Lewisburg Area SD reports roughly $3.0 million surplus; board weighs transfer to capital vs. tax relief

At a regular Lewisburg Area School District board meeting, business manager Kyle told the board the district closed 2024–25 with an approximate $3,000,002.38 surplus, citing higher-than-budgeted property and earned income tax collections and an unanticipated state adequacy supplement of about $103,000.

Kyle said total actual expenditures for the year were approximately $41,080,828.02 versus budgeted expenditures in the low $42 million range, with underspends concentrated in support salaries (about $190,000 under budget) and benefits (about $400,000 under) due to hiring timing and benefit elections. “We came in a little under budget,” Kyle said during the presentation and outlined how contracting the athletic director position and unfilled maintenance posts contributed to lower salary and benefit outlays.

The surplus was primarily revenue-driven, Kyle said, noting a modest improvement in property‑tax collection rates and some late payments from the prior fiscal year that posted in 2024–25. He flagged the newly calculated state “adequacy supplement” as an unexpected addition to the ready-to-learn grant that increased revenues by about $103,000.

Board members pressed Kyle on options for the surplus. Kyle recommended transferring up to about $3,000,000 to the capital fund and leaving the remainder in the assigned general-fund balance. He estimated, based on the figures he presented, that leaving that transfer in place would leave roughly $2.5 million in assigned fund balance (Kyle’s approximate phrasing in the presentation reflected uncertainty about the final run‑rate). “My recommendation was to transfer maybe $3,000,000-ish or less to capital and leave the remaining in our assigned fund balance,” he told the board.

Members discussed alternatives including using part of the surplus to offset next year’s tax increases. One board member asked whether the board could “give it back” to taxpayers; Kyle said the practical options are to either lower the tax increase in next year’s budget or retain money in reserves for capital needs and unexpected expenses. The board also asked for clarification about the legal limits on unassigned fund balances (an 8% unassigned cap was discussed) and the administrative flexibility to reassign funds while they remain in the general fund.

Kyle provided a snapshot of capital‑project obligations, including an estimated future roof project and ongoing smaller maintenance needs, and said the district typically moves surplus to capital for long‑range projects. Several members urged balancing capital needs against possible taxpayer relief; one suggested using more of the surplus for immediate tax relief while acknowledging long‑term capital lists that remain unfunded.

The board did not take a final fiscal action at the meeting beyond discussion and requests for further detail; Kyle said auditors will finalize numbers in November and that the board will receive an updated five‑year outlook and a proposed list of capital priorities for future budget deliberations.

What’s next: auditors will issue final reports in November, and the board is scheduled to review recommended transfers and a multi‑year capital list at upcoming meetings before making a formal transfer or budget decision.