Budget & Finance Committee

Meeting Minutes and Agendas

2026

February 26, 2026 Budget & Finance Committee Meeting Minutes

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

DATE/TIME of MEETING: February 26, 2026 @ 4:30 PM

LOCATION of MEETING: Middle School, 244 Old Hanover Road, Spring Grove / LGI #241

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

The following Spring Grove Area School District personnel were in attendance: Dr. David Renaut, Acting Superintendent, Dr. Steve Guadagnino, Assistant Superintendent, Mark Czapp, Business Manager, Jen Leppo, Assistant Business Manager

A Budget and Finance Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Thursday, February 26, 2026. Mrs. Waltersdorff called the meeting to order at 4:33 PM and turned it over to Jen Leppo and Mark Czapp.

Financial Overview

Current Projections for 2026-2027

Leppo referred to slightly higher revenues than projected for 25-26, the two main areas relating to salaries and charter school reform/relief. There are also natural savings experienced from changes in administration and teaching staff that have resulted in approximately $2.5 million additional fund balance. Starting with this positive fund balance is the first time in five years.

For 26-27, no huge increase in revenue is expected and expenditures are slightly higher. Currently, the salary budget is being finalized, and there is not yet a medical calculation or certified rate. Information circulating about possible attritional savings by not replacing gifted instructors at the K-8 level is false. There is still work to be done and savings are anticipated regarding the benefits. The administration is not recommending that any vacancies not be filled.

2026-2027 Department / Site-Based Budgets

The business office continues to work on the site-based Budget Reduction Considerations (Pros/Cons Spreadsheets) for potential reductions. Overall, the current projection is a $3.3 million deficit.

Board members were previously given 32 individual site-based general budget reports. Barshinger would like to see a “vision” for criteria used to consider what a department is requesting. At a recent curriculum committee meeting, the question was presented about who makes the decision to reduce classroom opportunities for students. Czapp reported a process is in place for reviewing/approving each requested line item, and includes the need for good communication and challenges with trusted leaders to determine priority and the need.

Dr. Guadagnino clarified that classrooms are not eliminated due to the unavailability of funds in the budget – it is more a scheduling issue. Renaut interjected that trust is key among leadership team members. Requests are challenged, but there is also a need for accountability. Board members commented on being responsible for answering at the community level.

Field Trip Costs – Continued

Leppo reported that Phase I using the updated form for field trip requests is working well with accountability of funds beforehand. Phase II is the consideration of substitute costs (Absences).

Czapp presented an overview of absences by years 2022-2026. The board does not approve day trips currently. The board discussed whether the charge for a substitute for those trips / athletics / conferences should be covered by the club or activity account. He requested direction from the board, as the district is averaging 20-25 substitutes daily on a regular basis. Starting with sick and personal days, we average 2700 days per year, not counting other reasons.

There is currently no approval process in place when a staff member requests a sick day. Field trips are not driving the shortage of substitutes as they only make up 167 of the larger total. Does the board want to consider requesting a doctor’s note because a staff member is sick once reaching a certain amount? Currently, student absences have a threshold with accountability for doctor’s notes thereafter. Leppo recommended the administration place the emphasis on a layered approach. Board committee members are open to suggestions and requested a recommendation from administration for procedural changes.

Czapp asked for direction specifically regarding substitute coverage for field trips. Approximately $30K now covers those subs. Principals currently approve requests at the initial level. Staff are encouraged to consider taking the trip without the need for a substitute and that the trip be curricular in nature. Consensus of committee members was to not charge the club/activity account for substitutes. If it becomes a greater problem, it can be reconsidered.

Waltersdorff requested next steps include the administration bringing information to the committee about procedure for processing absences and vetting the authenticity of field trip requests. The presentation at a future meeting can be combined with discussion regarding the substitute coordinator position. It was suggested the administration survey substitutes to gather more information. Leppo stated the information will now go back to the leadership team to have open discussion about what can be done internally to draw substitutes, including consideration of a higher rate.

Printing and Copying

Considerations for 26/27 budget

Czapp indicated that currently, the budget includes the cost of 3.7 million paper copies for the district. There is no threshold for individual staff members. He provided the following options: restrict the number of copies per staff member (currently averaging 15K-19K copies per staff member); revisiting the procedure for approving large-scale requests (including sending out to Doceo); limit usage by individual badge identification, which is common throughout other districts. How a teacher uses iPads vs. hard copies and/or textbooks needs reviewed.

