In 2025-26, Burlington County Institute Of Technology proposed a $42.6 million General Fund operating budget.
Operating revenue
Local sources$24.6 million 58%
State sources$18.0 million 42%
Federal sources$756 <1%
Operating spending
Instruction and day-to-day operations$41.7 million 98%
Buildings, equipment, and other capital costs$613,745 1%
Special schools$211,965 <1%
These are proposed NJDOE User-Friendly Budget planning rows—not audited actuals, household tax bills, or all-funds totals.
Budget front brief
For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, the first budget read is an operating funding-family story: local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
Operating funding familylocal taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis. Do not overread: Source-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.Check Revenue families
Cost vs peersNJDOE’s published comparative-cost line is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average; local rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts. Statewide rank: 517 of 566.Peer evidence
Who paysLocal sources supply 58% of proposed General Fund operating revenue (the recurring operating fund, not all funds), 5 pts below the Burlington County average. This is not a tax bill.Revenue families
What is newsOperating funding familylocal taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-fam...Revenue families
What is backgroundNominal growthNominal operating budget moved +$4,700,314 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The report tests that against CPI-U and UFB on-roll: real operating budget per planning student moved -$4,137.Trends and inflation
What to verifyReporting checkState-aid notices and aid-calculation summary. Ask what share is formula aid, levy, reserve use, or one-time support.Revenue families
Loaded UFB rows use 2025-26 unless a section names another frame; the map routes proposal, peer, inflation, category, student, side-file, and source-row proof.
Budget essentials
For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, these are the UFB-backed answers a resident needs before reading the line tables: the first story route, fair comparison, current proposal, payer mix, category signal, inflation trend, student denominator, and side-file context.
source family
What is the budget story to test first?
local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.
Is the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line?
Proof route: Revenue families.
Source-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.
Is this district high, low, or typical against fair peers?
Comparative cost per pupil is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average; local rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts. Statewide rank 517 of 566.
Peer denominator: Burlington County districts.
Use dot spacing and named peer context before treating the rank as meaningful.
A cost rank is not an efficiency, adequacy, quality, or waste finding.
Side-file and outside-operating rows can be restricted, one-time, projected, or contextual; they are not recurring General Fund spending by themselves.
Each answer names its comparison, time basis, fund scope, or denominator. The limits are as important as the figures: UFB can surface budget signals, but outside records still have to explain causes, choices, service quality, tax bills, and sustainability.
Peer position snapshot
Before the map, these strips show whether the opening cost, funding, and category signals are near the local pack or visibly apart from it. Gray dots are peer districts, the accent dot is this district, the dashed mark is the Burlington County average, and the short solid tick is the peer median.
Each strip has its own unit and scale; higher is not automatically better or worse. Use the rank as order, then use dot spacing to judge whether the rank reflects a meaningful spread or a tight cluster.
How to read this report
Budget language key
Use these terms before reading any rank, trend, category, source-row, or side-file claim. The report compares several evidence bases; the label tells which one is being used.
Term
Use it for
Do not read it as
Comparative cost
NJDOE’s published per-pupil cost line for comparing districts.
A recomputed total-budget-divided-by-enrollment number, a quality rating, or proof that spending is high or low for the same reason everywhere.
UFB on-roll
The planning-enrollment denominator inside the User-Friendly Budget.
Fall enrollment, a head-count audit, or the only denominator that can matter for per-student claims.
Real dollars
Dollar movement converted to 2025 dollars with CPI-U when the report says real or inflation-adjusted.
The same thing as latest-file proposal changes, which are nominal revised/current-to-proposed budget columns.
Operating basis
General Fund operating budget or operating revenue, depending on the measure named in the row.
All-funds revenue, audited financial-statement revenue, or a property-tax bill.
Source rows and families
Named UFB revenue and appropriation lines, plus reader-facing groups that make row-level evidence searchable.
An additive accounting schedule; rows can be nested, repeated, or outside the operating budget.
Side files
Tax-rate, balance, unusual-item, shared-service, school-resource, and selected administrative-salary context.
County peers, statewide ranks, budget-model clusters, scale groups, and category slices that test whether a number is unusual for the comparison.
Causal peers, targets, or judgments that a district should match a different district’s budget.
This key is an orientation layer for the generated budget report. It does not replace the statewide measure guide; it keeps the most common bases visible before the long evidence tables.
Budget thesis and reporting order
What is this budget story here?
Who pays. Funding model changes the meaning of the same cost figure. Local sources supply 58% of operating revenue, 5 pts below the Burlington County average. Tax levy per UFB on-roll is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average. Treat ordinary nominal spending growth as background unless a peer or slice comparison, category/source row, proposal movement, CPI-adjusted trend, denominator, tax signal, or outside record makes it news.
1Compare firstRead cost relative to peers and slices.NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average; local rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts. Statewide rank is 517 of 566.Check peer and slice evidence
2Find the explanation layerCategories and named rows are the first explanation layer.Largest high-level use is general current expense, 98% of operating budget; support services per pupil is $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average; named row Tuition from Local Education Authorities is +18 pts versus local peers.Check categories and source rows
3Use inflation as a guardrailA simple spending-went-up frame is weak.Operating scale changed -$5,119,286 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26; comparative cost changed -$2,938 after inflation; UFB planning on-roll changed +179.Check inflation and denominator evidence
4Report beyond UFBIs the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line?Trace the revenue family to aid notices, levy documents, reserve approvals, and board materials before calling it a funding shift.Check Revenue families
What the numbers support now
Start here before writing from a single cost rank.
Who paysFunding model changes the meaning of the same cost figure. Local sources supply 58% of operating revenue, 5 pts below the Burlington County average. Tax levy per UFB on-roll is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average.A locally funded, state-funded, federally supported, or balance-supported budget can have the same per-pupil cost for different reasons.Check revenue families
Fair comparisonRead cost relative to peers and slices. NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average; local rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts. Statewide rank is 517 of 566.The cost number becomes useful only after the report tests local peers, statewide rows, and overlapping budget-model slices.Check peer and slice evidence
Categories and source rowsCategories and named rows are the first explanation layer. Largest high-level use is general current expense, 98% of operating budget; support services per pupil is $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average; named row Tuition from Local Education Authorities is +18 pts versus local peers.This is where the report moves from one cost number to the spending categories and source rows that are actually distinctive.Check categories and source rows
Current decisionSeparate the live proposal from long-run trend. Latest proposal changes operating budget +$590,901; largest named proposal movement is Special Revenue Funds at -$2,196,324.The proposal rows are nominal latest-file changes; they should not be mixed with CPI-adjusted long-run movement.Check proposal changes
What changes the interpretation
Use these rows to keep inflation, denominator, and service-load context attached to the claim.
Not the story by itselfA simple spending-went-up frame is weak. Operating scale changed -$5,119,286 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26; comparative cost changed -$2,938 after inflation; UFB planning on-roll changed +179.Use the inflation and denominator evidence as background before claiming a district-specific budget story.Check inflation and denominator evidence
Students and servicesThe denominator can change the per-pupil read. Special-education planning share is 14%, 4 pts below the Burlington County average.Fall enrollment, UFB planning enrollment, placements, and service-load rows should travel with any per-student cost claim.Check costs and students
What still needs reporting
UFB identifies the question; these checks name what has to be verified outside the source file.
Operating funding familyIs the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line? Trace the revenue family to aid notices, levy documents, reserve approvals, and board materials before calling it a funding shift.Source-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.Check Revenue families
Tax effortHow does local tax effort compare once levy per planning student, estimated rate, and tax base are separated? Use municipal tax-bill, equalized-value, and rate documents to translate UFB levy/rate context into what local taxpayers actually experience.Estimated tax-rate side-file rows are context; they are not audited property-tax bills.Check Tax context
Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up? Pull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Check Source rows
This thesis is generated from published UFB rows, CPI-adjusted history where available, local/state comparison sets, and the report’s strongest signal scan. It is a reporting order, not a causal model or a replacement for board records, contracts, tax files, staffing context, and audited financials.
Budget reporting notebook
This notebook turns the ranked UFB leads into a document trail: the signal in this report, the outside records to pull, the interviews or checks to run, and the unsupported reading to block before writing from the numbers.
Lead
UFB signal
Records to pull
Interviews / checks
Unsupported read to block
1Operating funding familyIs the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line?Revenue families
source familylocal taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.
Budget book, board packet, and account detail behind the linked proof section.
Audit note or outside schedule if the row is restricted or one-time.
Relevant contract, grant, tax, or staffing document.
Ask which local decision, outside requirement, or accounting rule produced the signal.
Check the linked proof section against external records before writing causality.
Source-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.
2Tax effortHow does local tax effort compare once levy per planning student, estimated rate, and tax base are separated?Tax context
$7,099Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average; local rank 36 of 39.
Estimated tax-rate worksheet and municipal rate or bill tables.
Equalized and taxable valuation notices.
Levy-cap worksheet and budget-hearing presentation.
Ask finance officials how equalized value and rate rows translate to local bills.
Check municipal or regional slices before attributing burden to school spending.
Estimated tax-rate side-file rows are context; they are not audited property-tax bills.
3Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Source rows
+18 ptsTuition from Local Education Authorities is 20% of the operating-budget scale, +18 pts versus the peer average; local rank 2 of 41.
Account detail for the named source row.
Board packet or resolution tied to the account.
Grant, contract, tuition, or transfer document if the row is restricted.
Ask who owns the account and what operational event produced the row.
Check whether the row is a subtotal, nested row, one-time item, or restricted source.
Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
4Line movementWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Line history
-$20,016,176Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: County Tax Levy, -$20,016,176 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
Account detail for the moving row in first and latest loaded years.
Budget amendments, grant notices, contracts, or formula memos behind the shift.
Board packet sections explaining the row in both years.
Ask which formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event moved the row.
Check both endpoints and any intervening spike before writing a trend explanation.
The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.
5Pupil-cost lineWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?Pupil-cost rows
$2,241Support services per pupil is $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average.
Pupil-cost support schedule behind the standardized row.
Staffing roster, benefits rates, facilities, or program budget pages.
Contracts or purchased-service detail for the category.
Ask which staffing, benefits, facilities, or program records feed the standardized row.
Check whether the line is a component, subtotal, or comparison-only measure.
Several pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.
6Cost positionDoes the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered?Peer evidence
$18,363NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363 per pupil, rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $3,988 below the Burlington County average.
Adopted budget book and UFB narrative.
Audit or ACFR schedules, staffing pages, and program descriptions.
Budget presentations for the local peers used in the comparison.
Ask the business administrator which obligations make the peer set fair or unfair.
Check whether grade span, placements, facilities, or transfers move with the cost.
NJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost.
The records and checks are reporting targets, not files contained in the UFB release. They are generated from the same signal ranking as the lead sheet so the report stays anchored in source evidence while making the next journalism step explicit.
Budget machine
Why this budget behaves this way
The budget story for Burlington County Institute Of Technology starts with cost engine; cost position; who pays. This panel extracts the basic resident-facing read from UFB before the report opens the long proof sections.
Relative costCost position
Claim
Published comparative cost is $3,988 below the Burlington County average.
Evidence
$18,363; -$3,988 versus Burlington County average; rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts. Statewide, it is $5,228 below the NJ average; rank 517 of 566.
Why it matters
Start here so a budget story is about position against a fair comparison, not just the fact that spending rose.
Do not write
Comparative cost is NJDOE’s published line. It is not a quality rating, efficiency score, or tax-bill estimate.
Local sources are the largest operating-revenue source, at 58% of proposed General Fund operating revenue.
Evidence
$24.6 million; 58% of operating budget; 5 pts below the Burlington County average. After inflation, local sources moved -$4,536,322 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. State sources are 42% and moved -$548,097 after inflation over the same span. Tax levy per UFB on-roll is $6,547 below the Burlington County average.
Why it matters
This names the revenue machine behind the cost comparison: a local-tax district, state-aid district, grant-heavy district, and fund-balance-supported district have different budget stories.
Do not write
Revenue mix is not an all-funds view, not a household tax bill, and not proof of what the district buys.
The strongest recurring-use signals are instruction programs, transfers and tuition.
Evidence
Instruction programs: 40% of operating-budget scale, +$541,637 after inflation, +12 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Regular Programs-Instruction. Transfers and tuition: 20% of operating-budget scale, -$424,153 after inflation, +5 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities.
Why it matters
This turns the broad spending total into named categories a resident can inspect: current scale, movement after inflation, and peer gap all matter.
Do not write
These families can be nested or contextual. They do not prove cuts, waste, staffing quality, or legal service obligations.
Latest proposal moves operating budget +$590,901 (1%) from revised/current to proposed. Top named proposal row: Total Special Revenue Funds at -$2,196,324.
Why it matters
This keeps current proposal movement, one-time support, and outside-operating rows separate from the long-run CPI-adjusted trend.
Do not write
Do not turn this into audited actual spending, a cut list, recurring revenue, or proof of fiscal distress without local records.
The machine read uses UFB summary, revenue, appropriation, pupil-cost, budget-enrollment, reserve, and side-file rows through 2025-26. Money trends use 2025 CPI-U dollars where labeled; proposal rows are nominal revised/current-to-proposed movement.
Budget squeeze explainer
What is actually putting pressure on the budget?
For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, this panel connects the revenue model, recurring cost families, student denominator, current proposal, and local record checks before the report moves into the longer evidence sections.
local sources supply 58% of proposed operating revenue, 5 pts below the Burlington County average; state sources supply 42%; recurring local, state, and federal source summaries moved -$5,119,286 after inflation while operating scale moved -$5,119,286.
This is the first test for a cap-sensitive district: is the recurring operating revenue model keeping pace after inflation, and how dependent is the district on local sources?
Pull the levy-cap worksheet, state-aid notice, cap-bank/waiver rows, tax-base records, and budget presentation before writing a cap-exhaustion or underfunding claim.
Instruction programs: 40% of operating-budget scale, +$541,637 after inflation, +12 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Regular Programs-Instruction; Transfers and tuition: 20% of operating-budget scale, -$424,153 after inflation, +5 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities; Plant, operations, and maintenance: 15% of operating-budget scale, -$290,998 after inflation, +7 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services; Special education and student supports: 13% of operating-budget scale, -$492,537 after inflation, -6 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Special Education-Instruction.
This turns the broad spending total into the first recurring categories to inspect. The story may be current scale, peer difference, real movement, or all three.
Pull staffing rosters, placement/tuition schedules, contracts, program schedules, and budget-book narratives before translating category rows into classroom, staffing, or service-impact claims.
real operating budget per UFB planning student moved -$4,137 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; UFB planning on-roll moved +179; special-education on-roll is 318 (14% of UFB on-roll).
This keeps the per-student story from becoming only a dollar story: the denominator, placements, and service-load rows can change the read.
Pull fall enrollment, special-education placement records, IEP/service-obligation context, tuition contracts, transportation records, and staffing schedules before explaining why the load changed.
latest proposal moves operating budget +$590,901 from revised/current to proposed.
This separates the current budget vote and one-time support rows from the multi-year inflation-adjusted trend.
Pull the adopted budget book, audit, appropriation-of-surplus resolution, reserve schedules, and budget adoption minutes before calling this recurring revenue, audited cash stress, or a complete cut list.
Money movement uses 2025 CPI-U dollars where the row says after inflation. This is a reporting synthesis, not a deficit finding, tax-bill estimate, quality rating, or claim that a listed category caused a cut.
Budget evidence board
The four checks before writing the budget story
For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, the useful budget read is a sequence: compare the published cost position, explain the category families, check inflation and denominator movement, then verify whether the live proposal continues or complicates that pattern.
Compare
$18,363; $3,988 below the Burlington County average.
Frame
District
Average
Gap
Rank
Burlington County districtsclosest local comparison frame
$18,363
$22,351
-$3,988
33 of 39
All NJ UFB districtsstatewide baseline before narrowing the frame
$18,363
$23,591
-$5,228
517 of 566
Mixed-sourcesame funding model, so revenue dependence is not hidden by one rank
The board uses the latest UFB year for comparison rows, 2025 CPI-U dollars where it says real or after inflation, proposed operating budget as the category scale denominator, and nominal revised/current-to-proposed dollars for proposal rows. Source-family rows are contextual and can be nested, so this is a reporting map rather than an additive accounting schedule.
Budget operating model
The budget model in six reads
For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, this is the compact operating model behind the long UFB report: scale, payers, uses, real movement, live proposal movement, and checks that can change the interpretation.
ScaleHow big is the operating budget?
$42.6 million
$42.6 million proposed General Fund operating budget; $19,014 per UFB planning student; $6,411 below the Burlington County average on operating budget per UFB planning student.
Use this as the recurring operating scale. It is not all funds, audited actual spending, or a household tax bill.
Main operating sources: local sources 58% ($24.6 million); state sources 42% ($18.0 million); federal sources <1% ($756); 5 pts below the Burlington County average.
Read this as General Fund operating revenue mix. Grants, debt service, capital funds, and tax-rate files sit on different bases.
Largest visible source families by operating-budget scale: Instruction programs 40%; Transfers and tuition 20%; Employee benefits 19%. Largest visible row: Total Regular Programs-Instruction.
Families are source-row groups, not an additive accounting schedule. Use them to decide which category proof section to open first.
real operating budget per UFB planning student moved -$4,137 from $23,152 to $19,014; operating-budget numerator moved -$5.1 million after CPI-U while UFB on-roll moved +179; top family movement: Local taxes and local sources +$11.8 million after inflation.
This is the guardrail against the generic nominal-spending-growth story: separate inflation, budget numerator, and UFB planning denominator before writing.
operating budget proposal moved +$590,901 (1%) from revised/current to proposed; largest visible increase: Total General Current Expense +$1.4 million; largest visible decrease: Total Special Revenue Funds -$2.2 million.
These are nominal latest-file proposal rows. They should be read beside, not merged into, the CPI-adjusted history.
tax levy per UFB planning student is $6,547 below the Burlington County average; rank 36 of 39; fund balance / other operating sources is 6 pts below the Burlington County average; rank 39 of 41.
Use these as follow-up checks before writing deficit, tax-bill, service-cut, adequacy, or efficiency claims from UFB alone.
