difference to the estimated $86.4 million, resulting in a $1.7 million deficit that will need drawn from the assigned fund balance.  The business office began conversations with principals to review their historical spend and discuss options to narrow the deficit. 

Wilson questioned the process for developing the budget and receiving the board’s input.  Czapp explained that he and Jen Leppo meet with site administrators to plan for the following year, beginning in December.  Principals prepare their budget for the entire building.  At the elementary level, teachers are allocated $300 for classroom materials, per year.  Principals then add general line items outside of the specific classroom budgets.  Secondary level buildings are a bit different.  Budget presentations to the Board for consideration occur February through May outlining both revenues and expenditures.  The process has not changed from previous years.  Wilson stated that the board is responsible for the budget and, as such, is asking questions that previous boards have not asked.

White inquired about student trips.  If a club does not have the money to fund a trip, involved students should be fundraising or contributing to cover costs.  Bradley explained the goal is to have a balance of providing students with opportunities.  Wilson added opportunities should be equitable for all students. Leppo explained there is a difference between student clubs vs. co-curriculars, such as Rocketry and Mock Trial.  Czapp stated that costs for substitutes for teachers requesting the trips are now being included in trip requests (costs must be covered in the budget) and sports offered through the Athletic Department (stipends according to the Extracurricular Matrix). 

Incentives provided to staff (days off to winners) for the annual United Way Campaign have not changed over 30 (+) years and are included in the annual budget.  Committee members agreed to cease the United Way Campaign for 2025-2026 and instead, keep monies collected for a fundraising effort in the district.  This will be a discussion item with SGEA representatives, as the campaign is specifically mentioned in the CBA.

Committee members questioned various function/object codes that were presented.  Shearer also questioned health care costs and how the Wellness Center saves the district money.  Czapp explained that Lincoln Benefit Trust (LBT) is the district’s claims consortium because we are self-insured.  The district pays a monthly fee, based upon the number of participating employees, to cover medical claims for our staff. Vision insurance is offered to administrators as part of the Act 93 agreement.  Discrepancies that may appear on the report were due to an accounting error.  Czapp stated that another opportunity on the table to experience savings may be by joining Accarent Health, another consortium.

Baum questioned charter / cyber charter costs and questioned if the administration has initiated a task force.  Dr. Bradley explained that this is currently being reviewed, as there is value to seeing what other districts are experiencing.  He noted that when the district becomes aware of a family interested in leaving for cyber, there should be a robust alternative to offer.  A presentation to the entire school board is tentative for a future Directors’ Study Forum.  Bradley suggested marrying the charter initiative responsibilities to a newly proposed position that is currently included in the budget.

Additional questions by board members related to specific object code fluctuations were addressed by Jen Leppo who stated that PDE often changes account codes in their Chart of Accounts.  Czapp asked if there was anything the board would like to see differently or in addition to the existing information as future budget presentations are planned.  Wilson requested a list of suggested areas where we can experience savings.  She suggested removing iPads for students K-4.  Leppo confirmed that a list is being prepared. 

White stated his appreciation for the efforts from the business office to prepare the comprehensive presentation, and noted this is the first time seeing the detailed information.  White requested the administration continue keep the board well-informed, including proposed suggestions and the impact to the overall budget.  If field trips can’t be afforded, they need to be stopped to consider resources that will benefit all students, including any recommendation for additional staff.

Barshinger noted that the recent audit report showed special programs coming in over budget and appears the programs are at the ESC. White stated that the executive board recently asked Dr. Bradley to review ESC costs and provide feedback to the board.  Shearer stated that the board should be asking the administration to cut costs publicly to keep the burden off the shoulders of the administration. 

Barshinger requested to see a comparison among other York County school districts to see what they are spending in particular areas.  Czapp indicated it would also help with consistency among costs per student.

The administration will continue to develop a detailed proposed budget for 2025-2026, including suggestions to experience savings.  Czapp will keep the Budget and Finance Committee informed to determine any scheduling of the next meeting prior to the next public presentation of the proposed budget at the February DSF.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 6:43 PM.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Suzanne E. Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors
Tuesday, December 11, 2024 @ 5:00 PM
Spring Grove Area Middle School, LGI Room #241
244 Old Hanover Road, Spring Grove, PA
(Park in rear of building and enter at Door #13)

 Agenda

I.              Call Meeting to Order, DOUG WHITE

II.             Financial Overview, MARK CZAPP and  JEN LEPPO

• Current Financial Status Report
  • Year-to-Date Financial Position
• Review of Account Balances
  • General Fund
  • Capital Reserves

 III.           Budget Discussion                                                                                              

• Review of Current Budget
• Review of Adjustment Discussion (Historical Spend)

IV.           Action Items and Next Steps

• Review Timeline for Budget Approval
• Schedule Next Meeting

V.              Adjourn Meeting