Waltersdorff requested the administration bring back recommendations to the committee with the times of the day paper copies are the heaviest, and the number of copies generally requested by staff members.

Action Items and Next Steps

There were no action items to recommend to the Board President for a vote. There were no discussion items to recommend to the Board President for inclusion at the next full board discussion meeting. Waltersdorff confirmed the process for absence requests, internal procedures for field trips, and recommendations for copy reduction be brought back to the committee at the next scheduled Budget & Finance Committee meeting. Waltersdorff will provide a summary report at the next public meeting.

Waltersdorff adjourned the meeting at 6:02 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

February 26, 2026 Budget & Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors
Thursday, February 26, 2026 / 4:30 PM
Spring Grove Area Middle School / LGI Room #241
(Enter in rear of building @ door #13)
244 Old Hanover Road, Spring Grove

Agenda

I. Call to Order, J. Waltersdorff

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

a. State Budget

b. Current Projections for 2026-2027

c. 2026-2027 Department / Site-Based Budgets

d. Department / Site-Based Budget Reduction Considerations (Pros/Cons Spreadsheets)

III. Field Trip Costs – Continued, M. Czapp, J. Leppo

a. Phase I / Form updated for verification of funds in accounts

b. Phase II / Consideration of substitute costs (Absences)

c. Staff Request for Absence - Procedural Discussion, J. Waltersdorff

IV. Printing and Copying, M. Czapp, J. Leppo

a. Current procedures

b. Considerations for 26/27 budget

V. Next Steps

a. Action items to recommend to the Board President (for voting mtg.)

b. Discussion items to recommend to the Board President (for DSF)

c. Committee Chair to report at next public meeting

VI. Adjournment

January 28, 2026 Budget & Finance Committee Meeting Minutes

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

DATE/TIME of MEETING: January 28, 2025 @ 4:30 PM

LOCATION of MEETING: Educational Services Center, 100 E. College Avenue, Spring Grove

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

A Budget and Finance Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Wednesday, January 28, 2026. Mrs. Waltersdorff called the meeting to order at 4:33 PM and turned it over to Jen Leppo and Mark Czapp.

Financial Overview

Czapp reported at the last DSF meeting that Act 47 was signed into law amending school code related to Charter School costs, and there would likely be cost relief for school districts. Leppo presented State Budgeted charter school numbers. The original budget for 2025-26 did not include the Governor’s changes. Tuition cost comparisons before and after reform reflected approximately $600K in savings. With regard to bringing back Autistic Support classes and the influence that decision may have on special ed cyber/charter tuition, Leppo reported that wherever the placement of the student, a cost is still incurred and that overall cost is taken into consideration. The district has reflected savings by running its own AS classes.

Leppo continued with presenting a worksheet showing where the district is trending, noting that current figures are very close to budget on the revenue side. From the expenditure side, the district is making up some costs. Not being fully staffed during the 2025-2026 fiscal year, salaries and benefits are reduced, indicating trends are better than budgeted. Coupled with cyber-charter school adjustments, the district is showing a $2.2M savings year-to-date. Leppo reported there are currently 44 vacancies (that number includes coaches) and stated that a full audit on all vacant positions across the district will be done in preparation of the 2026-2027 budget.

Czapp stated in preparation for the budget presentation scheduled for the February 9^th DSF, he and Leppo began meeting with building principals to establish initial building site budgets. The next step is to meet with all departmental administrators (i.e., Technology, Nutrition, Facilities, etc.). Discussions will include a review of all departmental positions that are currently vacant for evaluation and presentation to the full board for consideration. Czapp shared a draft template to collect the information that included the vacant position, the impact each position has on the proposed 2026-2027 budget, the site administrator’s recommendation, and pros and cons to maintain the position.

HVAC / Maintenance Cost Comparisons

Czapp stated that some board members asked for a comparison of the amount of funds being spent on the district’s respective HVAC systems. It was questioned if the district could experience savings if contracting with an HVAC maintenance contractor. Bill Stiles, Facilities Manager, gave an update reporting that after investigation, there is a vendor that has 385 pieces of equipment for HVAC listed in its scope of services. Stiles is requesting to see what those services look like from the vendor, to include proposed costs to bring back to the next Budget and Finance Committee meeting. Included at that committee meeting will also be a list from November 2025 to January 2026 of expenditures for maintenance-related items to provide a cost comparison for presentation at a future DSF.