The model uses 2025-26 UFB rows for the current read, 2025 CPI-U dollars where it says real or after inflation, proposed General Fund operating budget as the common scale where labeled, and Burlington County average for local peer comparisons where enough rows exist.
Budget answer sheet
This answer sheet gives the basic budget read for Burlington County Institute Of Technology before the detailed report opens. It turns the current proposal, peer frame, funding model, spending uses, student/service load, inflation, and side files into direct questions a resident can answer from UFB evidence.
Question
Answer from UFB
How to read it
Proof
+$591Kproposal changeWhat changed in the current proposal?Live proposal
The live proposal changes the operating budget +$590,901 (1%) versus the revised/current column.
This is the current budget-year decision point. Long-run charts later in the report convert history to real dollars, but this row is the latest file’s nominal proposal change.
$18,363comparative costIs the district high, low, or typical against a fair benchmark?Fair comparison
NJDOE comparative cost is $3,988 below the Burlington County average.
The ordinary per-pupil-spending line is only the starting point. The fair question is whether the district’s cost position fits its funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows.
58%largest sourceWho pays for the operating budget?Who pays
Local sources supplied the largest operating-revenue share, 5 pts below the Burlington County average.
Revenue mix is the policy frame behind the cost comparison: a locally funded district, a state-aid district, and a district using fund balance can show the same cost number for different reasons.
+12 ptsvs avgWhere does the operating budget go?What money buys
Instruction programs is the strongest generated spending/category clue: 12 pts above the Burlington County average, 40% of operating-budget scale, +$541,637 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
This keeps the report out of the generic spending-went-up narrative. The category and named-line sections show which uses are actually large, unusual, or moving.
14%UFB on-rollWhat student or service-load context changes the read?Students and services
special-education on-roll is 318 (14% of UFB on-roll).
Per-pupil comparisons move when the denominator or service load changes. This report keeps fall enrollment, UFB planning enrollment, placements, and student-need rows next to the cost evidence.
-$5,119,286real operating changeWhat changed across loaded UFB years after inflation?What changed after inflation
After inflation, operating-budget scale changed -$5,119,286 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
This is the long-run context. It is deliberately separate from the latest proposal-column changes so ordinary nominal growth does not masquerade as the budget story.
$7.4 millionside-file contextWhat else can change the budget story?Reserves and side files
Projected close-year recap balances total $7.4 million.
These rows can explain a budget year without being recurring operating spending. The report keeps fund balance, reserves, recap balances, unusual explanations, shared services, salary rows, and school-resource statements outside additive totals.
The answer sheet is generated from published UFB rows and local/state comparison sets. It is an evidence map, not a causal model; dollar trend claims are inflation-adjusted only where the text says so, and proposal rows are nominal latest-file movement.
Budget explanation brief
What explains this budget first
Local taxes and local sources is the largest current family outside the broad current-expense total, at 75% of operating-budget scale. Preschool has the widest local peer gap, -13 pts against the Burlington County average. Local taxes and local sources moved the most after inflation, +$11,757,324 across loaded UFB years.
Category, trend, and comparison scan
These are the source-row families where current scale, peer position, inflation-adjusted movement, or the latest proposal move most change the story.
Local taxes and local sourceslarge now / peer gap / real movementCounty Tax Levy-Base Budget (Revenue line 110, $15,894,974)
Special revenue fundspeer gap / real movement / proposal moveTotal Special Revenue Funds (Appropriation line 88760, $825,919)
Current scale
4%$1,651,838
Peer gap
-11 ptspeer avg 15%
Real movement
-$1,413,134-3 pts
Live proposal
-$4,392,648-10 pts of operating scale
Instruction programslarge now / peer gap / real movementTotal Regular Programs-Instruction (Appropriation line 3200, $7,399,946)
Current scale
40%$17,036,920
Peer gap
+12 ptspeer avg 28%
Real movement
+$541,637+5 pts
Live proposal
-$626,031-1 pt of operating scale
State aidlarge now / peer gap / real movementEqualization Aid (Revenue line 460, $15,013,125)
Current scale
42%$18,012,036
Peer gap
+6 ptspeer avg 36%
Real movement
-$810,329+3 pts
Live proposal
+$227,286+1 pt of operating scale
Bars are scaled separately within each scan column; use the printed values for exact cross-column comparisons.
Signal
Question
Evidence
Use and limit
Largest current familyLocal taxes and local sources
How much of the budget story is local levy, tuition, fees, or miscellaneous local revenue?
$31,874,948 in latest source-row dollars; 75% of proposed operating-budget scale.Largest visible row: County Tax Levy-Base Budget (Revenue line 110, $15,894,974).
Start here for the part of the budget that has the most current scale before reading smaller line movers.Large does not mean unusual, efficient, inefficient, or recurring; the peer gap and source-row basis still have to be checked.CategoriesSource rows
Widest local peer gapPreschool
Is preschool aid, carryover, instruction, or support service scale material?
0% locally versus 13% for the Burlington County average; gap -13 pts.The family sits below the local peer frame on the same operating-budget-equivalent denominator.
Use this as the clearest category clue that the district differs from nearby districts.A peer gap is not a cause, a quality rating, or proof of waste; it needs program, enrollment, tax, labor, and board-document context.Peer evidenceComparisonsCategories
Largest real movementLocal taxes and local sources
How much of the budget story is local levy, tuition, fees, or miscellaneous local revenue?
+$11,757,324 from 2019-20 to 2025-26 after CPI-U adjustment to 2025 dollars.Operating-equivalent share changed +33 pts over the same loaded years.
Use this for the trend question, because it tests whether a category changed after inflation instead of repeating that nominal spending rises.This is not the latest proposal movement and can reflect row availability, program shifts, or denominator changes across loaded UFB years.TrendsCategoriesSource rows
Largest current proposal moveSpecial revenue funds
How large are grant-funded or otherwise outside-operating programs relative to operating budgets?
-$4,392,648 from revised/current to proposed in the latest UFB file.That equals -10 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Largest named proposal row: Total Special Revenue Funds (-$2,196,324 current-to-proposed).
Use this for what the current budget file says is changing now, separate from the multi-year inflation-adjusted trend.Proposal movement is nominal and latest-file only; it is not audited actual spending and should not be added across nested rows.ProposalSource rows
This brief uses generated UFB source-row families as a reporting triage layer. Latest scale and peer gaps use proposed operating budget as a common denominator; real movement is converted to 2025 dollars with CPI-U; proposal movement is nominal revised/current-to-proposed movement in the latest UFB file. Families are contextual and can be nested, so this is not an additive budget schedule.
Budget story package
For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, start with this budget question: Is the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line? The package keeps the UFB-supported claim, fair comparison, inflation/category/proposal checks, next reporting move, and blocked overread on the same row.
Package
What UFB shows
Compare / change
Report / block
Lead to testOperating funding familysource family
local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.Check: Revenue families
Compare againstUse the Burlington County average and the linked proof section as the first comparison, then verify the operational explanation outside UFB.What changes the readReaders can see whether the budget story starts with who pays before turning to cost rank or program claims.
Report nextState-aid notices and aid-calculation summary. Ask what share is formula aid, levy, reserve use, or one-time support.Do not writeSource-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.
Fair comparisonCost position$18,363
NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363 per pupil, rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $3,988 below the Burlington County average.Check: Peer evidence
Compare againstStart with Burlington County districts and the Burlington County average; then test statewide, model, scale, student-service, and outside-operating frames before treating the rank as the story.What changes the readUse this to decide whether local peers, statewide slices, scale, funding model, service load, or source-row context is the fair comparison before quoting a rank.
Report nextAdopted budget book and UFB narrative. Ask the business administrator which obligations make the peer set fair or unfair.Do not writeNJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost.
Inflation testTrend and denominator2025 dollars
real operating budget per UFB planning student changed -$4,137 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; UFB planning enrollment changed +179; NJDOE comparative cost changed -$2,938 after inflation.Check: Inflation trends
Compare againstCompare this with the latest-year Burlington County average, the report map, and the trend section before calling growth the story.What changes the readThis separates nominal spending growth from real per-student movement, denominator change, and the latest proposal columns.
Report nextFirst and latest budget books and budget presentations. Ask which decisions changed between the first and latest loaded UFB years.Do not writeReal-dollar movement is long-run context; it is separate from the latest proposal-column decision.
Category explanationLocal taxes and local sources75%
Local taxes and local sources: $31,874,948 latest source-row dollars, 75% of operating-budget scale; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average; +$11,757,324 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +$9,000 latest proposal movement; largest visible row: County Tax Levy-Base Budget.Check: Category evidence
Compare againstCompare the same source-family share with the Burlington County average, then check category, peer, trend, proposal, and source-row sections.What changes the readThis is the category/slice evidence that can make a budget story specific; it is not a second total to add to the operating budget.
Report nextAppropriation account detail behind the large category. Ask which program, contract, staffing pattern, or pass-through sits inside the category.Do not writeBudget families can be nested, repeated, or contextual, so they are reporting leads rather than an additive budget schedule.
Live proposalOther (88700)-$1,106,254
Other (88700) changes -$1,106,254 from revised/current to proposed; -3 pts of operating-budget scale; same-row local peer average movement is -1 pt across 13 peers.Check: Proposal changes
Compare againstCompare the proposal package with the category map and trend bridge before calling it a pivot or continuation.What changes the readThis isolates the live budget decision from the broader real-dollar trend and from nested source-row totals.
Report nextAccount detail for the moving row in first and latest loaded years. Ask which formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event moved the row.Do not writeProposal rows are nominal latest-file movement, not audited actual spending or a multi-year inflation-adjusted trend.
Second signalSpecial education planning14%
Special-education on-roll planning share is 14%, 4 pts below the Burlington County average.Check: Service load
Compare againstCompare special-education planning rows with local peers, then check service-plan, placement, and staffing records outside UFB.What changes the readCarry this beside the lead so per-pupil, tax, reserve, side-file, or outside-operating context is not left behind.
Report nextSpecial-education service-plan budget pages. Ask which service-load changes are driving the planning row.Do not writePlanning rows signal service load; they do not identify student need by themselves.
Story packages are generated from ranked UFB signals, 2025-dollar inflation checks, local peer and source-family comparisons, latest proposal rows, and side-file cues. They are an assignment path, not a causal finding, quality rating, or additive accounting schedule.
Budget mechanism read
This panel turns the budget evidence for Burlington County Institute Of Technology into mechanisms: relative cost; who pays; category or slice are the first lanes to test before a reader writes from totals, ranks, or nominal growth.
Mechanism
District read
Proof already here
Report next
Block this overread
Opening frameRelative cost
Published comparative cost is $3,988 below the Burlington County average; rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts.
$18,363; -$3,988 versus Burlington County average. Peer evidence
Test whether funding model, service load, category rows, or side files make the cost position explainable.
A cost rank is not an efficiency, adequacy, quality, or taxpayer-impact finding.
In playWho pays
Local sources supply 58% of proposed General Fund operating revenue; 5 pts below the Burlington County average. Tax levy per UFB on-roll is $6,547 below the Burlington County average.
Operating revenue source share from UFB summary rows. Tax: $7,099; rank 36 of 39. Revenue families
Ask whether the cost story is also a local-revenue, state-aid, grant, tax-base, or fund-balance story.
Funding mix is not a tax bill, adequacy judgment, or proof of what the district buys.
In playCategory or slice
local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.
Budget-family scan combines latest operating-equivalent scale, local peer gap, CPI-adjusted movement, proposal movement, and largest source-row clues. Revenue families
Report the named row or family before saying total spending is the story.
Budget families and source rows can be nested or contextual, so this is not an additive schedule or causal model.
Trend testInflation and denominator
After CPI-U adjustment, operating budget per UFB on-roll moved -$4,137 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; UFB on-roll moved +179.
$23,152 to $19,014 in 2025 dollars per UFB on-roll. Inflation trends
Separate real per-student movement from nominal budget growth and from the latest proposal column.
This is not a current-year cut list, audited actual spending, or proof that services changed.
In playStudents and services
special-education planning rows are 318 (14% of UFB on-roll); support services per pupil is $2,082 below the Burlington County average.
special-education planning rows: 318; Support services per pupil: rank 39 of 41. Students and costs
Ask whether per-pupil differences are a denominator, placement, service-load, or cost-row story.
Planning rows are not fall enrollment, service quality, compliance evidence, or student-need proof by themselves.
Live decisionProposal timing
operating budget moves +$590,901 from revised/current to proposed; 1% latest-file change; top named proposal row is Total Special Revenue Funds.
+$591K; -$2,196,324 in nominal latest-file dollars. Proposal changes
Ask whether the current proposal continues, offsets, or departs from the longer CPI-adjusted trend.
Proposal-column movement is not audited actual spending, long-run inflation movement, or a confirmed cut/addition list.
ContextOne-time support
projected close-year recap balances total $7.4 million.
selected administrative salary side file lists 8 rows. Budget anatomy
Ask whether grants, debt, capital, preschool, unusual items, shared services, or salary side files change the operating story.
Outside-operating and side-file rows are context; they are not recurring General Fund operating spending or audited savings.
Mechanisms are generated from UFB summary, revenue, appropriation, pupil-cost, budget-enrollment, tax, reserve, and side-file rows. Money trends use 2025 CPI-U dollars where labeled; proposal rows remain nominal latest-file movement.
Cost-position clues
NJDOE comparative cost puts this district below the Burlington County average. These clues name the concrete UFB measures, funding and tax signals, named rows, current-proposal movement, denominator checks, and budget-year context that can explain or complicate that position before the report moves into full evidence.
Clue
Evidence
How to read it
Proof
Headline metricNJDOE comparative cost
$18,363; -$3,988 vs Burlington County average; rank 33 of 39
This is the published cost-position metric. The rows below are the visible UFB clues to test before treating the rank as a story by itself.
Scale checkOperating budget per UFB on-roll student
$19,014; -$6,411 vs Burlington County average; rank 35 of 39
This recomputed operating-budget scale check uses UFB on-roll as the denominator; it can confirm or complicate NJDOE’s published comparative-cost line.
operating budget +$590,901 from revised/current to proposed; 1% latest-file change; largest named proposal move: Special Revenue Funds at -$2,196,324
The proposal clue is the live nominal budget-year decision. It belongs beside the cost position, but it is separate from CPI-adjusted history and audited actual spending.
42%; +12 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 13 of 40
Funding mix explains who carries the operating budget. It can make the same cost position mean different things, but it does not show what the district buys.
The clues use Burlington County districts with usable latest-year UFB rows unless noted. Proposal rows are nominal revised/current-to-proposed movement; trend rows use 2025 dollars where labeled. These are reporting leads, not a causal model and not a rating of spending quality.
Cost-position judgment
For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, the cost-position read is below the Burlington County average. This ledger decides whether the visible UFB signals line up with that read, complicate it, or leave the explanation outside the budget files.
Judgment
Evidence
Reader take
Next check
Cost story
Comparative cost per pupil: $18,363 (-$3,988 vs Burlington County average; rank 33 of 39)
Treat the below-average cost position as the question to explain, not as proof of efficiency, adequacy, service level, or cause.
Support services per pupil: $2,241 (-$2,082 vs Burlington County average; rank 39 of 41); Tax levy per UFB on-roll student: $7,099 (-$6,547 vs Burlington County average; rank 36 of 39); Operating budget per UFB on-roll student: $19,014 (-$6,411 vs Burlington County average; rank 35 of 39).
These measures move in the same direction as the published cost position. They are clues to inspect, not a causal proof that any one row creates the cost gap.
Operations and maintenance per pupil: $3,276 (+$812 vs Burlington County average; rank 5 of 41); State operating revenue share: 42% (+12 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 13 of 40).
These measures move against the simple cost read. Keep them visible before writing a one-note high-cost or low-cost story.
County Tax Levy-Base Budget: 37% of operating scale; +36 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 41.
A named UFB row can make the story concrete. It still may be nested, contextual, or outside the recurring operating basis, so it needs the source-row proof section.
local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.
This is the strongest generated source-family route. Use it to decide what to report next, not as an accounting total or causal model.
Budget book, board packet, and account detail behind the linked proof section. Ask which local decision, outside requirement, or accounting rule produced the signal.
UFB can rank and compare the signal, but it still does not prove cause, adequacy, intent, quality, or taxpayer impact. Source-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.
The ledger uses Burlington County districts with usable latest-year UFB rows unless the row names another frame. It is a reporting synthesis, not an efficiency rating, adequacy claim, or causal model.
Budget report section
Start with the story
What is the short version, what can UFB prove, which signals deserve the first read, and which simple reads need a second signal?
What explains this budget
Operating funding family. Local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.
AskIs the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line?Do not overreadSource-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.Check: Revenue families
$7,099Tax effortTax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average; local rank 36 of 39.AskHow does local tax effort compare once levy per planning student, estimated rate, and tax base are separated?Do not overreadEstimated tax-rate side-file rows are context; they are not audited property-tax bills.Check: Tax context
+18 ptsNamed UFB rowTuition from Local Education Authorities is 20% of the operating-budget scale, +18 pts versus the peer average; local rank 2 of 41.AskWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Do not overreadNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Check: Source rows
-$20,016,176Line movementLargest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: County Tax Levy, -$20,016,176 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.AskWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Do not overreadThe selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.Check: Line history
$2,241Pupil-cost lineSupport services per pupil is $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average.AskWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?Do not overreadSeveral pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.Check: Pupil-cost rows
$18,363Cost positionNJDOE comparative cost is $18,363 per pupil, rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $3,988 below the Burlington County average.AskDoes the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered?Do not overreadNJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost.Check: Peer evidence
These are generated reporting leads ranked from the latest UFB row scans, county comparisons, planning-enrollment rows, and real-dollar trend checks. The question and counter-reading keep each lead from becoming a causal claim before the full report evidence is checked.
Budget reading memo
The useful budget read for Burlington County Institute Of Technology is not a single spending-up sentence or a lone rank. Test this question first: Is the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line? local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average.
Do not stop at the simple read
NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average; local rank 33 of 39. After inflation, operating budget per UFB planning student changed -$4,137 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; UFB planning enrollment changed +179. The latest UFB proposal column changes the operating budget +$590,901 from revised/current to proposed. Those facts matter, but they should travel with the operating funding family question instead of becoming the whole story.
Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: County Tax Levy, -$20,016,176 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
Readers can identify the moving row that needs a formula, grant, contract, staffing, or accounting explanation.
The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.
This memo is generated from ranked UFB signals, local peer context, loaded-year inflation checks, proposal columns, and side-file evidence. It is an editorial route through the evidence, not a causal finding; Source-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.
Question-to-reporting path
The first resident question for Burlington County Institute Of Technology is Is the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line? This path keeps the strongest UFB clues beside the first fair comparison, the records to pull, and the shortcut to block before writing.
Reader question
UFB clue
First comparison
Reporting move
Operating funding familyIs the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line?
local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.Contextual revenue-family rows, operating-budget scale, proposal movement, and local peer source-share context.
Use the Burlington County average and the linked proof section as the first comparison, then verify the operational explanation outside UFB.Check: Revenue families
Pull or ask
Budget book, board packet, and account detail behind the linked proof section.
Audit note or outside schedule if the row is restricted or one-time.
Ask which local decision, outside requirement, or accounting rule produced the signal.
Do not write yetSource-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.
Tax effortHow does local tax effort compare once levy per planning student, estimated rate, and tax base are separated?
Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average; local rank 36 of 39.UFB levy rows, estimated tax-rate side file where present, planning-student denominator, and local peer context.
Compare levy per UFB planning student, estimated school-tax rate, and tax-base rows separately before translating the signal into taxpayer burden.Check: Tax context
Pull or ask
Estimated tax-rate worksheet and municipal rate or bill tables.
Equalized and taxable valuation notices.
Ask finance officials how equalized value and rate rows translate to local bills.
Do not write yetEstimated tax-rate side-file rows are context; they are not audited property-tax bills.
Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?
Tuition from Local Education Authorities is 20% of the operating-budget scale, +18 pts versus the peer average; local rank 2 of 41.Contextual UFB revenue or appropriation source row, operating-budget-equivalent scale, and same-row peer scan.
Compare the same source row against local peers and then inspect the account detail; the row may be a subtotal, restricted source, pass-through, or one-year item.Check: Source rows
Pull or ask
Account detail for the named source row.
Board packet or resolution tied to the account.
Ask who owns the account and what operational event produced the row.
Do not write yetNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
Line movementWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?
Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: County Tax Levy, -$20,016,176 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Selected UFB revenue or appropriation row history converted to 2025 dollars.
Compare the same named line across loaded UFB years in real dollars, then verify the formula, grant, contract, transfer, or accounting event behind the movement.Check: Line history
Pull or ask
Account detail for the moving row in first and latest loaded years.
Budget amendments, grant notices, contracts, or formula memos behind the shift.
Ask which formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event moved the row.
Do not write yetThe selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.
This path is generated from the same ranked UFB signals as the budget memo and claim audit. It is a reporting crosswalk, not a finding that one row caused another.
Public hearing agenda
This turns the budget report into meeting questions: the generated UFB signal, the local record or explanation to ask for, the proof section to open, and the reading that should be blocked before a resident or reporter writes from the numbers.
Question
UFB signal
Ask for / check
Proof
Block this read
Current proposalWhich proposed changes are recurring, which are one-time or restricted, and what local action explains the largest named row?
Operating proposal changes +$590,901 from revised/current to proposed. Top named row: Other (88700) -$1,106,254 (Appropriation line 88700).
Budget-hearing presentation, revised/current-to-proposed detail, board resolutions, and the contract, grant, tuition, transfer, or staffing memo behind the largest changed row.
Do not describe nominal proposal-column movement as the CPI-adjusted trend or as an audited spending result.
Relative costWhy does the published cost position sit where it does after peer choice, grade span, service load, funding model, and outside-operating rows are named?
NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average; local rank 33 of 39.
Adopted budget book, peer roster, grade-span/program notes, placement and transportation schedules, and budget presentations for the named peers.
Do not turn a high or low rank into efficiency, waste, adequacy, or quality language without outside reporting.
Categories and linesWhich category or source family is actually driving the story, and which account, program, restriction, or transfer sits underneath it?
Instruction programs: $17,036,920; 40% of operating-budget scale; +12 pts versus Burlington County average; +$541,637 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; largest row: Total Regular Programs-Instruction.
Account detail for the selected family, program or staffing schedules, contract or transfer documents, grant/restriction notes, and board packet explanations for the largest row.
Do not add budget families or lower-level rows together; many are nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.
Inflation and denominatorIs the multi-year movement a real spending change, a planning-enrollment denominator change, a category mix change, or a one-year row?
Real operating budget changed -$5,119,286 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Real operating budget per UFB planning student changed -$4,137. UFB planning on-roll changed +179.
First and latest budget books, enrollment projection memos, budget adoption minutes, account-level change notes, and any one-time grant, reserve, capital, or debt documents.
Do not make ordinary nominal growth the story until CPI-U, planning enrollment, peers, and category rows have been checked.
Students and servicesWhich enrollment, placement, tuition, preschool, transportation, or service-plan assumption changes the per-student read?
Special-education on-roll planning share is 14%, 4 pts below the Burlington County average; local rank 34 of 39.
Enrollment projection worksheet, fall-enrollment comparison, placement and tuition schedules, transportation contracts, preschool/service-plan notes, and receiving/sending district records.
Do not treat UFB planning rows as fall enrollment, direct student need, compliance, or service quality proof.
Reserves and side filesWhich balance, reserve, one-time, shared-service, unusual, grant, capital, or debt rows belong in the story, and which are outside recurring operating?
Largest projected balance row: Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capital Reserve at $4.7 million. Shared-service file has 13 rows.
Audit or ACFR fund-balance note, reserve-transfer approvals, unusual-item explanations, shared-service agreements, grant award letters, capital project schedules, and debt-service documents.
Do not treat planned balance or reserve rows as audited cash, recurring revenue, or a structural-deficit finding; do not sum side files into operating spending.
This is generated from the same UFB rows as the report, but the records named here are outside the UFB release. The table is a civic checklist, not a claim that the outside records already prove the explanation.
Budget news judgment
This filter labels what is background, what the UFB rows can support now, what needs a second signal, and what still requires outside reporting before the budget story is written.
Judgment
Evidence
Next step
Do not write
BackgroundNominal budget growth or a plain spending-up sentence.
Nominal operating budget moved +$4,700,314 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The report tests that against CPI-U, UFB planning enrollment, and peer evidence: real operating budget per UFB planning student moved -$4,137.
Move to real dollars, fair peer/slice comparisons, category/source-family evidence, proposal columns, or side-file context before making it the story.Trends and inflation
Do not publish a generic 'spending went up' read as the budget story unless the second signal explains why it matters.
UFB-ready factThe latest proposal column changed.
Proposed operating budget changed +$590,901 from revised/current to proposed in the latest UFB file.
Report it as nominal current-proposal movement, then inspect named revenue and appropriation rows.Proposal changes
Do not mix this latest-file movement with the CPI-adjusted multi-year trend.
Reportable UFB signalIs the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line?
local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis. Evidence basis: Contextual revenue-family rows, operating-budget scale, proposal movement, and local peer source-share context.
Use this as the first local budget question, then check the linked proof section.Revenue families
Source-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.
Second-signal checkHow does local tax effort compare once levy per planning student, estimated rate, and tax base are separated?
Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average; local rank 36 of 39. Evidence basis: UFB levy rows, estimated tax-rate side file where present, planning-student denominator, and local peer context.
Carry this beside the lead so the first read is tested against another denominator, file, or comparison frame.Tax context
Estimated tax-rate side-file rows are context; they are not audited property-tax bills.
Needs reportingTurn the operating funding family signal into a local explanation.
Budget book, board packet, and account detail behind the linked proof section. Audit note or outside schedule if the row is restricted or one-time. Ask which local decision, outside requirement, or accounting rule produced the signal.
Trace the revenue family to aid notices, levy documents, reserve approvals, and board materials before calling it a funding shift.Revenue families
A funding-family signal does not prove tax burden, sustainability, or program quality by itself.
Blocked shortcutCause, waste, adequacy, efficiency, intent, quality, or blame.
UFB rows can flag a reportable budget signal; they do not prove why it happened or whether it is good policy.
Use board documents, contracts, tax records, staffing/program records, audits, and interviews before writing causal language.Source rows
Do not turn operating funding family into a causal or quality claim from UFB alone.
The filter is generated from the same ranked UFB evidence as the reading memo, claim audit, and reporting notebook. It is a news judgment screen, not a causal model or a quality rating.
Budget diagnosis
For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, the strongest generated read is who pays. The table ranks the explanatory lanes before the report opens the long evidence sections, so the budget is not reduced to ordinary per-pupil growth or a single cost rank.
local sources supply 58% of General Fund operating revenue; that source share is 5 pts below the Burlington County average; tax levy per UFB on-roll is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average.
Why the same cost figure can mean different things in a state-funded, locally funded, federally supported, or balance-supported district.
A tax bill, a sustainability finding, or proof that source shares explain spending quality.
general current expense is the largest high-level use at 98% of operating budget; support services per pupil is $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average; named row County Tax Levy-Base Budget is +36 pts versus local peers.
Which spending category, pupil-cost row, or named source row turns the broad cost number into a concrete budget story.
A program audit, a complete causal bridge, or an additive sum of nested UFB rows.
NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average; rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts; operating budget per UFB on-roll is $19,014, $6,411 below the Burlington County average; statewide comparative-cost rank is 517 of 566.
Whether the district is actually unusual after the local peer frame and operating denominator are named.
Quality, efficiency, adequacy, waste, or the cause of the rank.
operating budget changes +$590,901 from revised/current to proposed; largest named proposal movement is Special Revenue Funds at -$2,196,324.
What the latest UFB file says is changing now, in nominal revised/current-to-proposed dollars.
The long-run inflation-adjusted trend, or the board/contract/formula reason the proposal changed.
The diagnosis is generated from published UFB summary, source rows, local peer comparisons, side files, and loaded-year movement. It ranks evidence for reporting priority; it is not a causal model, quality rating, or accounting equation.
Comparison brief
Relative cost before the long report
This table puts the published cost line into the comparison frames that matter first: named local peers, all NJ districts, funding model, district scale, cost band, and any high-signal service or category slice. It is a triage layer before the detailed peer strips, slice panels, and source rows.
Comparison verdictMostly below comparison frames. The comparative cost per pupil is below in 4 frames and near in 1 frame across the 5 front comparison frames shown.
Frame to checkAll NJ UFB districts: -$5,228 vs NJ average; rank 517 of 566.
Reporting useUse the near frames to soften the rank before moving into category and denominator evidence. Open proof
Relative-cost ladder
Read across comparison frames before treating one rank as the story. These rows use NJDOE comparative cost when available, then operating cost per UFB on-roll as the fallback.
Frame
District
Comparison
Gap
Burlington County districtsClosest named local benchmark before any statewide ranking.Comparative cost per pupil
$18,36333 of 39
$22,351Burlington County average
-$3,988
All NJ UFB districtsBroad statewide baseline; useful, but not a fair peer group by itself.Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363517 of 566
$23,591NJ average
-$5,228
500-2,499 UFB on-roll districtsScale helps separate large-system budgets from fixed-cost small-district pressure.Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363241 of 268
$22,956slice average
-$4,593
Mixed-source operating budgetsFunding model changes what the same per-pupil cost can mean.Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363137 of 153
$22,115slice average
-$3,752
Lower-quarter comparative-cost districtsThis asks whether the district is unusual even among districts in the same cost band.Comparative cost per pupil
$18,36393 of 142
$18,511slice average
-$148
Frame
District
Comparison
Named check
How to use it
Burlington County districtsClosest named local benchmark before any statewide ranking.
Broad statewide baseline; useful, but not a fair peer group by itself. Secondary clue: Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $19,014, $20,238 below the NJ average.Open proof
500-2,499 UFB on-roll districtsScale helps separate large-system budgets from fixed-cost small-district pressure.
Scale helps separate large-system budgets from fixed-cost small-district pressure. Secondary clue: Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $19,014, $8,867 below the slice average.Open proof
Mixed-source operating budgetsFunding model changes what the same per-pupil cost can mean.
Funding model changes what the same per-pupil cost can mean. Secondary clue: Local operating revenue share is 58%, 10 pts above the slice average.Open proof
Lower-quarter comparative-cost districtsThis asks whether the district is unusual even among districts in the same cost band.
This asks whether the district is unusual even among districts in the same cost band. Secondary clue: Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $19,014, $3,172 below the slice average.Open proof
Frames overlap and keep their own denominators. "Next higher" and "next lower" are numeric positions on the selected measure, not judgments about efficiency, adequacy, or quality.
Budget story spine
This scan-first table turns the strongest generated signals into a proof path. It keeps the claim, UFB evidence, fair comparison, outside reporting need, and counter-reading in one row before the report opens the longer evidence sections.
Story path
UFB proof
Comparison / proof
Outside reporting
Do not overread
Operating funding familyIs the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line?
source familylocal taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.
Revenue familiesBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.
Trace the revenue family to aid notices, levy documents, reserve approvals, and board materials before calling it a funding shift.
Source-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.
Tax effortHow does local tax effort compare once levy per planning student, estimated rate, and tax base are separated?
$7,099Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average; local rank 36 of 39.
Tax contextBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.
Use municipal tax-bill, equalized-value, and rate documents to translate UFB levy/rate context into what local taxpayers actually experience.
Estimated tax-rate side-file rows are context; they are not audited property-tax bills.
Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?
+18 ptsTuition from Local Education Authorities is 20% of the operating-budget scale, +18 pts versus the peer average; local rank 2 of 41.
Source rowsBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.
Pull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.
Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
Line movementWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?
-$20,016,176Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: County Tax Levy, -$20,016,176 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
Line historyBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.
Find the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.
The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.
Pupil-cost lineWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?
$2,241Support services per pupil is $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average.
Pupil-cost rowsBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.
Read staffing, benefits, facilities, and program documents for the cost row; standardized pupil-cost categories are summaries, not explanations.
Several pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.
Cost positionDoes the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered?
$18,363NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363 per pupil, rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $3,988 below the Burlington County average.
Peer evidenceBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.
Choose the fair peers, then check grade span, program obligations, placement load, and audited budget documents before treating the rank as efficiency or inefficiency.
NJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost.
The spine is generated from latest-year peer gaps, named UFB rows, planning-enrollment evidence, side files, and real-dollar trend checks. It ranks reportable evidence paths, not spending quality or causal certainty.
Budget storylines to test
These are not finished articles. They are generated story packages that turn the strongest UFB signals into a responsible reporting route: the working nut graf, why the claim matters to readers, the proof inside UFB, the outside record to pull next, and the sentence not to write yet.
1Operating funding family
The funding family is the story route
Working nut graf. For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, the UFB-supported story to test is this: local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis. The reporting question is: Is the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line?
Why readers careReaders can see whether the budget story starts with who pays before turning to cost rank or program claims.Proof in UFBContextual revenue-family rows, operating-budget scale, proposal movement, and local peer source-share context. Revenue familiesReport nextTrace the revenue family to aid notices, levy documents, reserve approvals, and board materials before calling it a funding shift.Do not write yetA funding-family signal does not prove tax burden, sustainability, or program quality by itself.
2Tax effort
Tax pressure needs its own benchmark
Working nut graf. For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average; local rank 36 of 39. The reporting question is: How does local tax effort compare once levy per planning student, estimated rate, and tax base are separated?
Why readers careReaders can separate school-budget pressure from taxable-base and municipal-rate context before translating UFB rows into household burden.Proof in UFBUFB levy rows, estimated tax-rate side file where present, planning-student denominator, and local peer context. Tax contextReport nextUse municipal tax-bill, equalized-value, and rate documents to translate UFB levy/rate context into what local taxpayers actually experience.Do not write yetLow levy per UFB on-roll does not automatically mean low household tax burden; high estimated rates do not by themselves prove school spending is the driver.
3Named UFB row
A named row can turn a broad budget into a reportable story
Working nut graf. For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Tuition from Local Education Authorities is 20% of the operating-budget scale, +18 pts versus the peer average; local rank 2 of 41. The reporting question is: Which named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?
Why readers careReaders can see which line is specific enough to request board backup, account detail, or an agenda item.Proof in UFBContextual UFB revenue or appropriation source row, operating-budget-equivalent scale, and same-row peer scan. Source rowsReport nextPull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.Do not write yetA large named row can be a subtotal, nested line, restricted source, transfer, or one-year accounting change.
4Line movement
A moving source row needs the event behind it
Working nut graf. For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: County Tax Levy, -$20,016,176 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The reporting question is: Which named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?
Why readers careReaders can identify the moving row that needs a formula, grant, contract, staffing, or accounting explanation.Proof in UFBSelected UFB revenue or appropriation row history converted to 2025 dollars. Line historyReport nextFind the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.Do not write yetA named-line movement is a reporting lead, not a complete bridge from first-year to latest-year spending.
Storylines are ranked from local peer gaps, source-row scale, planning-enrollment rows, side-file signals, proposal movement, and CPI-adjusted loaded-year checks. Money bases, fund scope, and denominators stay attached to each route; comparative cost remains NJDOE’s published metric.
Budget claim audit
This audit turns the report’s strongest signals into sentence-level budget claims. It separates what the UFB rows support from what still requires board materials, contracts, audits, tax records, staffing context, program records, or interviews.
Claim status
Safe wording
Evidence basis
Still not proven
Proof / next check
UFB-supported fact
The latest UFB file shows the proposed operating budget changes +$590,901 from the revised/current column to the proposed column.
Latest-year UFB revised/current and proposed operating-budget columns; nominal dollars.
This is the live proposal move, not the inflation-adjusted long-run trend or the reason the proposal changed.
local taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.
Contextual revenue-family rows, operating-budget scale, proposal movement, and local peer source-share context.
Source-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.
Rows are generated from latest-year peer gaps, named UFB rows, planning-enrollment evidence, side files, latest-file proposal columns, and inflation-adjusted trend checks. Safe wording is the strongest UFB-supported sentence before outside reporting, not a finished story.
