Public hearing on Northumberland school budget spotlights $1.2M county funding request, contract payout and staffing questions

At a June 5 public hearing in the Northumberland County courtroom, county and school officials presented the Northumberland County School Division’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget, which requests an additional $1,216,587 in county funding and lists $23,535,083 in estimated revenue and $22,655,990 in estimated expenditures.

The proposed increase and a large rise in an “executive administrative services” line item drew public criticism and questions about a contract payout tied to a terminated superintendent. Dr. Leslie, the school division official who prepared the budget, told the board she discovered an error in the posted expenditures and revenue because federal expenses were submitted separately and that, when federal expenses are added, the division is not showing excess revenue. She also said she had produced multiple budget versions and “without modifying any employee compensation, I've already managed to shave $737,000 from that amount.”

The hearing’s first public commenter, Jason Smart of Heastville, criticized the size of the increase in the executive administrative services line. "The taxpayers of this county do not support that. I certainly don't, and everyone I've talked with does not also," Smart said, adding the line item appears to account for much of the requested increase and that it looked like a roughly 53% rise.

A school board member explained the administrative increase is tied in part to a contractual payout for a former employee. "That particular line item has to do with a payout for a former employee and one of the contingencies of the contract," Dr. Leslie said when asked to explain the line-item increase. During the hearing another school board member read a portion of state statute related to superintendent termination and contract payouts, saying that the contract clause required a public notice and payout under the contract terms. The board member stated the contract ended when that clause was read in public notice and that the division had paid the individual for four additional weeks.

Several speakers urged faster hiring of a county finance manager or similar financial oversight to prevent future errors. A resident who addressed the board said hiring an outside manager or employee at roughly $150,000 a year could yield savings and that duplicative financial management between the county and schools should be avoided. Multiple commenters urged the school board to support Dr. Leslie and to ensure the new superintendent and finance staff have what they need to stabilize finances.

School officials also described state-provided funds for educator bonuses and raises. Division staff said bonuses for SOQ (Standards of Quality) positions arrived via an EDI transfer and that those funds, described as one-time bonuses, could be allocated without a local match; by contrast, state-authorized raises discussed by the governor would require local implementation choices. The division reported it had prepared budget versions showing the impact of different raise percentages (5%, 3%, 1.25%) so supervisors could see options.

No formal action on the school budget occurred at the meeting. Supervisors said work sessions will be scheduled to review budget details and asked the school division for additional breakdowns, including contingency impacts. The board noted the statutory deadline for superintendent contract completion and that county supervisors and the school board are separate elected bodies; one supervisor recommended the boards coordinate on nonconfidential input.

The hearing closed after public comment and the supervisors moved on to the county budget hearing later in the meeting.