Substitutes

Czapp reported that several years ago there was a Substitute Coordinator position vacancy that was not filled, but never truly dissolved. The district continues to have part-time and substitute employees doing the coordinator tasks. Not to be confused with what was requested at the January DSF regarding field trip substitutes, Czapp shared an overview of the vacancy, noting that hours typically begin with a review of requests in the Frontline Absence System on a Sunday evening and continue with early morning and evening re-checks routinely through Friday morning, each week. Through analysis, combining the vacancy responsibilities with existing position(s) within the district does not work due to the amount of time involved.

Czapp reported that options for the Board’s consideration include filling the several-year vacancy or outsourcing the substitute coordination. Contracted services such as calling, recruiting, onboarding, hiring, training, and substitute coordination, are available for consideration. Dr. Guadagnino reported that other districts using a contracted service report use of a hybrid effort among human phone calls and automated postings. Czapp noted there could be some savings experienced, such as PSERS and social security costs. Czapp will prepare a presentation for the February 9^th DSF.

Board members requested the following items be included in the presentation:

· Reasons why the Association opposes using a contracted service.

· Other software packages available beyond Frontline that the district could consider.

· How much can Frontline do vs. hiring replacement substitute coordinator on staff to help with follow-up contact with substitutes.

Board members asked what the district is doing to attract substitutes, the reasons why it is so difficult to fill the positions beyond substitute calling and procurement, and what the district can do to promote less absenteeism by teachers. Dr. Renaut commented that it really comes down to relationships.

Summer School

Data is being collected following board members’ question about the budget impact of offering summer school programming to students. Guadagnino shared a handout with figures reported during the 2024-2025 summer program, noting the Board discussed and approved that students/parents would pay a small fee to participate and supplement the district’s outlay last year.

After reviewing the summer school options of credit recovery and credit acquisition with High School Principal, Christian Ehrhart, Guadagnino stated that he does not recommend offering credit acquisition in the upcoming 25-26 summer due to block scheduling addressing those student interests. It is ultimately the Board’s decision. Credit recovery will always be a need but comes at a price. It is difficult to determine how many students who need credit recovery have time in their current schedule to address the need since this is the first year for block scheduling. The district also does not have hard data as to why students are failing classes. There may be attendance issues, but those absences are not related to illness.

The student/parent fee was implemented in summer 2025 and will slowly increase each year based on the Board’s decision in 2025. Leppo stated that for credit recovery, if a student qualifies for Free/Reduced Lunch, the student/parent fee was waived. There is no reimbursement to the district for covering those costs. Guadagnino reported that for many years, the Middle School did not offer credit recovery. He would hesitate to get rid of high school recovery altogether without having data to support new block scheduling capabilities and options.

Discussion continued regarding costs. The Board will be considering the proposed 2026-27 budget and potential savings. Some questioned if the total amount expended could be going toward educational programs.

Guadagnino will gather more information from Christian Ehrhart regarding block scheduling options and how many students in what grade levels made up total students enrolled in the 2025 credit recovery summer program in preparation for the February 9^th DSF. He will also request feedback from Phalon Mallory at the Middle School and from school counselors as to why students are failing. Additionally, how might a decision to no longer offer the summer program have an impact on our graduation rates?

Next Steps

Waltersdorff summarized discussion items recommended for inclusion on the February 9^th DSF Meeting Agenda as an outcome of this meeting:

· Districtwide departmental site-based budgets will be completed and included with the proposed 26-27 budget and will include an overview of site-based position vacancies, the impact each position has on the proposed 2026-2027 budget, the site administrator’s recommendation, and pros and cons to maintain the position.

· A comprehensive list of substitute coordinator options will be created and will include a worksheet of pros and cons to filling the substitute coordinator position vs. contracting services of a substitute coordinator.

· A comprehensive overview of summer school program offerings (credit recovery / credit acquisition), including student participation information, and a summary of pros and cons to continue or discontinue.