Comparison movement brief
This table separates the generic spending-up-over-time story from the district-specific comparison story. It asks whether selected cost, funding, tax, category, and service-load measures moved toward or away from the Burlington County average from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
Measure
First gap
Latest gap
Read the movement
Check next
Comparative cost per pupil2019-20 to 2025-26
-$1,8532019-20 vs local peer average
-$3,9882025-26 vs local peer average
The measure moved farther below the Burlington County average; the gap moved -$2,135.
Money measures are converted to 2025 dollars before peer gaps are compared. This is a direction-of-comparison brief, not a causal test; a widening or narrowing gap still needs category, denominator, tax, service-load, and source-row evidence.
Comparison-frame movement
This panel takes the latest-year comparison frames from the relative-cost ladder and asks whether this district's published comparative cost moved closer to or farther from each frame from 2019-20 to 2025-26, after CPI-U adjustment.
Latest readBelow comparison frames over time. The latest real comparative cost is below in 5 frames.
Largest movementMixed-source operating budgets moved -$4,133 versus its frame.
Reporting useCheck whether funding model, service load, or denominator rows explain the lower relative cost.
Frame
First gap
Latest gap
Movement
Read the movement
Burlington County districtsClosest named local comparison set.
-$1,8532019-20 vs Burlington County average
-$3,9882025-26 vs Burlington County average
-$2,1352019-20 to 2025-26
The measure moved farther below the Burlington County average; the gap moved -$2,135.
All NJ UFB districtsBroad statewide baseline; useful, but not a fair peer group by itself.
-$1,9742019-20 vs NJ average
-$5,2282025-26 vs NJ average
-$3,2532019-20 to 2025-26
The measure moved farther below the NJ average; the gap moved -$3,253.
Mixed-source operating budgetsLatest-year funding model held constant across loaded years.
+$3822019-20 vs slice average
-$3,7522025-26 vs slice average
-$4,1332019-20 to 2025-26
The measure crossed from above to below the slice average; the gap moved -$4,133.
500-2,499 UFB on-roll districtsLatest-year UFB on-roll scale group held constant across loaded years.
-$1,5982019-20 vs slice average
-$4,5932025-26 vs slice average
-$2,9952019-20 to 2025-26
The measure moved farther below the slice average; the gap moved -$2,995.
Lower-quarter comparative-cost districtsLatest-year comparative-cost band held constant across loaded years.
+$1,9682019-20 vs slice average
-$1482025-26 vs slice average
-$2,1162019-20 to 2025-26
The measure crossed from above to below the slice average; the gap moved -$2,116.
Money values are converted to 2025 dollars before gaps are compared. Frame membership uses the latest UFB year and is held constant when looking backward, so this is a fair-comparison trend check, not a cohort study, efficiency rating, adequacy finding, or causal explanation.
Operating story basis
This table classifies the latest UFB evidence before the report asks what the budget means. It separates recurring operating-budget signals from the live proposal, reserve and carryover sources, side-file context, and outside-operating rows before comparing this district with the Burlington County average or statewide slices.
proposed operating budget $42,573,312; local sources supply 58% of operating revenue; general current expense is 98% of operating usesScale: $42.6 million
Use for the district’s main current-year operating story: who funds the General Fund operating budget and which high-level uses dominate it.
Do not mix this with all-funds grants, debt, capital, or side-file rows as though everything recurs on the same basis.
Federal projects is the largest outside-operating row, $825,919Scale: 2% of operating budget
Use as scale context for grants, debt, capital, preschool, and other fund sections that can make all-funds totals diverge from the operating story.
Do not add these rows to General Fund operating uses or treat the operating-equivalent share as a spending mix.
The recurring row uses the proposed General Fund operating budget as the common basis. Proposal movement is nominal revised/current-to-proposed evidence; trend panels convert dollars to 2025 only where labeled. Reserve, recap, unusual-item, shared-service, tax, and outside-operating rows are kept separate because they answer different journalism questions.
Structural squeeze test
The squeeze test asks whether Burlington County Institute Of Technology has the pattern a budget story usually needs: main operating sources, operating-use families, one-time support, denominator or service-load rows, and peer context pointing toward recurring pressure. It also marks what UFB cannot prove.
Local, state, and federal operating-source summaries moved -$5,677,303 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; those summaries equal 102% of the latest proposed operating budget; operating-budget scale moved -$5,119,286, $558,017 more than that source movement.
Use this to test whether the main recurring operating sources kept pace with operating scale after CPI-U. It is not a tax-cap or adequacy finding by itself.
Pull the levy-cap worksheet, state-aid notice, cap-bank/waiver rows, budget book, and board presentation before writing a cap-limited or underfunded-budget claim.
Instruction programs moved +$844,282 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; latest scale is 40% of proposed operating budget; 12 pts above the Burlington County average; largest latest source row: Total Regular Programs-Instruction.
Use this as the first appropriation/use family to inspect. Rows can still be nested, so this does not prove a single driver or an additive subtotal.
Pull staffing rosters, contracts, placement details, program schedules, and budget-book narratives before assigning cause or judging service quality.
UFB planning on-roll moved +179; special-education on-roll is 318 (14% of UFB on-roll).
Use this to keep per-pupil cost and category movement tied to the planning denominator and visible service-load rows.
Pull fall enrollment, special-education placement records, IEP/service obligations, tuition contracts, and staffing schedules before explaining why the load changed.
Comparative cost per pupil is $18,363, -$3,988 vs Burlington County average; rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts; Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, -$6,547 vs Burlington County average; Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $19,014, -$6,411 vs Burlington County average.
Use the peer frame to decide whether the squeeze signal is district-specific, common among local peers, or mainly a funding-model comparison.
Pull comparable districts' budget books, staffing/service context, and tax-base records before treating a rank as efficiency, adequacy, or resident impact.
UFB rows can show loaded-year source movement, operating-use movement, limited-source rows, service-load denominators, and peer position through 2025-26.
Use UFB to form a recurring-pressure hypothesis and to say which signals point the same direction. Do not write future deficit, statutory cap exhaustion, layoffs, service cuts, or intent from UFB alone.
Pull the board budget book, public-hearing deck, tax levy cap calculation, state aid notice, collective-bargaining and staffing records, audit, and any projected-gap or cut-list documents.
Dollar movement uses 2025 CPI-U dollars where the row says after inflation. The test is a reporting checklist, not a structural-deficit finding, tax-bill estimate, service-quality rating, or levy-cap calculation.
Budget flow bridge
This table keeps the budget report from reading as disconnected panels. It puts the relative cost frame, money in, money out, proposal movement, outside-operating rows, side files, and student denominator in one scan before the report compares this district with the Burlington County average and the statewide slices below.
All-funds net above operating: $825,919 (2%); Federal projects: $825,919 (2%); Special Revenue Funds: $825,919 (2%)
Use this to explain why all-funds totals, grants, debt, capital, preschool, or project rows can make the budget look different from the operating story.
-6 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 30 of 40
Do not fold outside-operating rows into the General Fund operating mix or assume the operating-equivalent share recurs each year.
Use these side files to decide whether reserve use, projected balances, unusual explanations, shared services, or tax basis should travel with the operating story.
Peer and history checks live in the side-file and reserve sections; they are separate from operating-revenue mix.
Do not read side files as recurring revenue, audited cash, complete payroll, audited savings, or tax-bill advice.
UFB planning on-roll 2,239; fall enrollment 2,313; special-education planning rows 14% of UFB on-roll
Use this before making per-student claims: the UFB planning denominator, fall enrollment, and service-load rows can point to different stories.
-4 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 34 of 39
Do not replace NJDOE comparative cost with a homemade denominator or treat planning rows as direct proof of student need.
The bridge is a reporting map, not an accounting equation. It uses the proposed General Fund operating budget as a common scale only where labeled; proposal rows are nominal latest-file movement, and inflation-adjusted trend evidence appears later in 2025 dollars.
Budget pressure map
This table turns the report into a first-read checklist. It ranks the budget pressures that UFB evidence can surface for this district, then separates what each pressure can explain from what still needs reporting outside the UFB files.
Comparative cost per pupil is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average; local rank 33 of 39; Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $19,014, $6,411 below the Burlington County average; statewide comparative-cost rank 517 of 566.
Whether the district looks high, low, or ordinary before a reader turns to categories, taxes, and service load.
Spending quality, efficiency, or the reason the district sits where it does.
local sources supply 58% of General Fund operating revenue; that source share is 5 pts below the Burlington County average; tax levy per UFB on-roll is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average.
Who pays for the operating budget and whether a cost position also creates local levy, aid, or balance-source pressure.
A property-tax bill, audited all-funds revenue, or proof that the funding model is sustainable.
general current expense is the largest high-level use at 98% of operating budget; support services per pupil is $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average; named row County Tax Levy-Base Budget is +36 pts versus local peers.
Which use categories, cost rows, or named source rows deserve the first follow-up instead of quoting total spending.
A complete program budget or an additive accounting bridge; UFB rows can be nested, repeated, or contextual.
All-funds net above operating is $825,919, 2% of operating budget; 4 material outside-operating rows clear the scale threshold.
Why all-funds, grants, debt, capital, preschool, or project rows may change the budget-year context.
A General Fund operating spending mix, or evidence that outside-operating rows recur on the same basis.
Pressure rows are generated from the latest UFB summary, source rows, local peer comparisons where enough peers have data, and loaded-year trend rows. Money movement is inflation-adjusted only where this table says 2025 dollars or after inflation; proposal rows are nominal latest-file changes.
Budget tension checks
These checks pair signals that are easy to overread alone: current cost position, inflation-adjusted movement, proposal-column changes, tax burden, funding model, category slices, service load, reserves, and outside-operating rows.
Tension to test
Signal pair
How it changes the read
Proof
Cost position vs real trend
Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $19,014, $6,411 below the Burlington County average; rank 35 of 39 among Burlington County districts.Operating budget per UFB on-roll student changed -$4,137 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
Use the current peer position as the comparison frame and the real-dollar movement as background, not as the same claim.
Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $19,014, $6,411 below the Burlington County average; rank 35 of 39 among Burlington County districts.Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average; rank 36 of 39 among Burlington County districts.
Cost and tax burden are separate comparison axes; a low-cost read does not automatically mean low local effort.
Operating budget changes +$590,901 from revised/current to proposed in the latest UFB file.Operating scale changed -$5,119,286 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
The latest nominal proposal moves against the loaded-year real trend, so a current budget vote or hearing story should not be written as a simple continuation.
Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $19,014, $6,411 below the Burlington County average; rank 35 of 39 among Burlington County districts.Support services per pupil is $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average; rank 39 of 41 among Burlington County districts.
The category row helps turn the cost comparison into a concrete budget question, but it should not be treated as a complete program audit.
State operating revenue share is 42%, 12 pts above the Burlington County average; rank 13 of 40 among Burlington County districts.Support services per pupil is $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average; rank 39 of 41 among Burlington County districts.
Pair the revenue model with the use category before implying that a high or low spending slice is locally discretionary.
Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $19,014, $6,411 below the Burlington County average; rank 35 of 39 among Burlington County districts.special-education planning share is 14%, 4 pts below the Burlington County average.
Before treating the per-pupil number as a pure spending comparison, check whether placements, special education, or the UFB denominator explain part of the position.
Tension checks are generated from the same UFB rows used elsewhere in the report. They are not causal findings. Money trend claims are inflation-adjusted only where labeled as 2025 dollars or after inflation; proposal movement is nominal revised/current-to-proposed movement.
Category story map
Local taxes and local sources is the largest selected source-row family at 75% of operating-budget scale. Preschool has the widest selected local peer gap, 13 pts below the Burlington County average. Local taxes and local sources moved the most after inflation, +$11,757,324 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. This map puts the category question in one place: current scale, local comparison, inflation-adjusted movement, and the latest proposal-column move.
Budget family
Question to test
Category evidence
Source row and proof
Local taxes and local sourceslarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movement
How much of the budget story is local levy, tuition, fees, or miscellaneous local revenue?
Latest scale $31,874,948 (75% op. equiv.)+12 pts versus the Burlington County average+$11,757,324 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$9,000 latest proposal movement; 0 pts of operating scale
County Tax Levy-Base Budget (Revenue line 110, $15,894,974)Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues (+$9,000 latest-file move)CategoriesTrend
Preschoollocal peer gap
Is preschool aid, carryover, instruction, or support service scale material?
Latest scale $0 (0% op. equiv.)-13 pts versus the Burlington County average$0 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26
No positive latest-year source row.No material proposal row in this family.Categories
Special revenue fundslocal peer gap / inflation-adjusted movement / latest proposal move
How large are grant-funded or otherwise outside-operating programs relative to operating budgets?
Latest scale $1,651,838 (4% op. equiv.)-11 pts versus the Burlington County average-$1,413,134 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26-$4,392,648 latest proposal movement; -10 pts of operating scale
Total Special Revenue Funds (Appropriation line 88760, $825,919)Total Special Revenue Funds (-$2,196,324 latest-file move)CategoriesProposalTrendSide files
Instruction programslarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movement
Which classroom or instructional program rows define the core spending structure?
Latest scale $17,036,920 (40% op. equiv.)+12 pts versus the Burlington County average+$541,637 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26-$626,031 latest proposal movement; -1 pt of operating scale
Total Regular Programs-Instruction (Appropriation line 3200, $7,399,946)Vocational Education (-$569,814 latest-file move)CategoriesProposalTrend
State aidlarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movement
Which aid lines explain dependence on state funding or first-to-latest movement?
Latest scale $18,012,036 (42% op. equiv.)+6 pts versus the Burlington County average-$810,329 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$227,286 latest proposal movement; +1 pt of operating scale
Equalization Aid (Revenue line 460, $15,013,125)Categorical Security Aid (+$399,970 latest-file move)CategoriesProposalTrend
Transfers and tuitionlarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movement
Do charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story?
Latest scale $8,519,302 (20% op. equiv.)+5 pts versus the Burlington County average-$424,153 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$654,040 latest proposal movement; +2 pts of operating scale
Tuition from Local Education Authorities (Revenue line 200, $8,519,302)Tuition from Local Education Authorities (+$654,040 latest-file move)CategoriesProposalTrend
Budget families are generated from contextual UFB revenue and appropriation source rows. Latest scale and peer gap use proposed operating budget as a common denominator; real movement is converted to 2025 dollars; proposal movement is nominal revised/current-to-proposed movement in the latest UFB file. Families can be nested, outside-operating, or repeated across files, so this is a reporting map rather than an additive budget schedule.
Proposal versus trend
The latest proposal and the loaded-year category trend do not answer the same question. For General current expense, the proposal is a counter-move: +$1,428,046 in nominal latest-file movement versus -$5,140,954 across loaded years after inflation. Across material family rows, this scan finds 3 continuing trends, 8 counter-moves, and 2 current-only moves.
Relationship
Loaded-year trend
Current proposal
How to read it
Counter-moveGeneral current expense
-$5,140,9542019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved 0 pts.
+$1,428,046+3 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Total General Current Expense (Appropriation, line 72260, +$1,428,046)
The latest proposal points opposite the loaded-year real movement, so this is the first place to check whether the budget is pivoting.ProposalTrendCategoriesPeers
Continues trendLocal taxes and local sources
+$11,757,3242019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +33 pts.
+$9,0000 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues (Revenue, line 300, +$9,000)
The latest proposal points in the same direction as the inflation-adjusted movement across loaded UFB years.ProposalTrendCategoriesPeers
Current-only moveOther named rows
-$65,0522019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved 0 pts.
-$3,321,712-8 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Other (Appropriation, line 88700, -$1,106,254)
The latest proposal has a visible family move, while the loaded-year real trend is not material enough to call a direction.ProposalTrendCategoriesPeers
Continues trendSpecial revenue funds
-$1,413,1342019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved -3 pts.
-$4,392,648-10 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Total Special Revenue Funds (Appropriation, line 88760, -$2,196,324)
The latest proposal points in the same direction as the inflation-adjusted movement across loaded UFB years.ProposalTrendCategoriesPeers
Counter-moveInstruction programs
+$541,6372019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +5 pts.
-$626,031-1 pt of proposed operating-budget scale.Vocational Education (Appropriation, line 88640, -$569,814)
The latest proposal points opposite the loaded-year real movement, so this is the first place to check whether the budget is pivoting.ProposalTrendCategoriesPeers
Counter-moveAdministration and central services
-$3,501,2612019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved -6 pts.
+$10,2810 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Total Undistributed Expenditures-Support Services-School Administration (Appropriation, line 46160, -$18,948)
The latest proposal points opposite the loaded-year real movement, so this is the first place to check whether the budget is pivoting.ProposalTrendCategoriesPeers
This bridge keeps timing bases separate. Loaded-year trend values are inflation-adjusted to 2025 dollars and compare the first and latest loaded UFB years; proposal values are nominal revised/current-to-proposed movement in the latest UFB file. A counter-move is a reporting prompt, not proof of a policy reversal or cause.
Budget reporting lead sheet
This lead sheet turns the generated budget signals into a reporting agenda: what looks most explainable, what question a resident should ask, and which caveat keeps the evidence from becoming an overclaim.
1Operating funding familysource familylocal taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.Reader questionIs the first read about the funding family, not just the total cost line?Do not overreadSource-family rows can be nested or contextual; they are not a tax bill, sustainability finding, or proof of spending quality.Revenue families
2Tax effort$7,099Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average; local rank 36 of 39.Reader questionHow does local tax effort compare once levy per planning student, estimated rate, and tax base are separated?Do not overreadEstimated tax-rate side-file rows are context; they are not audited property-tax bills.Tax context
3Named UFB row+18 ptsTuition from Local Education Authorities is 20% of the operating-budget scale, +18 pts versus the peer average; local rank 2 of 41.Reader questionWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Do not overreadNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Source rows
4Line movement-$20,016,176Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: County Tax Levy, -$20,016,176 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Reader questionWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Do not overreadThe selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.Line history
5Pupil-cost line$2,241Support services per pupil is $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average.Reader questionWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?Do not overreadSeveral pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.Pupil-cost rows
6Cost position$18,363NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363 per pupil, rank 33 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $3,988 below the Burlington County average.Reader questionDoes the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered?Do not overreadNJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost.Peer evidence
7Spending mix15%Operations and maintenance share is 15%, 7 pts above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 41.Reader questionWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?Do not overreadHigh-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.Spending categories
8Funding model58%The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 58% of the proposed operating budget, 5 pts below the Burlington County average.Reader questionWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?Do not overreadOperating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation.Revenue families
Lead order comes from local peer gaps, UFB row scale, planning-enrollment rows, and inflation-adjusted movement. It ranks reportability, not importance to students or proof that a district should spend differently.
