Residents challenge Littlestown Area SD board over reported $3.75 million surplus and recent tax increases

Public commenters at a Littlestown Area SD board meeting on an election day urged more transparency over the district’s budget, arguing that recently reported surpluses undercut the board’s justification for prior tax increases.

Wade Sullivan, identifying himself a resident and taxpayer, said the district’s figures showed an “excess” of $3,750,000 and accused the board of moving that money among unassigned, technology, health, transportation and capital reserves. “We’re just moving money around. That’s all we’re doing here,” Sullivan said, adding that residents he spoke with were “pretty disenchanted.”

Suzanne Johnson, a district parent and voter, expanded the critique. She said the FY23 budget was presented to voters as a $1.2 million deficit yet resulted in a $4.1 million surplus, and that FY24 shows a $3.7 million surplus. Johnson asked why the board raised taxes (she cited a 2.75% increase previously and said a 1% increase had been proposed) if the district was ultimately running surpluses. “Why does the Fifth District build a balanced budget that masks infrastructure rather than being transparent?” Johnson asked.

Johnson summarized proposed reallocations tied to the FY24 surplus: she cited a proposal to move $3.2 million into the capital reserve and to place the remainder into a new transportation reserve. She listed specific allocations discussed in public materials: roughly $600,000 set aside for new buses and vans, $300,000 for an employee health-care reserve, $100,000 for technology, and $83,000 to the unassigned fund. Johnson said the district had also finalized about $725,000 in land-sale proceeds and questioned whether future surpluses would be used to pay down debt or redirected into further infrastructure spending.

Board presenters responded that allocations would be finalized pending the official audit and that the board had previously authorized (in June) allocation of any anticipated FY24 surplus in November, pending audit confirmation. No formal vote or motion to enact the public commenters’ requests occurred during the meeting; presenters said the budget and fund-allocation plans would be reviewed further at upcoming work sessions.

What’s next: The board’s statements in the meeting indicate that any final reallocations of the FY24 surplus will await the formal audit and subsequent board review. Public commenters said they plan to question board members in upcoming civic processes ahead of board-seat terms that will become open next year.