Waltersdorff, Committee Chair, will provide a summary of the items presented on Monday, February 2^nd, the next scheduled public meeting.

Action Items and Next Steps

Waltersdorff adjourned the meeting at 5:54 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

January 28, 2026 Budget & Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors
Wednesday, January 28, 2026 @ 4:30 PM
Educational Services Center / Board Room
100 East College Avenue, Spring Grove, PA

Agenda

I. Call to Order, J. Waltersdorff

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

a. State Budget

b. Where are we trending

c. Building site budgets

III. HVAC / Maintenance Cost Comparisons, B. Stiles

IV. Substitutes, M. Czapp, J. Leppo

a. Overview of sub calling

b. What isn’t working

c. Current practice

d. Contracted service

V. Summer School, M. Czapp, J. Leppo, S. Guadagnino

a. Credit recovery

b. Credit acquisition

VI. Next Steps

a. Action items to recommend to the Board President (@ voting mtg.)

b. Discussion items to recommend to the Board President (@ DSF)

c. Committee Chair to report out at next public meeting

VII. Adjournment

2025

December 9, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Minutes

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

DATE/TIME of MEETING: December 9, 2025 @ 5:30 PM

LOCATION of MEETING: Educational Services Center, 100 E. College Avenue, Spring Grove

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

A Budget and Finance Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Tuesday, December 9, 2025. Doug White called the meeting to order at 5:34 PM and turned it over to Jen Leppo and Mark Czapp.

Financial Overview

Leppo provided a State Budget Update/Comparison spreadsheet (LINK) to show what was budgeted (vs. received). Budgeted numbers were as close to the governor’s proposal prior to the release of the budget. Czapp stated that as with anything, details are beginning to unfold. PCCD mental health and facilities grant support is available but not currently included in the budgeted revenue due to requirements to receive the money. It is not unaccountability funding; there are strings attached and restrictions on how we can spend that additional $100K yet to be released. The Board will be updated.

Concerns / Challenges for 2026-27 Budget

Czapp stated that Rob Glus and Mark Neal were present at a meeting held earlier for board members’ professional development related to rising costs with the Trust and high claims. There is an 11% increase to our healthcare over a three-year average and the district is looking at approximately 9-11% increase for the 26-27 budget. The business office is looking at healthcare under two separate entities:

· Claims under the Lincoln Benefit Trust

· Claims/Services through the Rocket Wellness Center.

Leppo indicated there has been two years of high claims. The district’s fund balance in LBT is around the two-month reserve.

Current costs are $550K for the center. Convenience and savings are experienced that we may not be able to quantify. Highmark / LBT / Marathon are coming together to share and prepare information for a future presentation. White questioned the utilization rate of the wellness center and if the district has opened the contract for consideration of adding local businesses. Czapp cautioned that if we add more users, another provider would be needed as the district would want its employees to be covered first. It had been investigated previously but was halted because of the tax implications and additional changes that would be warranted. The Board will need to give direction if adding businesses is to be revisited.

Charter School/Historical Rates (LINK):

The spreadsheet shows historical spend, tuition rate, and ADMs. Everything is growing. The district is still waiting for PDE to provide the formula new legislative changes. Charter school funding per pupil is based on individual school district’s “budgeted costs.” The law states that if a district refuses to pay, they can withhold the costs from our subsidies.

Special Education Costs (LINK)

They continue to increase from the LIU. A meeting is scheduled with LIU to continue conversations. Spring Grove is working with other districts in the county to address some of the rising costs. We did bring back all the autistic support classes, which saved us $60K per student. $38,114 is our cost per student for special education. At the elementary, we have five AS classrooms with 8 students each class. When we brought back AS, we did not consider the increased costs for charter tuition; however, it is something we will be doing in the future. Leppo stated that the business office cannot plan for everything, particularly when new students move in with an IEP. The Board’s concern will increase if there is a need to consider another building.

Buildings and Grounds – HVAC Update

Bill Stiles surveyed multiple districts on their HVAC staff as well as other contractors for service capabilities as the Board requested at a previous meeting. We have multiple HVAC units – so we would need multiple certified persons. EPA certification is not sufficient for servicing complex or specialized systems. We need factory-trained technicians. Skilled HVAC techs are in short supply, limiting contractor availability and increased costs for on-site options. Stiles will reach out to ask if there is consideration by other districts to contract and share one person.