Editorial frame
For Burlington County Institute Of Technology, the useful budget question is how to read comparative cost is $3,988 below the Burlington County average, local sources supply 58% of operating revenue, largest use is general current expense at 98%, and real operating scale changed -$5,119,286 since 2019-20. UFB can establish the money basis, peer position, row scale, and loaded-year movement; it cannot by itself prove whether the pattern reflects policy choices, student need, contracts, facilities, tax capacity, or one-time accounting.
What UFB can establish
Operating funding familylocal taxes and local sources moved +$11.8 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved +33 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.Revenue families
Tax effortTax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average; local rank 36 of 39.Tax context
Named UFB rowTuition from Local Education Authorities is 20% of the operating-budget scale, +18 pts versus the peer average; local rank 2 of 41.Source rows
Line movementLargest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: County Tax Levy, -$20,016,176 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Line history
What still needs reporting
Operating funding familyTrace the revenue family to aid notices, levy documents, reserve approvals, and board materials before calling it a funding shift.
Tax effortUse municipal tax-bill, equalized-value, and rate documents to translate UFB levy/rate context into what local taxpayers actually experience.
Named UFB rowPull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.
Line movementFind the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.
Competing readings to keep alive
Operating funding familyA funding-family signal does not prove tax burden, sustainability, or program quality by itself.
Tax effortLow levy per UFB on-roll does not automatically mean low household tax burden; high estimated rates do not by themselves prove school spending is the driver.
Named UFB rowA large named row can be a subtotal, nested line, restricted source, transfer, or one-year accounting change.
Line movementA named-line movement is a reporting lead, not a complete bridge from first-year to latest-year spending.
This frame is generated from the same UFB signals as the lead sheet. It is designed to prevent the report from turning row evidence into unsupported causality.
Budget model synthesis
Read this budget as lower local cost position, mixed operating funding, general-current centered, and real operating decline. The table below connects the strongest structural signals so the report is not just a list of panels.
Structural question
UFB evidence
Working read and proof section
Is this mainly a cost position or a scale story?
NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average; rank 33 of 39 locally; statewide rank 517 of 566; operating budget per UFB on-roll is $19,014, $6,411 below the Burlington County average
Can explainTreat cost rank as a starting signal, then test it against funding model, student/service load, denominator choices, and outside-operating rows before calling it efficiency, waste, or adequacy.Cannot proveA high or low rank does not prove value, waste, staffing quality, student need, or tax fairness by itself.Check: Peer evidence
Who pays, and is the tax-burden basis unusual?
local sources supply 58% of operating revenue, 5 pts below the Burlington County average; tax levy per UFB on-roll is $7,099, $6,547 below the Burlington County average
Can explainThe same per-pupil cost can mean different things in a locally funded, state-funded, or balance-supported budget. Operating revenue is not all-funds revenue, and UFB tax rows are context rather than a household tax bill.Cannot proveFunding share is not a full taxpayer-burden claim, and balance/reserve sources should not be read as recurring aid.Check: Operating funding and tax-burden basis
What does the operating budget buy differently?
largest high-level use is general current expense, 98% of operating budget; strongest peer mix gap is operations and maintenance share at 15%, 7 pts above the Burlington County average; named-row standout: County Tax Levy-Base Budget is +36 pts versus peers
Can explainUse shares and named rows are reporting leads. They can reflect pass-throughs, accounting structure, program obligations, staffing, contracts, facilities, or policy choices, so the category label is not the cause.Cannot proveUFB rows can be nested, repeated, or outside the operating fund, so category differences are not an additive causal bridge.Check: Categories and lines
Does the student/service load change the cost reading?
special-education planning share is 14%, 4 pts below the Burlington County average; free/reduced-price lunch is 43%, +11 pts versus county fall-enrollment context
Can explainPer-student comparisons move when the denominator, sent/received flows, special-education planning rows, or student-need context differ. These rows are context, not a quality or compliance finding by themselves.Cannot provePlanning-enrollment and placement rows do not replace fall enrollment, individual service plans, or audited program costs.Check: Costs and students
What is the live decision versus the real long-run movement?
latest proposal changes operating budget +$590,901; real operating scale changed -$5,119,286 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; UFB on-roll changed +179; operating per UFB on-roll changed -$4,137 after inflation
Can explainCurrent proposal changes are nominal latest-file decisions. Trend claims convert loaded years to real dollars, and per-student movement must separate the budget numerator from the UFB planning-enrollment denominator.Cannot proveA real-dollar movement does not identify the board decision, contract, aid formula, or accounting change that produced it.Check: Proposal and inflation trend
Which context rows may explain the budget year without being recurring operating spending?
projected close-year recap balances total $7.4 million; shared-service file lists 13 arrangements; selected administrative base-salary rows total $922,208
Can explainReserve, balance, unusual-item, shared-service, school-resource, tax-rate, and salary rows can explain a budget year, but they are mixed side files and should not be summed into operating spending.Cannot proveSide-file amounts are not audited recurring operating totals and may be explanations, balances, estimates, or staffing snapshots.Check: Side files
This is a generated synthesis of published UFB rows, local peer context, and loaded-year movement. It is a reporting frame, not a causal finding or a claim that unlike denominators can be added together.
Cost gap ledger
This ledger translates the cost comparison into the largest visible gaps against the Burlington County average. Dollar rows are shown per UFB planning student where the source row is not already a per-pupil measure, so a reader can see whether the story is broad operating scale, who pays, a use category, a pupil-cost row, or a service-load denominator.
Budget basis
This district
Gap vs average
How to read it
Proof
Published costNJDOE comparative cost
$18,363Burlington County average: $22,351
-$3,988Rank 33 of 39
This is the official comparison line. Use the rest of the ledger to see which budget bases point in the same or opposite direction.
Use rows show where dollars sit per planning student. They are clues, not an additive bridge, because UFB rows can be nested or outside operating funds.
Use per UFB on-rollSchool-based budgeting contribution
$0Burlington County average: $753
-$753Rank 3 of 39
Use rows show where dollars sit per planning student. They are clues, not an additive bridge, because UFB rows can be nested or outside operating funds.
Rows use the Burlington County average with usable latest-year UFB data. The ledger is not an additive decomposition: revenue rows, lower-level appropriation rows, outside-operating rows, and pupil-cost rows answer different questions and must be checked in their proof sections.
UFB source coverage
The latest matched UFB row for 2025-26 exposes 8 usable source families for this report. This inventory shows what each file can establish before the report turns those rows into peer comparisons, trend checks, and source tables.
Source family
Latest coverage
What it can establish
Where it appears
Summary
$42.6 million proposed operating budget; 7 loaded UFB years: 2019-20 to 2025-26.
Published comparative cost, operating budget, summary revenue shares, tax levy, and UFB on-roll planning enrollment.
peer evidence · anatomySummary rows are the profile-facing spine, but they do not replace detailed source files.
Revenue file
20 positive rows; 17 contextual rows in the appendix; largest: Total Revenues from Local Sources at $24.6 million.
Named aid, levy, fund-balance, reserve, tuition, grant, and other source rows behind the operating mix.
families · source rowsRevenue rows can include subtotals or non-operating sources; do not add the contextual rows into one revenue total.
Appropriation file
38 positive rows; 35 contextual rows in the appendix; largest: Total General Current Expense at $41.7 million.
High-level operating uses, fund totals, transfers, lower-level cost rows, capital, debt, and special-revenue scale.
categories · source rowsMany appropriation rows are nested; operating-equivalent shares are a scale reference, not an additive bridge.
Pupil-cost file
16 published per-pupil rows with latest proposed-year values.
NJDOE standardized per-pupil cost categories such as classroom, support, operations, administration, and benefits.
costs and studentsThese are NJDOE-published cost rows; the report does not recompute them from appropriations or enrollment.
students and service loadThese are planning rows, not fall enrollment, and counts should not be added to dollar rows.
Recap / balances
8 balance rows; Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capital Reserve at $4.7 million.
Projected close-year balances, reserves, restricted balances, and fund-balance context.
side filesRecap balances are not current operating appropriations or spendable-cash claims.
Estimated tax file
0 municipal/regional slices.
Estimated school-tax rates, levy slices, equalized values, taxable values, and regional spread context.
tax effort · raw tax rowsTax-file rows are estimated UFB context, not tax-bill advice or audited property-tax data.
Unusual-item file
0 positive explanation rows.
District-reported unusual revenue or appropriation explanations that may change the current-year story.
side-file explanationsUnusual rows can duplicate named revenue or appropriation rows and should not be added as a separate spending total.
Shared-services file
13 arrangement rows.
District-reported shared-service arrangements and optional savings fields.
shared-service profileReported savings are context rows, not audited offsets against the operating budget.
School-resource file
0 resource rows.
Published school-based resource statement rows where the district provides the side file.
school-resource rowsThese rows appear only for districts that publish the statement and can overlap with other operating rows.
Admin-salary file
8 listed salary rows; listed base salary total $922,208.
Selected administrative salary rows, FTE, shared-service flags, contract fields, and comments where published.
listed admin salariesThis is selected listed administration, not complete payroll or total compensation.
Presence in this inventory means the matched NJDOE User-Friendly Budget file includes usable rows for the latest budget year. Missing side-file rows may mean not published, not applicable, or no positive material entry; file coverage is evidence routing, not a fiscal total.
Statewide budget model
This district matches 1 generated statewide comparison frame. Those frames point to the fairest next comparison before reading every UFB source row.
$18,363Middle-of-pack statewide modelNone of the generated statewide budget-model thresholds dominate this district’s latest UFB row.Use the Burlington County districts peer evidence, category history, and named-line scans to find the more specific explanation.Statewide rank is 517 of 566 by NJDOE comparative cost.
Model thresholds mirror the statewide budget explorer where possible: funding shares, transfer pressure, school-based budgeting, small UFB on-roll, placement load, outside-operating scale, high tax effort, and real-dollar movement. Frames can overlap.
Statewide slice comparisons
These latest-year slices compare the district with statewide groups that share its funding model, UFB on-roll scale, cost position, or category signals. Published comparative cost is $18,363. UFB on-roll here is 2,239.
Relative-cost ladder
Comparison frame
Measure
District
Comparison avg
Gap
Rank
Burlington CountyThis is the closest local comparison frame before statewide slices.
Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363
$22,351
-$3,988
33 of 39
All NJ UFB districtsThis is the statewide baseline before narrowing to a more comparable slice.
Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363
$23,591
-$5,228
517 of 566
500-2,499 UFB on-roll districtsUFB on-roll scale helps separate fixed-cost pressure from large-system operating scale.
Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363
$22,956
-$4,593
241 of 268
Mixed-source operating budgetsFunding model changes what a cost comparison means, because local levy, state aid, and other sources carry different reader questions.
Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363
$22,115
-$3,752
137 of 153
Lower-quarter comparative-cost districtsThis compares the district with others already in a similar published comparative-cost band.
Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363
$18,511
-$148
93 of 142
Read down the ladder before treating one rank as the story: local peers, all NJ, and overlapping statewide slices can point in different directions.
Rank 517 of 566All NJ UFB districtsComparative cost per pupil: $18,363, $5,228 below the NJ average ($23,591). Operating budget per UFB on-roll student: $19,014, $20,238 below the NJ average ($39,253). This is the statewide baseline before narrowing to a more comparable slice.566 districts have usable comparative cost per pupil values in this latest-year slice. Slice membership is latest-year and overlapping.
Rank 241 of 268500-2,499 UFB on-roll districtsComparative cost per pupil: $18,363, $4,593 below the slice average ($22,956). Operating budget per UFB on-roll student: $19,014, $8,867 below the slice average ($27,881). UFB on-roll scale helps separate fixed-cost pressure from large-system operating scale.268 districts have usable comparative cost per pupil values in this latest-year slice. Slice membership is latest-year and overlapping.
Rank 137 of 153Mixed-source operating budgetsComparative cost per pupil: $18,363, $3,752 below the slice average ($22,115). Local operating revenue share: 58%, 10 pts above the slice average (48%). Funding model changes what a cost comparison means, because local levy, state aid, and other sources carry different reader questions.153 districts have usable comparative cost per pupil values in this latest-year slice. Slice membership is latest-year and overlapping.
Rank 93 of 142Lower-quarter comparative-cost districtsComparative cost per pupil: $18,363, $148 below the slice average ($18,511). Operating budget per UFB on-roll student: $19,014, $3,172 below the slice average ($22,187). This compares the district with others already in a similar published comparative-cost band.142 districts have usable comparative cost per pupil values in this latest-year slice. Slice membership is latest-year and overlapping.
Slices are comparison frames, not causal peer cohorts. Districts can appear in several slices, and dollar figures in this panel are latest-year UFB dollars unless another section says it converts to real dollars.
Named similar-budget-model comps
The closest statewide comparison question is not only local geography. This screen names districts whose latest UFB profile is nearest on mixed-source funded, 500-2,499 UFB on-roll, general current expense centered, lower-quarter comparative cost, then keeps cost, funding, use, service, and tax clues in the same row.
mixed-source funded; general current expense centered (local 45%, state 53%)
sent placements 2% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 10%
These are algorithmic nearest neighbors across published latest-year UFB measures, not causal peers, targets, or quality ratings. The screen is meant to make statewide slice comparisons concrete before the report moves into local peer ranks and raw source rows.
What changed, and what drove it
This panel turns the first-to-latest UFB history into reporting leads: inflation-adjusted operating scale, denominator movement, peer-position change, source shifts, use shifts, and named rows.
-$5.1MOperating scaleAfter inflation, the proposed operating budget changed -$5,119,286 (-11%) from 2019-20 to 2025-26. UFB on-roll changed +179 over the same span. Operating budget per UFB on-roll student changed -$4,137.Uses proposed operating budget converted to 2025 dollars and UFB planning enrollment, not fall enrollment.
-$20.0MLargest named-line decreaseCounty Tax Levy fell from $20,016,176 to $0.This is a contextual revenue row. Its operating-budget share changed -42 pts.
+$15.9MLargest named-line increaseCounty Tax Levy-Base Budget rose from $0 to $15,894,974.This is a contextual revenue row. Its operating-budget share changed +37 pts.
-$3,988Comparative-cost peer gapAgainst the Burlington County average, this gap moved from -$1,853 in 2019-20 to -$3,988 in 2025-26.Money values are inflation-adjusted to 2025 dollars; peer averages use Burlington County districts with usable rows in each year.
-3 ptsRevenue-source shiftLocal sources moved from 61% to 58% of the proposed operating budget, a real-dollar change of -$4,536,322.Revenue-source shares use the proposed operating budget as the denominator, so they describe operating structure rather than all-funds revenue.
This is not an additive budget bridge. UFB rows are contextual and sometimes nested, and loaded UFB year columns mix actual-cost, revised/original-budget, and proposed-budget bases.
Operating budget
$42.6 million
proposed General Fund, 2025-26
Per planning student
$19,014
operating budget divided by UFB on-roll
Peer cost rank
33 of 39
1 = highest comparative cost among Burlington County districts
Local sources
$24.6 million
58% of operating-budget scale
Top use family
40%
Instruction programs
Real per-student move
-$4,137
2019-20 to 2025-26, CPI-U adjusted
Budget report section
Reader questions
What should a resident ask before reading the row-level tables?
Budget walkthrough
Read the budget in five passes: money in, money out, costs and students, what changed, and which UFB side files deserve attention.
Money in
Local sources supplied 58% of the proposed operating budget, 5 pts below the Burlington County average.
Operating sources: local sources 58%, state sources 42%, federal sources <1%.
Tax levy: $15.9 million, or $7,099 per UFB on-roll student (36 of 39 locally).
Money out
The largest high-level use is general current expense, $41.7 million or 98% of the operating budget.
General current expense: $41.7 million (98%).
Capital outlay: $613,745 (1%).
Special schools: $211,965 (<1%).
Nested detail row: employee benefits is $8.1 million (19% of operating budget; peer average 17%).
Nested detail row: regular programs instruction is $7.4 million (17% of operating budget; peer average 22%).
Costs and students
NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363 per pupil, $3,988 below the Burlington County average (33 of 39 locally).
UFB on-roll planning enrollment is 2,239; fall enrollment on the district profile is 2,313.
Support services per pupil: $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average.
Operations and maintenance per pupil: $3,276, $812 above the Burlington County average.
What changed
Operating budget per UFB on-roll changed -$4,137 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
Comparative cost per pupil changed -$2,938 after inflation.
Largest named-line increase: County Tax Levy-Base Budget, up $15,894,974 in 2025 dollars.
Largest named-line decrease: County Tax Levy, down $20,016,176 in 2025 dollars.
Aggregate operating budget changed -$5,119,286 in real terms; read that scale check with the UFB on-roll denominator before treating it as the story.
Side files to check
Projected balance: Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capital Reserve at $4.7 million, +$40,000 versus the prior balance column.
Projected balance: Unrestricted-General Operating Budget at $1.7 million, $0 versus the prior balance column.
Shared-service entries: 13, savings often not reported.
Listed administrative salary rows total $922,208 across 8 UFB rows.
This walkthrough uses the same generated measures as the tables below. It is an orientation layer, not a substitute for the UFB source rows.
Budget diagnostic
These generated checks turn the UFB source files into reader questions: cost position, funding model, spending mix, student-service load, inflation-adjusted movement, and side-file context.
Is this a size story or a cost story?
Comparative cost is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average.
Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $19,014, $6,411 below the Burlington County average.
2% of operating dollars among Burlington County districts and 3% of UFB on-roll planning enrollment.
Comparative cost rank is 33 of 39 locally; statewide rank 517 of 566.
Who pays for the operating budget?
Largest operating source: local sources, 58% of operating revenue, 5 pts below the Burlington County average.
Operating-source mix: local sources 58%, state sources 42%.
Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $7,099, rank 36 of 39 locally.
Where does the spending mix differ?
Largest high-level use: general current expense, 98% of the operating budget.
Operations and maintenance share: 15%, 7 pts above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 41.
Special Revenue Funds equivalent: 2%, 6 pts below the Burlington County average; local rank 30 of 40.
What student-service load is budgeted?
Special-education on-roll planning share is 14%, 4 pts below the Burlington County average.
Largest NJDOE pupil-cost gap: support services per pupil at $2,241, $2,082 below the Burlington County average.
What changed after inflation?
Operating budget per UFB on-roll changed -$4,137 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
Comparative cost per pupil changed -$2,938 after inflation.
Largest named-line increase: County Tax Levy-Base Budget, up $15,894,974 in 2025 dollars.
Largest named-line decrease: County Tax Levy, down $20,016,176 in 2025 dollars.
Aggregate operating budget changed -$5,119,286 in real terms; read that scale check with the UFB on-roll denominator before treating it as the story.
What one-time notes, balances, or side files matter?
Largest projected balance row: Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capital Reserve at $4.7 million.
Shared-service file lists 13 district-reported entries, with savings often not reported.
The diagnostics compare measures only where enough local peers have usable UFB values. Ranks and gaps are flags for reporting, not judgments about whether the spending is good or bad.
Budget report section
Proposal changes
What changed from revised/current to proposed, and which named rows explain the movement?
Current proposal changes
This section compares the latest UFB revised/current-budget column with the proposed-budget column. It answers what the proposal changes now, before the report turns to long-run inflation-adjusted trends.
+$591KOperating budgetThe proposed operating budget is +$590,901 (1%) versus the revised/current-budget column. The Burlington County average proposal change was 1% of proposed operating-budget scale.
+$1,093Comparative costNJDOE published comparative cost moved +$1,093 per pupil (6%) from the revised/current column to the proposed column. The Burlington County average change was +$196.
-$2.0MLargest revenue rowFederal sources changed -$2,005,893 from revised/current to proposed. Peer average proposal movement for the same row was >-1% of operating scale.
-$2.2MLargest use rowSpecial Revenue Funds changed -$2,196,324 from revised/current to proposed. Peer average proposal movement for the same row was <1% of operating scale.
+26UFB on-rollUFB on-roll planning enrollment changed +26 (1%) from revised/current to proposed. The Burlington County average on-roll proposal change was 5%.
Revenue proposal changes
UFB row
Revised/current
Proposed
Change
Op. equiv.
Peer avg
Federal sourcesUFB line 830
$2,831,812
$825,919
-$2,005,893
-5%
>-1%
Local sourcesUFB line 370
$23,890,238
$24,561,276
+$671,038
2%
4%
State sourcesUFB line 520
$17,382,315
$18,011,280
+$628,965
1%
<1%
Operating budgetUFB line 720
$41,982,411
$42,573,312
+$590,901
1%
1%
Security aidUFB line 470
$308,600
$708,570
+$399,970
<1%
<1%
Equalization aidUFB line 460
$14,726,334
$15,013,125
+$286,791
<1%
>-1%
IDEA Part BUFB line 805
$527,925
$422,340
-$105,585
>-1%
>-1%
Use proposal changes
UFB row
Revised/current
Proposed
Change
Op. equiv.
Peer avg
Special Revenue FundsUFB line 88760
$3,022,243
$825,919
-$2,196,324
-5%
<1%
General current expenseUFB line 72260
$40,319,556
$41,747,602
+$1,428,046
3%
2%
Capital outlayUFB line 76400
$1,476,489
$613,745
-$862,744
-2%
>-1%
Employee benefitsUFB line 71260
$7,535,532
$8,115,626
+$580,094
1%
1%
Regular programs instructionUFB line 3200
$6,969,802
$7,399,946
+$430,144
1%
<1%
Operations and maintenanceUFB line 51120
$6,465,011
$6,588,564
+$123,553
<1%
<1%
Special education instructionUFB line 10300
$2,675,271
$2,635,680
-$39,591
>-1%
<1%
Cost and student rows
UFB row
Revised/current
Proposed
Change
Peer avg
Comparative cost
$17,270
$18,363
+$1,093
+$196
On-roll, full
1,895
1,921
+26
5%
Special education on-roll, full
303
318
+15
2%
Classroom instruction
$9,105
$9,781
+$676
+$135
Classroom salaries and benefits
$8,396
$9,040
+$644
+$114
Operations and maintenance
$3,123
$3,276
+$153
-$15
Extracurricular costs
$847
$962
+$115
+$9
Post-secondary, full
102
0
-102
n/a
Support services
$2,145
$2,241
+$96
+$173
Dollar rows are nominal latest-file dollars, not inflation-adjusted trend dollars. "Op. equiv." is the row change as a share of this district’s proposed operating budget; the peer average uses Burlington County districts with usable rows, so it is a scale comparison rather than an additive accounting bridge. Pupil-cost rows use NJDOE-published per-pupil lines, and enrollment rows are UFB planning enrollment, not fall enrollment.
Proposal package
The material named-row proposal scan has a net reduction of -$9,327,675. The largest family in the package is Other named rows, with $2,040,802 of increases and $5,564,480 of reductions. Reductions in the same scan total $15,623,823 against $6,296,148 of increases.
Budget family
Increases
Reductions
Net scan
Peer net
Largest rows
Other named rows11 material named rows
$2,040,8025% of op. scale
$5,564,48013% of op. scale
-$3,523,678-8 pts of op. scale
+6 ptsBurlington County average
Total Undistributed Expenditures (Appropriation, line 72140, +$740,799)Total Revenues from Federal Sources (Revenue, line 830, -$2,005,893)
Special revenue funds2 material named rows
$00% of op. scale
$4,392,64810% of op. scale
-$4,392,648-10 pts of op. scale
+1 ptBurlington County average
No material increase in this family.Total Special Revenue Funds (Appropriation, line 88760, -$2,196,324)
Federal grants5 material named rows
$00% of op. scale
$2,418,8536% of op. scale
-$2,418,853-6 pts of op. scale
-2 ptsBurlington County average
No material increase in this family.Total Federal Projects (Appropriation, line 88740, -$2,005,893)
Capital, facilities, and debt2 material named rows
$00% of op. scale
$1,511,2914% of op. scale
-$1,511,291-4 pts of op. scale
-2 ptsBurlington County average
No material increase in this family.Total Capital Outlay (Appropriation, line 76400, -$862,744)
General current expense1 material named row
$1,428,0463% of op. scale
$00% of op. scale
+$1,428,046+3 pts of op. scale
+2 ptsBurlington County average
Total General Current Expense (Appropriation, line 72260, +$1,428,046)No material reduction in this family.
Instruction programs7 material named rows
$711,4912% of op. scale
$1,355,6893% of op. scale
-$644,198-2 pts of op. scale
0 ptsBurlington County average
Total Regular Programs-Instruction (Appropriation, line 3200, +$430,144)Vocational Education (Appropriation, line 88640, -$569,814)
State aid4 material named rows
$686,7612% of op. scale
$380,862<1% of op. scale
+$305,899+1 pt of op. scale
+2 ptsBurlington County average
Categorical Security Aid (Revenue, line 470, +$399,970)Total Other State Projects (Appropriation, line 88180, -$190,431)
Transfers and tuition1 material named row
$654,0402% of op. scale
$00% of op. scale
+$654,040+2 pts of op. scale
0 ptsBurlington County average
Tuition from Local Education Authorities (Revenue, line 200, +$654,040)No material reduction in this family.
This panel groups material named UFB proposal-row movement between the revised/current and proposed columns. Dollar changes are nominal latest-file dollars. Increases, reductions, and net scan values are a reporting summary of contextual source rows, not a balanced accounting bridge, because UFB rows can be nested, repeated, subtotals, or outside the operating fund. Peer net is the average same-family net movement as a share of proposed operating budget among Burlington County districts with usable rows.
Named-line proposal drivers
This table scans the latest UFB revenue and appropriation files for named rows that changed between the revised/current-budget and proposed-budget columns. It gives the proposal story row names after the standardized summary rows above.
The largest named increase in this all-line scan is Total General Current Expense, up $1,428,046 in the appropriation file. The largest named reduction is Total Special Revenue Funds, down $2,196,324 in the appropriation file.
UFB row
Revised/current
Proposed
Change
Op. equiv.
Peer avg
Total Special Revenue FundsUse | Subtotal | UFB line 88760 | Acct. '
$3,022,243
$825,919
-$2,196,324
-5%
<1%n=39
Total Grants and EntitlementsRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 840 | Acct. '
$3,022,243
$825,919
-$2,196,324
-5%
<1%n=39
Total Federal ProjectsUse | Subtotal | UFB line 88740 | Acct. '20-XXX-XXX-XX
$2,831,812
$825,919
-$2,005,893
-5%
>-1%n=38
Total Revenues from Federal SourcesRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 830 | Acct. '
$2,831,812
$825,919
-$2,005,893
-5%
>-1%n=38
Total General Current ExpenseUse | Subtotal | UFB line 72260 | Acct. '
$40,319,556
$41,747,602
+$1,428,046
3%
2%n=41
Other (88700)Use | Account row | UFB line 88700 | Acct. '20-XXX-XXX-XX
$1,106,254
$0
-$1,106,254
-3%
>-1%n=13
Other (825)Revenue | Account row | UFB line 825 | Acct. '20-4XXX
$1,106,254
$0
-$1,106,254
-3%
>-1%n=13
Total Capital OutlayUse | Subtotal | UFB line 76400 | Acct. '
$1,476,489
$613,745
-$862,744
-2%
-1%n=39
Total Undistributed ExpendituresUse | Subtotal | UFB line 72140 | Acct. '
$22,591,867
$23,332,666
+$740,799
2%
1%n=41
Adjustment for Prior Year EncumbrancesRevenue | Account row | UFB line 710 | Acct. '
$688,285
$0
-$688,285
-2%
-2%n=35
Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 370 | Acct. '
$23,890,238
$24,561,276
+$671,038
2%
4%n=41
Tuition from Local Education AuthoritiesRevenue | Account row | UFB line 200 | Acct. '10-1310
$7,865,262
$8,519,302
+$654,040
2%
n/a
Total Facilities Acquisition and Construction ServicesUse | Subtotal | UFB line 76260 | Acct. '12-000-400-XX
$1,018,560
$370,013
-$648,547
-2%
-1%n=33
Total Revenues from State SourcesRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 520 | Acct. '
$17,382,315
$18,011,280
+$628,965
1%
<1%n=40
Dollar changes are nominal latest-file dollars. "Op. equiv." is the row change as a share of this district's proposed operating budget. The peer average is the same source row among Burlington County districts with usable changed rows, not a target. Subtotal rows and detail rows can overlap, rows can move because a grant or fund section is being closed out, and these rows are evidence for reporting questions rather than an additive accounting bridge.
Budget report section
Peer evidence
Where does this district sit among local peers, named neighbors, and peer trends?
Local peer evidence
Each strip shows one generated budget measure across Burlington County districts. Gray dots are peer districts, the accent dot is this district, and the dashed mark is the Burlington County average. Each row uses its own scale so the reader can see the local distribution behind the rank and gap; higher values are not automatically better or worse.
Named peer context
These markers name the Burlington County districts around this district, so a rank or average can be checked against specific local districts rather than anonymous dots alone.
Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363Rank 33 of 39; -$3,988 vs Burlington County average.
Each measure keeps its own unit and denominator. "Next higher" and "next lower" mean numerically higher or lower on that measure, not better or worse; links open the named district budget report when available.
Local comparison roster
This roster names 41 rows in the local peer set behind averages and ranks for Burlington County districts. 39 have a usable NJDOE comparative-cost value; this district is 33 of 39 on that published cost line at $18,363.
This is the local comparison universe used elsewhere in this report when the Burlington County average is available. Comparative cost is NJDOE's published per-pupil line, not operating budget divided by enrollment. UFB on-roll is the planning-enrollment denominator, and operating budget is proposed General Fund operating scale; the funding-model column uses proposed General Fund operating revenue shares, not all-funds revenue.
Current operating mix versus peers
These stacked bars put the latest operating-budget composition beside the Burlington County average before the report moves into row-level trends. They answer a narrower question than the cost trend: whether this district funds or uses its operating budget differently from local peers.
Operating revenue sources
State sources: 42% here versus 30% for the county avg, a +13 pts gap.
Local sourcesState sourcesFederal sources
General Fund operating revenue sources, not all-funds revenue or tax bills. Peer bar is the unweighted average among 41 local peer rows with usable latest-year mix data.
High-level operating uses
General current expense: 98% here versus 95% for the county avg, a +3 pts gap.
General current expenseSchool-based budgetingCapital outlay
High-level General Fund appropriation rows; lower-level rows can be nested. Peer bar is the unweighted average among 41 local peer rows with usable latest-year mix data.
All shares use the latest proposed General Fund operating budget as the denominator. The comparison is a local peer benchmark, not a target, adequacy finding, accounting bridge, or proof that any category is discretionary.
Position over time
Measure
First peer gap
Latest peer gap
Gap movement
Comparative cost per pupil
2019-20: -$1,853
2025-26: -$3,988
-$2,135
Support services per pupil
2019-20: -$1,172
2025-26: -$2,304
-$1,131
Operations and maintenance per pupil
2019-20: +$1,033
2025-26: +$686
-$347
Operating budget per UFB on-roll student
2019-20: -$3,153
2025-26: -$6,411
-$3,258
Classroom instruction per pupil
2019-20: -$2,826
2025-26: -$2,919
-$93
Each row tracks this district against the Burlington County average for a selected UFB measure. Money measures are converted to 2025 dollars; percentage measures keep their stated UFB denominators. Rows use independent zoomed axes, so compare the labeled gaps and the table rather than comparing vertical distance across different measures.
Current operating revenue mix
Local sourcesState sourcesFederal sources
This bar shows proposed General Fund operating revenue sources for the latest UFB year. It is not an all-funds revenue mix.
Budget report section
Trends and inflation
After inflation, what changed in scale, per-student cost, funding mix, and named lines?
Budget turning points
The largest surfaced annual turn is the named-row turn in 2024-25 to 2025-26. This table looks at consecutive loaded UFB years, so the question is when a budget signal changed after inflation, versus peers, or against its denominator; ordinary nominal growth stays background.
Turn
Signal
How to read it
Check next
Real per-student cost turn2024-25 to 2025-26
-$1,459Operating budget per UFB on-roll student moved -$1,459 in 2025 dollars. UFB planning on-roll moved +169 students in the same window.
This names the annual period where real operating scale per planning student moved most; it does not prove service quality, efficiency, or program cause.
+$15,483,735Local taxes and local sources moved +$15,483,735 after inflation (+36 pts of operating scale). Largest latest row: County Tax Levy-Base Budget.
This groups selected UFB revenue and appropriation rows into a reporting family. Rows can be nested, so use it as a route to proof, not an additive accounting bridge.
This is a denominator and service-load signal. It can change the per-student read, but it is not by itself proof of service expansion, contraction, or need.
Annual turns compare adjacent loaded User-Friendly Budget years. Money movements are converted to 2025 dollars with BLS CPI-U annual averages; peer gaps use the same local peer trend basis as the position-over-time panel. Mixed units are intentionally kept in a table so source families, named rows, peer gaps, payer mix, and student-load signals are not read as one additive scale.
The latest 2025-26 file does not carry one clean time series. It carries two actual-cost columns, original and revised/current budget columns for the prior budget year, and the proposed-budget column. Compared with the latest actual-cost column (2023-24), the proposed comparative cost is -$1,059 in 2025 dollars. Compared with the revised/current budget column (2024-25), the proposed column is +$1,093 in nominal UFB dollars.
School year
UFB basis
Published comparative cost
2025 dollars
How to use it
2022-23Year 1
Actual cost
$18,036
$19,841
First actual-cost column in the latest UFB file.
2023-24Year 2
Actual cost
$18,382
$19,422
Second actual-cost column in the latest UFB file.
2024-25Year 3
Original budget
$19,342
$19,851
Original budget column for the year before the proposed budget.
2024-25Year 4
Revised/current budget
$17,270
$17,724
Revised or current budget column for the year before the proposed budget.
2025-26Year 5
Proposed budget
$18,363
$18,363
Proposed budget column for the latest UFB year.
These are NJDOE-published comparative-cost rows from the latest UFB file. The 2025-dollar column is an interpretation aid using BLS CPI-U annual averages; it does not turn original, revised/current, and proposed budget columns into audited actual spending, and it should not be mixed with the nominal revised/current-to-proposed proposal tables.
Per-student cost change anatomy
Real operating budget per UFB on-roll fell $4,137 after inflation. The table separates how much came from operating-budget scale versus the planning-enrollment denominator.
-$4,137Per-student movement Operating budget per UFB on-roll moved from $23,152 to $19,014 after inflation.
-$2,485Budget numerator effect Latest real operating dollars against 2019-20 UFB on-roll isolate the budget-size effect.
-$1,652Enrollment denominator effect Switching to 2025-26 UFB on-roll shows whether enrollment amplified or dampened the change.
Local peer gap. Operating per UFB on-roll was -$6,411 versus the Burlington County average in 2025-26; the gap moved -$3,258 since 2019-20.
Arithmetic bridge
Step
Per-student value
Interpretation
Starting point, 2019-20
$23,152
Real operating budget divided by first-year UFB on-roll.
Budget numerator effect
-$2,485
Move to 2025-26 real operating dollars while holding 2019-20 UFB on-roll constant.
Enrollment denominator effect
-$1,652
Then move from 2,060 to 2,239 UFB on-roll students.
Ending point, 2025-26
$19,014
The district’s latest real operating budget per UFB on-roll student.
Underlying measures
Measure
2019-20
2025-26
Change
Operating budget
$47,692,598
$42,573,312
-$5,119,286 -11%
UFB on-roll planning enrollment
2,060
2,239
+179 9%
Operating per UFB on-roll
$23,152
$19,014
-$4,137
Burlington County average op. per UFB on-roll
$26,305
$25,425
-$880
NJDOE comparative cost per pupil
$21,301
$18,363
-$2,938
Named rows to check against the numerator
The numerator effect is a net scale check. These are the largest inflation-adjusted named UFB row movements to inspect against it; rows can be contextual or nested.