Proposed 2026-27 York County School of Technology Budget (LINK)

Budget increases of $1.586M are driven primarily by salaries/benefits, transportation, facilities, and health insurance, with Spring Grove costs reflecting $117,800 increase / 6.78%. The joint operating committee approved a plan to purchase 12 buses over three years to reduce the time that students are on bus runs (well over one hour). Facility costs have increased $200K for maintenance and operational needs. There is a long waiting list for students. They may be looking at a building project soon. Czapp will work with Mike Ritz so information can be considered. Approval of the proposed budget will be included in January.

2026-2027 Budget Process and Updates (where we are)

Czapp and Leppo have been meeting with individual site-based administrators for a first look at proposed budgets. At the next Budget and Finance Committee meeting, all individual budgets will be completed and individual site-budgets vs. an overall large districtwide budget will be presented to make it easier for board members to read. Czapp will put it out to the full Board, but it will be discussed in Committee.

YLC Updates

Bill Stiles serves on the YLC joint board. The Old Central York High School needs renovation. YLC has been working with superintendents and business managers to establish a plan. The current lease portion is $67,250. Spring Grove has three students there receiving services. The current proposal is an increase to $100K for the next 20 years for the base cost, then $7,200 per student thereafter. As we receive information, it will be brought to the Board.

Action Items and Next Steps

Continued discussion on the proposed 2026-2027 budget (open to the public) will take place during the January 12, 2026, Directors’ Study Meeting. A new Board Treasurer will be announced at that meeting, after which we can schedule the next meeting.

White adjourned the meeting at 6:19 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

December 9, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 @ 5:30 PM
Educational Services Center / Board Room
100 East College Avenue, Spring Grove, PA

Agenda

I. Call Meeting to Order, 2025 Budget & Finance Committee Chair, D. White

II. Financial Overview

a. State Budget Update/Comparison (LINK), M. Czapp, J. Leppo

b. Concerns / Challenges for 2026-27 Budget, M. Czapp, J. Leppo

Healthcare
Charter School/Historical Rates (LINK)
Special Education Costs (LINK)

c. Buildings and Grounds – HVAC Update, M. Czapp

d. Proposed 2026-27 York County School of Technology Budget (LINK) M. Czapp

e. 2026-2027 Budget Process and Updates (where we are), J. Leppo

f. YLC Updates, M. Czapp

III. Action Items and Next Steps

a. Continue Discussion on 2026-2027 budget (meetings open to the public):

January 12, 2026, Directors’ Study Meeting Presentation
Next Budget & Finance Committee Meeting – Date / Time TBD

IV. Adjourn Meeting

November 10, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Minutes

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

DATE/TIME of MEETING: November 10, 2025 @ 5:30 PM

LOCATION of MEETING: Middle School, 244 Old Hanover Road, Spring Grove, LGI Room #241

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

A Budget and Finance Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Monday, November 10, 2025. Doug White called the meeting to order at 5:33 PM.

Financial Overview

Mark Czapp provided a high-level overview and summary of the 2024-2025 budget. At present, his department is closing out fiscal year 2024-25, is currently working within 2025-26, and is preparing 2026-27. There is no approved State budget as of now, but the district remains in good financial condition with a plan in place that would go before the Board if no budget were passed by January/February 2026. Dr. Renaut reported that a house non-voting committee meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, with a vote tentative for as early as Wednesday.

Czapp noted that as the 2024-25 fiscal year is finalized, revenue came in $5.2 million higher than expected, translating to a higher ending fund balance even than last year. Jen Leppo presented information in the 2024-2025 Variance Report. An increase in earned income tax, interest earnings, and tuition charged to other LEAs contributed to $1.4 million higher revenue than budgeted. Additionally, state transportation and charter subsidies were higher, and an adequacy supplement was received. These are unknowns during budget preparation each year. As the district prepares future budgets and continues to plan conservatively, the goal is to get closer to actual revenues using historical data and trends.

On the expenditure side, the district came within 1% of budgeted figures to actual spending. Czapp credited Leppo for these results. If board members have specific questions about the variance budget line items, they can Jen.