UFB row
2019-20
2025-26
Real change
County Tax LevyRevenue
$20,016,176
$0
-$20,016,176
County Tax Levy-Base BudgetRevenue
$0
$15,894,974
+$15,894,974
Total Tax LevyRevenue
$0
$15,894,974
+$15,894,974
Total Personal Services-Employee BenefitsAppropriation
$9,962,047
$8,115,626
-$1,846,421
This is arithmetic decomposition, not causal modeling. It uses proposed operating budget converted to 2025 dollars and UFB on-roll planning enrollment. Operating budget per UFB on-roll is a scale check; it does not replace NJDOE’s published comparative-cost line, and UFB planning enrollment can differ from fall enrollment.
Operating funding shift
Operating-source movement is mixed. State sources moved from 39% to 42% of proposed operating funding, +3 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The largest real-dollar source movement was local sources, -$4,536,322 after inflation. In the latest file, the biggest local peer gap was state sources, +13 pts versus the Burlington County average.
Mixed shiftFunding-model signalClassification from first-to-latest operating-source share movement.
+3 ptsLargest share movementState sources, share of proposed operating budget.
-$4,536,322Largest real-dollar movementLocal sources, converted to 2025 dollars.
+13 ptsLatest local peer gapState sources, this district minus the Burlington County average.
Local sourcesState sourcesFederal sourcesFund balance / other
Operating source
2019-20 share
2025-26 share
Share move
Real source move
Burlington County average
Latest peer gap
State sources
39%
42%
+3 pts
-$548,097
30%
+13 pts
Local sources
61%
58%
-3 pts
-$4,536,322
63%
-5 pts
Federal sources
<1%
<1%
0 pts
-$34,868
2%
-2 pts
Fund balance / other
0%
0%
0 pts
$0
<1%
-1 pt
Operating revenue here means General Fund operating revenue in the UFB summary, not all-funds revenue. Shares use each UFB year's proposed operating budget as the denominator; real-dollar movement converts source dollars to 2025 dollars with CPI-U. The fund balance / other bucket is a funding-model signal, while named fund-balance, reserve, and carryover source rows are separated in the source-history panel below.
Loaded-year budget ledger
From 2019-20 to 2025-26, operating budget -$5,119,286; operating per on-roll -$4,137 in 2025 dollars.
Year
Operating budget
UFB on-roll
Op./on-roll
Peer op./on-roll
Comparative cost
Peer comp. cost
Funding mix
Largest use
2019-20
$47,692,598
2,060
$23,152
$26,305
$21,301
$23,154
local 61% / state 39%
General current expense 98%
2020-21
$47,825,296
2,115
$22,612
$26,410
$20,831
$23,162
local 61% / state 39%
General current expense 98%
2021-22
$46,338,958
2,175
$21,305
$26,493
$19,786
$23,153
local 60% / state 40%
General current expense 99%
2022-23
$45,180,039
2,175
$20,772
$26,043
$19,351
$22,591
local 58% / state 40%
General current expense 94%
2023-24
$43,100,793
2,036
$21,169
$25,567
$19,908
$21,989
local 58% / state 42%
General current expense 97%
2024-25
$42,380,685
2,070
$20,474
$25,726
$19,851
$22,396
local 58% / state 42%
General current expense 99%
2025-26
$42,573,312
2,239
$19,014
$25,425
$18,363
$22,351
local 58% / state 42%
General current expense 98%
Money columns are converted to 2025 dollars using BLS CPI-U annual averages. Peer columns use the Burlington County average when at least six local peer districts have usable UFB rows for that year. On-roll is UFB planning enrollment, not fall enrollment; UFB year columns mix actual-cost, revised/original-budget, and proposed-budget bases.
Fund balance and reserve source history
Latest named source rows total $0, 0% of operating-budget scale. For scale, local, state, and federal operating-revenue summaries excluding the other/fund-balance bucket equal 100% of operating-budget scale. The named-source-row scale is -6 pts versus the Burlington County average.
Budgeted fund balance
How much of the operating budget is supported by prior-year balance?
Latest source$00% op. equiv.Peer avg5%-5 pts vs peersProposal moven/an/a vs currentReal movement$00 pts op. shift
Latest source rowLine 580; latest proposed $0
Budgeted fund balance is a planned source row. It is not, by itself, proof of a structural deficit or a cash-balance claim.
Rows are named UFB revenue-source rows for fund balance, reserve withdrawals, and carryover. They are contextual source rows, not audited cash, recurring revenue, an additive funding bridge, or proof of structural imbalance. Latest source and peer average are scaled to each district's proposed operating budget. Proposal movement uses the latest UFB current/revised and proposed columns. Real movement compares 2019-20 with 2025-26 in 2025 dollars, with operating-equivalent shares using each year's proposed operating budget. Peer avg is the Burlington County average where at least six local peer districts have usable revenue rows.
Named-line history evidence
County Tax Levy
Revenue row · fell to no positive latest-year row
2019-20$20.0M42% op.
2020-21$19.8M41% op.
2021-22$18.9M41% op.
2022-23$17.5M39% op.
2023-24$16.8M39% op.
2024-25$16.3M38% op.
2025-26$00% op.
County Tax Levy-Base Budget
Revenue row · appeared after the first loaded year
2019-20$00% op.
2020-21$00% op.
2021-22$00% op.
2022-23$00% op.
2023-24$00% op.
2024-25$00% op.
2025-26$15.9M37% op.
Total Tax Levy
Revenue row · appeared after the first loaded year
2019-20$00% op.
2020-21$00% op.
2021-22$00% op.
2022-23$00% op.
2023-24$00% op.
2024-25$00% op.
2025-26$15.9M37% op.
Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits
Appropriation row · mostly falling in real dollars
2019-20$10.0M21% op.
2020-21$9.6M20% op.
2021-22$9.7M21% op.
2022-23$9.1M20% op.
2023-24$8.7M20% op.
2024-25$8.7M20% op.
2025-26$8.1M19% op.
Total Regular Programs-Instruction
Appropriation row · mostly rising in real dollars
2019-20$6.7M14% op.
2020-21$7.0M15% op.
2021-22$7.2M15% op.
2022-23$7.0M16% op.
2023-24$6.9M16% op.
2024-25$7.4M17% op.
2025-26$7.4M17% op.
Equalization Aid
Revenue row · changed unevenly across the loaded years
2019-20$16.7M35% op.
2020-21$16.5M35% op.
2021-22$16.5M36% op.
2022-23$16.1M36% op.
2023-24$15.6M36% op.
2024-25$15.1M36% op.
2025-26$15.0M35% op.
Rows are selected from the strongest contextual named-line movers in this district report. Amounts are converted to 2025 dollars; the smaller note in each year is the row as a share of that year's proposed operating budget. A $0 cell means the source row had no positive proposed amount in that loaded UFB year. Rows are source-file evidence and can be nested, so they should not be added together.
Operating revenue mix over time
Local sourcesState sourcesFund balance / other
Each stacked bar shows operating revenue sources as a share of that UFB year’s proposed operating budget. The categories are operating-fund sources, not all-funds revenue. UFB year columns mix actual-cost, revised/original-budget, and proposed-budget bases, so use the bars as a structural trend, not an audited year-over-year bridge.
Operating use mix over time
General current expenseCapital outlay
Each stacked bar shows high-level General Fund appropriation rows as shares of that UFB year’s proposed operating budget. The chart uses only rows that can be treated as high-level operating uses; detailed rows below are nested and non-additive. UFB year columns mix actual-cost, revised/original-budget, and proposed-budget bases, so use the bars as a structural trend, not an audited year-over-year bridge.
This districtBurlington County average
Budget report section
Categories and lines
Which spending categories, budget families, and source rows are large or unusual?
Budget family context matrix
Largest current family signal: General current expense, $41,747,602 or 98% of operating-budget scale. Largest real movement: Local taxes and local sources, +$11,757,324 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Widest peer gap: Instruction programs, 12 pts above the Burlington County average.
Family and source row
Latest scale
Peer gap
Real movement
Local taxes and local sources3 latest rowsLargest latest rowCounty Tax Levy-Base BudgetRevenue line 110 · $15,894,974
75%$31,874,948
+12 ptspeer avg 63%
+$11,757,324+33 pts op. shift
General current expense1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal General Current ExpenseAppropriation line 72260 · $41,747,602
State aid4 latest rowsLargest latest rowEqualization AidRevenue line 460 · $15,013,125
42%$18,012,036
+6 ptspeer avg 36%
-$810,329+3 pts op. shift
Administration and central services4 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Support Services-School AdministrationAppropriation line 46160 · $1,790,560
10%$4,240,812
+4 ptspeer avg 6%
-$3,501,261-6 pts op. shift
Employee benefits1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Personal Services-Employee BenefitsAppropriation line 71260 · $8,115,626
19%$8,115,626
+2 ptspeer avg 17%
-$1,846,421-2 pts op. shift
Transfers and tuition1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTuition from Local Education AuthoritiesRevenue line 200 · $8,519,302
20%$8,519,302
+5 ptspeer avg 15%
-$424,153+1 pt op. shift
Plant, operations, and maintenance1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant ServicesAppropriation line 51120 · $6,588,564
15%$6,588,564
+7 ptspeer avg 9%
-$290,998+1 pt op. shift
Special revenue funds2 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Special Revenue FundsAppropriation line 88760 · $825,919
4%$1,651,838
-11 ptspeer avg 15%
-$1,413,134-3 pts op. shift
Special education and student supports6 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Special Education-InstructionAppropriation line 10300 · $2,635,680
13%$5,388,742
-6 ptspeer avg 18%
-$492,5370 pts op. shift
This matrix ranks the highest-signal UFB families for this district. Latest scale is 2025-26 source-row dollars divided by proposed operating budget; peer gap uses the same denominator against the Burlington County average; real movement compares 2019-20 with 2025-26 in 2025 dollars. Bars are scaled separately within each metric column. Families are contextual, nested source-row groups, not an additive accounting schedule.
Named family peer context
This names the local districts nearest this district on selected source-family shares, so category claims can be checked against specific peers rather than only the Burlington County average.
Family and source row
This district
Named local checks
Local range
Local taxes and local sourcesHow much of the budget story is local levy, tuition, fees, or miscellaneous local revenue?County Tax Levy-Base BudgetRevenue line 110; $15,894,974
75%$31,874,948; rank 18 of 41+12 pts vs Burlington County average (63%)
Evesham Twp91% to North Hanover Twp12%Mostly revenue-file rows. Tax levy is merged across label variants where the source changed names.
Instruction programsWhich classroom or instructional program rows define the core spending structure?Total Regular Programs-InstructionAppropriation line 3200; $7,399,946
40%$17,036,920; rank 1 of 41+12 pts vs Burlington County average (28%)
North Hanover Twp101% to Burlington Co Spec Serv0%Includes aid rows other than preschool-specific rows, which are separated because they often move as a program block.
General current expenseHow much of the operating story sits in the broad current-expense row before lower-level categories are inspected?Total General Current ExpenseAppropriation line 72260; $41,747,602
98%$41,747,602; rank 21 of 41+3 pts vs Burlington County average (95%)
Bass River Twp100% to Burlington City42%General current expense is a high-level operating row; lower-level rows inside it can overlap and should not be added back to it.
Transfers and tuitionDo charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story?Tuition from Local Education AuthoritiesRevenue line 200; $8,519,302
20%$8,519,302; rank 9 of 41+5 pts vs Burlington County average (15%)
Shares use 2025-26 source-family dollars divided by each district’s proposed operating budget. "Next higher" and "next lower" are numerically higher or lower on that same share, not better or worse. Families are contextual, nested UFB source-row groups, so read named peers as reporting checks rather than an additive accounting schedule.
Category history and peer scale
Instruction tuition sits 11 pts below the Burlington County average. General current expense changed -$5,140,954 in real dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
Budget category
Layer
Latest amount
Latest op. equiv.
Peer avg
Share change
Real $ change
General current expense
High-level operating use
$41,747,602
98%
95%
0 pts
-$5,140,954
School-based budgeting
High-level operating use
$0
0%
3%
0 pts
$0
Capital outlay
High-level operating use
$613,745
1%
2%
0 pts
-$32,887
Special schools
High-level operating use
$211,965
<1%
<1%
0 pts
+$54,555
Core instruction rows
Nested cost row
$16,660,431
39%
33%
+6 pts
+$631,040
Student supports and services
Nested cost row
$2,699,692
6%
9%
0 pts
-$380,282
Instruction tuition
Nested cost row
$0
0%
11%
0 pts
$0
Administration and central services
Nested cost row
$4,240,812
10%
6%
-6 pts
-$3,501,261
Operations and maintenance
Nested cost row
$6,588,564
15%
9%
+1 pt
-$290,998
Student transportation
Nested cost row
$534,375
1%
6%
0 pts
-$112,910
Employee benefits
Nested cost row
$8,115,626
19%
17%
-2 pts
-$1,846,421
Special Revenue Funds
Outside-operating scale
$825,919
2%
7%
-1 pt
-$706,567
Debt Service Funds
Outside-operating scale
$0
0%
3%
0 pts
$0
Rows mix high-level operating uses, nested lower-level cost rows, and outside-operating scale rows, so do not add them. Latest op. equiv., peer avg, and share change use proposed operating budget as the denominator. Real-dollar change is from 2019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars. Peer avg is the Burlington County average where at least six local peer districts have usable UFB rows.
Budget family lens
Largest family-level source-row signal: General current expense, $41,747,602 or 98% of operating-budget scale. Largest first-to-latest real movement: Local taxes and local sources, +$11,757,324 in 2025 dollars. Widest local peer gap: Preschool, 13 pts below the Burlington County average on the same operating-scale basis.
Local taxes and local sources
How much of the budget story is local levy, tuition, fees, or miscellaneous local revenue?
Largest latest rowTotal EquipmentAppropriation line 75880 · '12-XXX-XXX-73 · $223,732
A catch-all for contextual rows that do not fit the named families above.
This groups contextual UFB revenue and appropriation rows into the same reader-facing families used by the statewide budget explorer. Latest scale uses 2025-26 proposed source-row dollars divided by proposed operating budget; real movement compares 2019-20 with 2025-26 in 2025 dollars. Peer avg is the Burlington County average where at least six local peer districts have usable UFB rows. Families are reporting lenses over nested source rows, not additive accounting schedules.
Budget lines that moved
UFB row
Type
2019-20
2025-26
Real change
Op. share change
County Tax Levy
Revenue
$20,016,176
$0
-$20,016,176
-42 pts
County Tax Levy-Base Budget
Revenue
$0
$15,894,974
+$15,894,974
+37 pts
Total Tax Levy
Revenue
$0
$15,894,974
+$15,894,974
+37 pts
Total Undistributed Expenditures
Appropriation
$29,429,312
$23,332,666
-$6,096,646
-7 pts
Total Revenues from Local Sources
Revenue
$29,097,598
$24,561,276
-$4,536,322
-3 pts
Total General Current Expense
Appropriation
$46,888,556
$41,747,602
-$5,140,954
0 pts
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Central Services
Appropriation
$3,656,759
$1,022,398
-$2,634,361
-5 pts
Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits
Appropriation
$9,962,047
$8,115,626
-$1,846,421
-2 pts
Total Regular Programs-Instruction
Appropriation
$6,733,551
$7,399,946
+$666,395
+3 pts
Total Revenues from State Sources
Revenue
$18,559,377
$18,011,280
-$548,097
+3 pts
Ranked contextual UFB revenue and appropriation rows by movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Amounts are inflation-adjusted to 2025 dollars using BLS CPI-U annual averages. Rows are selected and often nested, so they do not add to a complete budget; the UFB year columns also mix actual-cost, revised/original-budget, and proposed-budget bases.
Budget report section
Costs and students
Which denominator, service-load, need, labor, and pupil-cost rows change the per-student read?
Cost basis reconciliation
The main per-student cost bases point the same way: NJDOE comparative cost is $18,363, $3,988 below the Burlington County average, and operating budget per UFB on-roll is $19,014, $6,411 below the Burlington County average. The table still keeps the published cost line, operating scale checks, all-funds context, and tax-levy pressure separate.
Per-student basis
This district
Local peer read
What it means
NJDOE comparative cost per pupil
$18,363
$3,988 below the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: $22,351; rank 33 of 39.
Published NJDOE comparative-cost line. The report does not recompute it from operating dollars or enrollment.
Operating budget per UFB on-roll
$19,014
$6,411 below the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: $25,425; rank 35 of 39.
Proposed General Fund operating budget divided by UFB planning on-roll. This is a scale check, not the NJDOE comparative-cost line.
Operating budget per fall-enrolled student
$18,406
$6,398 below the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: $24,804; rank 38 of 41.
Proposed operating budget divided by NJDOE fall enrollment on the district profile. The local average is aggregate-weighted so tiny fall denominators do not dominate; this does not replace NJDOE’s cost metric.
Tax levy per UFB on-roll
$7,099
$6,547 below the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: $13,646; rank 36 of 39.
Local funding pressure per planning student. This is not a spending-cost metric and is not tax-bill advice.
Use this panel before comparing per-pupil figures: the same district can look high, low, or ordinary depending on whether the report is using NJDOE comparative cost, operating budget, fall enrollment, all-funds totals, or tax levy.
Student flow and money path
The budget route map puts the cost question into reader terms: general current expense is the main operating route at 98% of the proposed operating budget. Dollar rows use operating-budget shares; student-flow rows use UFB planning-enrollment shares, so the table keeps the evidence separate instead of adding it together.
Path
Latest scale
Local peer read
Read as
General current expense
$41.7 million (98% of operating)
3 pts above the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: 95%; rank 21 of 41.
The broad district-run operating base. Lower-level instructional, support, benefits, operations, and administrative rows can sit inside or beside this accounting path.
School-based budgeting
no positive latest row
3 pts below the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: 3%; rank 3 of 41.
A published school-resource allocation path, where present. It is not an added cost on top of the same operating budget without reading the source rows.
Charter / Renaissance transfers
no positive latest row
near the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: <1%; rank 27 of 41.