Czapp shared a Buildings and Grounds HVAC Student / Districtwide Maintenance Department Staff / Responsibilities document providing a general overview of the entire district. He reported that Bill Stiles is currently investigating other school districts and how they address HVAC needs. A particular challenge is that HVAC technicians must have certifications in specific areas, in addition to a general certification.

Barshinger questioned the possibility of sharing an HVAC person with another district. While not ruling out the conversation, Czapp reported the district investigated sharing a Food Service Director position several years ago, and it did not prove beneficial. Actual costs spent on HVAC for chillers vs. other areas will be reviewed to determine additional technician training and certifications that might be needed.

Czapp commented on the district’s recent bond rating from Standard & Poors, updated from two years ago. He credited an increased fund balance as part of the reason. The higher rating translates to better interest rates, insurance rates, and credit rating, should the district look to borrow money in the future (i.e., build a school, add a school, etc.). The district’s fund balance should cover three months of expenses without a generated revenue, approximately $4 million per month. Czapp will be presenting more information at the Directors’ Study meeting.

2026-2027 Budget Process and Updates

Challenges to the budget include increasing health care rates, and two years of very high individual insurance claims. Representatives from Lincoln Benefit Trust (LBT) will be present at the December 9^th meeting to provide an overview of the Trust. Questions about any positive impact by having the Wellness Center can be presented by board members at that time.

Cyber charter costs and special education costs are also rising. The York Learning Center has been costing the district more each year. 65-70% of school district budgets are salaries and benefits.

Action Items and Next Steps

In preparation of proposed budget, the Business Office is scheduling meetings with Principals and Department Supervisors to discuss site-based budgets. Site administrators are being asked to create a replacement cycle for all equipment, including software and programming. Information will be broken down by building when presenting the 2026-27 proposed budget. A column will include comments to explain major differences year over year. The business department will also look at per pupil costs at each building level (excluding teacher salaries), review the Capital Reserve Plan, five-year Technology Plan, and continue a comprehensive review of all positions.

Tuesday, December 9, 2025:

· Board Act 55 Budget & Finance Work Study Requirement – 4:30-5:30 PM (Presentation, closed to public)

· Next Budget & Finance Committee Meeting – 5:30 PM (Open to public)

White questioned the approval process for overnight field trips before getting to the School Board. He also asked about the process for day trips that the Board does not see. White suggested the Business Office receive/review all field trip requests to verify that funds are available in the budget prior to any final approval. As to substitutes, White stated the student activity account or club should be covering those costs. Barshinger suggested requests for athletic trips should follow the same process.

Wilson stated the Board needs to make sure the district is running as efficiently as possible, including evaluating all costs, reevaluating positions, and considering substitute charges for clubs. There have to be checking measures in place. Wilson also asked for an update to the Wellness Center to determine if the district is getting a return on the investment. Barshinger stated reducing costs to educate students should be the last resort.

White adjourned the meeting at 6:54 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

November 10, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors
Monday, November 10, 2025 @ 5:30 PM
Spring Grove Area Middle School / LGI Room #241
244 Old Hanover Road, Spring Grove, PA

Agenda

I. Call Meeting to Order, D. White

II. Financial Overview

a. Review of 2024-2025 school year budget summary, M. Czapp

b. 2024-2025 Variance Report, J. Leppo

c. Buildings and Grounds HVAC Student / Districtwide Maintenance Department Staff / Responsibilities, M. Czapp

d. Updated Bond Rating, M. Czapp

e. 2026-2027 Budget Process and Updates, J. Leppo

f. Questions from School Board Members, M. Czapp, J. Leppo, D. Renaut, S. Guadagnino

III. Action Items and Next Steps

a. Begin preparations for 2026-2027 budget

b. Tuesday, December 9, 2025:

Board Act 55 Budget & Finance Work Study Requirement – 4:30-5:30 PM (Presentation, closed to public)
Next Budget & Finance Committee Meeting – 5:30 PM (open to public)

IV. Adjourn Meeting

April 21, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Minutes

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

April 21, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

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

March 31, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Minutes

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

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

March 31, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

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

March 17, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Minutes

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

March 17, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

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

February 21, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Minutes

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

February 21, 2025 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

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

2024

December 11, 2024, Budget & Finance Committee Meeting Minutes

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

December 11, 2024 Budget & Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

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