Operating dollars routed to charter or Renaissance rows. Read beside resident enrollment, district-run enrollment, and charter/Renaissance context before making a classroom-spending claim.
Special-education planning load
318 (14% of UFB on-roll)
4 pts below the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: 18%; rank 34 of 39.
A UFB planning-enrollment load, not a fall-enrollment count. Use with pupil-cost rows, tuition, transportation, staffing, and services before assigning a cost gap to one cause.
This panel is a reporting map for Burlington County districts comparisons: dollar paths use proposed General Fund operating-budget scale, while service paths use UFB planning-enrollment rows. It does not claim that these rows add to one total.
Fall enrollment and student need
This section keeps the student denominator beside the budget rows: UFB planning enrollment, fall enrollment, per-student scale checks, and latest fall-enrollment need rows for the same local peer frame.
$18,406Fall-student scaleOperating budget per fall-enrolled student is $6,398 below the Burlington County average. Local rank is 38 of 41.
-74Enrollment basisUFB planning on-roll is 2,239, while fall enrollment is 2,313. Cost rows in the UFB report use planning-enrollment bases; the fall row is context for the students counted on the district profile.
43%Student needThe free/reduced-price lunch share is 43% of fall enrollment, +11 pts versus the Burlington County average. Local rank is 14 of 42.
Denominator context
Measure
This district
Local context
Read as
Fall enrollment
2,313
3% of peer fall enrollment
NJDOE fall enrollment count used on the district profile.
UFB planning on-roll
2,239
97% of fall enrollment
-74 versus fall
Operating budget per UFB on-roll
$19,014
$25,425
$6,411 below the Burlington County average
Operating budget per fall-enrolled student
$18,406
$24,804
$6,398 below the Burlington County average
Student-need context
Fall row
Count
Share
Local avg / rank
Gap
Free/reduced-price lunch
984
43%
31% · rank 14 of 42
+11 pts
Multilingual learners
39
2%
4% · rank 28 of 41
-2 pts
Students experiencing homelessness
16
<1%
<1% · rank 22 of 39
0 pts
Fall rows come from NJDOE Fall Enrollment; UFB on-roll rows come from the NJDOE User-Friendly Budget enrollment file. Operating budget per fall-enrolled student is a scale check for interpretation, not a replacement for NJDOE's published comparative-cost measure.
Service-load and denominator history
Latest UFB planning on-roll is 2,239. From 2019-20 to 2025-26, that denominator changed +179 (+8.7%). Latest planning-load shares: special education 14% of UFB on-roll. Largest latest service-load category: Special-education on-roll, 14% of on-roll. Largest count movement: Special-education on-roll, -42.
Special-education on-roll
How much of the UFB planning denominator is special education?
Latest load31814% of on-rollPeer avg18%-4 pts vs peersCount movement-42-3 pts on-roll shift
Latest source rowsfull: 318
This is a planning-enrollment row, not a fall enrollment special-education count.
Sent placements
How many students are budgeted outside the district-run setting?
Latest load00% of on-rollPeer avg5%-5 pts vs peersCount movement+00 pts on-roll shift
Receiving rows can make resident-based cost comparisons misleading without tuition and service context.
Rows use the UFB budget-enrollment planning file across loaded years, not NJDOE fall enrollment. Latest load and peer average are scaled to each district's UFB planning on-roll. Count movement compares 2019-20 with 2025-26. Peer avg is the Burlington County average where at least six local peer districts have usable planning rows. These rows explain the cost denominator and service-load context; they do not replace NJDOE's published comparative-cost measure.
Labor, benefits, and listed salaries
This section pulls together salary-bearing pupil-cost rows, the employee-benefits appropriation row, and the selected administrative salary side file so labor-cost signals can be read before the raw source tables.
$922,208Administrative salary fileThe UFB salary side file lists 8 selected administrative base-salary rows; highest listed role is Assistant Superintendent at $168,100.
$9,040Salary-bearing cost rowClassroom salaries and benefits is $2,606 below the Burlington County average.
19%Benefits rowEmployee benefits are 19% of operating-budget scale, 2 pts above the Burlington County average; local rank 10 of 39.
33.05%Benefit loadNJDOE reports benefits at 33.05% of salaries, 1 pt below the Burlington County average.
Salary and benefit pupil-cost rows
NJDOE pupil-cost row
This district
Peer avg
Gap
Classroom salaries and benefits
$9,040
$11,646
-$2,606
Support services salaries and benefits
$1,995
$3,481
-$1,486
Operations and maintenance salaries and benefits
$1,340
$1,164
+$176
Administration salaries and benefits
$1,244
$1,594
-$350
Benefits as % of salaries
33.05%
35.75%
-3 pts
Operating and side-file context
Measure
This district
Local context
Read as
Employee benefits appropriation row
$8.1 million · 19%
18% peer avg; 2 pts above the Burlington County average
Named UFB appropriation row, scaled to the operating budget.
Benefits as a share of salaries
33.05%
34% peer avg; 1 pt below the Burlington County average
NJDOE pupil-cost row, not an appropriation amount.
Listed administrative base salaries
$922,208 · $412 per UFB on-roll
$722 peer avg; rank 28 of 39
8 selected UFB salary rows.
Highest listed administrative base salary
$168,100
$190,841 peer avg; rank 27 of 39
Assistant Superintendent
Salary and benefits rows can overlap with broader NJDOE pupil-cost totals and nested UFB appropriation rows. Administrative salary rows are selected UFB-listed roles with district-reported FTE/shared-service fields; they are not full payroll and should not be added to pupil-cost salary rows. Peer averages use Burlington County districts with usable latest-year UFB rows.
Pupil-cost category movement
NJDOE comparative cost moved -$2,938 per pupil after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The largest CPI-adjusted standardized pupil-cost row movement was administrative costs, -$1,000 per pupil from 2019-20 to 2025-26. In the latest file, the largest local peer gap among these rows was classroom instruction, -$2,919 versus the Burlington County average.
-$2,938Comparative-cost movementNJDOE’s published comparative-cost line, converted to real dollars across loaded UFB years.
-$1,000Largest category movementAdministrative costs, after CPI adjustment.
-$2,919Largest latest peer gapClassroom instruction, below the Burlington County average.
NJDOE pupil-cost row
2019-20 real
2025-26 real
Real movement
Burlington County average
Latest gap
Administrative costs
$3,065
$2,065
-$1,000
$2,040
+$25
Classroom instruction
$10,633
$9,781
-$852
$12,700
-$2,919
Support services
$2,836
$2,241
-$595
$4,545
-$2,304
Classroom salaries and benefits
$9,633
$9,040
-$593
$11,646
-$2,606
Operations and maintenance
$3,787
$3,276
-$511
$2,590
+$686
Classroom supplies and textbooks
$368
$235
-$133
$392
-$157
Classroom purchased services
$632
$506
-$126
$662
-$156
Extracurricular costs
$900
$962
+$62
$392
+$570
Legal costs
$86
$102
+$16
$60
+$42
Equipment costs
$93
$100
+$7
$233
-$133
First-to-latest movement uses NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows converted to 2025 dollars with CPI-U. The Burlington County average and latest gap columns use latest-year UFB per-pupil values for the same rows. Several rows are subcomponents of broader totals, so this is a category-movement screen, not an additive budget bridge.
NJDOE pupil-cost breakdown
Pupil-cost line
This district
Burlington County average
Gap
Classroom instruction
$9,781
$12,700
-$2,919
Classroom salaries and benefits
$9,040
$11,646
-$2,606
Support services
$2,241
$4,545
-$2,304
Operations and maintenance
$3,276
$2,590
+$686
Administrative costs
$2,065
$2,040
+$25
Classroom purchased services
$506
$662
-$156
Classroom supplies and textbooks
$235
$392
-$157
Extracurricular costs
$962
$392
+$570
Equipment costs
$100
$233
-$133
Legal costs
$102
$60
+$42
Pupil-cost rows are NJDOE-published per-pupil figures for the proposed budget year, not amounts divided by enrollment on this page.
Budget enrollment and placements
UFB enrollment row
Count
Share of on-roll
On-roll, full
1,921
86%
Special education on-roll, full
318
14%
These are UFB budget-enrollment planning rows, not the fall enrollment counts used elsewhere on the profile.
Budget report section
Comparison matrix
Which tax basis, tax effort, averages, ranks, and gaps shape the comparison?
Tax effort and tax base
Mixed tax context. Tax levy per UFB on-roll was $7,099, -$6,547 versus the Burlington County average.
MixedTax-context signalGenerated from UFB tax levy, planning enrollment, and estimated tax-rate side rows.
$7,099Levy per UFB on-roll-$6,547 versus Burlington County average; rank 36 of 39.
Measure
This district
Burlington County average
Gap
Local rank
Basis
Tax levy per UFB on-roll
$7,099
$13,646
-$6,547
36 of 39
UFB summary tax levy divided by UFB on-roll planning enrollment.
Tax levy / operating budget
37%
58%
-21 pts
31 of 41
UFB summary tax levy divided by proposed operating budget.
Municipal rate spread
0
0.0127
-0.0127
6 of 41
Highest minus lowest plausible estimated rate across municipal/regional slices.
Tax levy per UFB on-roll comes from the UFB summary tax levy and planning enrollment. Estimated tax rates and equalized values come from the UFB esttax side file, use plausible rate rows only, and are shown per $100 of valuation. This is tax-base context for budget reporting, not tax-bill advice or audited property-tax data.
Budget measures that stand out locally
Measure
This district
Peer avg
Gap
Rank
Support services per pupil
$2,241
$4,323
-$2,082
39 of 41
Tax levy per UFB on-roll student
$7,099
$13,646
-$6,547
36 of 39
Listed admin base salaries per UFB on-roll student
$412
$722
-$311
28 of 39
Operations and maintenance per pupil
$3,276
$2,464
+$812
5 of 41
Operating budget per UFB on-roll student
$19,014
$25,425
-$6,411
35 of 39
Tax levy as operating-budget equivalent
37%
58%
-21 pts
31 of 41
Classroom instruction per pupil
$9,781
$12,080
-$2,299
36 of 41
Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363
$22,351
-$3,988
33 of 39
Peer averages and ranks compare against Burlington County districts with usable values for the same 2025-26 UFB measure. Rank is ordered from highest value to lowest value; higher is not automatically better or worse.
UFB lines unlike local peers
Largest line-item differences: County Tax Levy-Base Budget is 37%, +36 pts versus the peer average; Total Tax Levy is 37%, -21 pts versus the peer average.
UFB row
File
Amount
Op. equiv.
Peer avg
Gap
Rank
County Tax Levy-Base Budget
Revenue
$15,894,974
37%
1%
+36 pts
1 of 41
Total Tax Levy
Revenue
$15,894,974
37%
58%
-21 pts
31 of 41
Tuition from Local Education Authorities
Revenue
$8,519,302
20%
2%
+18 pts
2 of 41
Equalization Aid
Revenue
$15,013,125
35%
20%
+16 pts
12 of 41
Total Vocational Programs
Appropriation
$6,477,864
15%
<1%
+15 pts
1 of 41
Total Revenues from State Sources
Revenue
$18,011,280
42%
30%
+13 pts
13 of 41
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition)
Appropriation
$0
0%
11%
-11 pts
40 of 41
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services
Appropriation
$6,588,564
15%
9%
+7 pts
1 of 41
Total State Projects
Appropriation
$0
0%
6%
-6 pts
31 of 41
Total Preschool Education Aid
Appropriation
$0
0%
6%
-6 pts
28 of 41
Total Special Revenue Funds
Appropriation
$825,919
2%
7%
-5 pts
30 of 41
Total Grants and Entitlements
Revenue
$825,919
2%
7%
-5 pts
30 of 41
This scans contextual revenue and appropriation rows against Burlington County districts with usable 2025-26 UFB data. The operating-equivalent columns use each district’s proposed operating budget as a scale reference; peer-common rows missing from this district are treated as $0 so absences can surface. Rows remain nested and non-additive.
Budget comparison matrix
Measure
This district
Burlington County average
Local rank
NJ avg
NJ rank
Comparative cost per pupil
$18,363
$22,351
33 of 39
$23,591
517 of 566
Operating budget per UFB on-roll student
$19,014
$25,425
35 of 39
$39,253
555 of 578
Tax levy per UFB on-roll student
$7,099
$13,646
36 of 39
$17,835
509 of 566
Local operating revenue share
58%
63%
27 of 41
69%
429 of 595
State operating revenue share
42%
30%
13 of 40
25%
121 of 574
Federal operating revenue share
<1%
1%
28 of 30
<1%
343 of 386
Fund balance / other operating revenue share
0%
6%
39 of 41
7%
572 of 595
Employee benefits share
19%
18%
10 of 39
17%
210 of 586
Operations and maintenance share
15%
9%
1 of 41
9%
11 of 587
Student transportation share
1%
6%
40 of 41
6%
559 of 592
Special Revenue Funds equivalent
2%
8%
30 of 40
7%
382 of 585
Special-education on-roll planning share
14%
18%
34 of 39
18%
364 of 576
Classroom instruction per pupil
$9,781
$12,080
36 of 41
$13,434
543 of 569
Support services per pupil
$2,241
$4,323
39 of 41
$4,329
553 of 569
Operations and maintenance per pupil
$3,276
$2,464
5 of 41
$2,879
133 of 569
Administrative costs per pupil
$2,065
$1,941
17 of 41
$2,270
351 of 569
Listed admin base salaries per UFB on-roll student
$412
$722
28 of 39
$1,366
461 of 575
Highest listed admin base salary
$168,100
$190,841
27 of 39
$199,341
444 of 580
Averages and ranks use districts with usable values for the same latest UFB year. Ranks run from highest value to lowest value, so rank 1 is not automatically better or worse.
Budget report section
Budget anatomy
How do operating sources, operating uses, all-funds totals, grants, and debt fit together?
Budget anatomy
Money in
Row
Amount
Op. share
Local sources
$24.6 million
58%
State sources
$18.0 million
42%
Federal sources
$756
<1%
Operating uses
Row
Amount
Op. share
General current expense
$41.7 million
98%
Capital outlay
$613,745
1%
Special schools
$211,965
<1%
All-funds and outside-operating rows
Row
Amount
Op. equiv.
All-funds net above operating
$825,919
2%
Federal projects
$825,919
2%
Special Revenue Funds
$825,919
2%
Facilities acquisition and construction
$370,013
<1%
This anatomy starts with the proposed operating budget as the common denominator. The outside-operating column uses the same denominator only as a scale reference; those rows can include grants, debt service, capital, and nested fund sections. The dynamic tables below scan 20 positive revenue rows and 38 positive appropriation rows; 32 changed revenue rows and 52 changed appropriation rows from the latest UFB files.
Budget report section
Side files
Which tax, balance, reserve, unusual-item, shared-service, school-resource, or salary rows matter?
Side-file history
UFB year
Tax file
Balances / reserves
Notes / shared services
Resource / salary files
2019-20
n/a
Restricted--General Operating Budget: Capit... $2.9 million
14 shared-service rows
6 admin salary rows · $750,210
2020-21
n/a
Restricted--General Operating Budget: Capit... $2.9 million
18 shared-service rows
7 admin salary rows · $877,665
2021-22
n/a
Restricted--General Operating Budget: Capit... $2.9 million
Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capita... $3.5 million
13 shared-service rows
7 admin salary rows · $923,441
2024-25
n/a
Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capita... $3.5 million
11 shared-service rows
9 admin salary rows · $1.1 million
2025-26
levy $15.9 million
Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capita... $4.7 million
13 shared-service rows
8 admin salary rows · $922,208
This table summarizes UFB side files across loaded years so latest-year tax, balance, unusual-item, shared-service, school-resource, and salary rows can be read in context. Recap rows, shared-service savings, and salary files are district-reported context rows, not audited operating totals.
Balance and reserve history
Latest projected close-year balances total $7,399,109, 17% of operating-budget scale. After inflation, total projected balance changed +$3,370,625 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Restricted or named-reserve rows account for 77% of the latest projected balance. Largest latest category: Capital reserve, $4,708,525. Largest real movement: Unrestricted operating balance, +$1,376,727.
Capital reserve
How much balance is set aside for capital projects or capital expenses?
Largest latest recap rowNo positive latest-year recap row.
Emergency reserve rows are close-year balances and should not be stacked with operating uses.
Recap rows are UFB projected balances at the close of the budget year, not operating appropriations or a spendable-cash claim. Tiny placeholder rows below $1,000 are suppressed. Money movement compares 2019-20 with 2025-26 in 2025 dollars, and operating-equivalent shares use each year's proposed operating budget. Peer avg is the Burlington County average where at least six local peer districts have usable recap rows.
Taxes, reserves, and balances
Balances projected at year-end
Recap category
Projected
Vs prior audited
Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capital Reserve
$4.7 million
+$40,000
Unrestricted-General Operating Budget
$1.7 million
$0
Restricted-General Operating Budget: Unemployment Fund
$699,895
$0
Restricted-Special Revenue Fund: Scholarship Fund
$255,243
$0
Tax rates are NJDOE estimated school-tax-rate rows per $100 of valuation. Balance rows come from the UFB recapitulation file; the projected column is the estimated balance at the close of the budget year, not a spendable operating line.
Unusual items and shared-service profile
The shared-service file lists 13 arrangements with no dollar savings reported, 0 pts versus the Burlington County average; peer average 10.3 rows. Most visible shared-service category: business services.
Shared-service categories
Category
Rows / savings
Example arrangement
Business servicesAre business-office services shared or consolidated?
4 rowsno savings reported
Business ServicesAdministrative Assistant to the Business Administrator
Other staffingAre non-leadership staffing arrangements listed as shared services?
4 rowsno savings reported
Staffing - OtherAssistant Director of Security
Technology servicesAre technology services shared rather than separately staffed or contracted?
2 rowsno savings reported
Technology ServicesIT Secretary
Transportation shared servicesAre transportation arrangements part of the cost story?
1 rowno savings reported
Transportation Services, including FuelTransportation Employees
Custodial, maintenance, and facilitiesDo facilities or maintenance arrangements explain part of operations spending?
1 rowno savings reported
Custodial and Maintenance ServicesDirector of Facilities
Food, nursing, and student servicesAre food, nursing, social-worker, psychologist, or student services shared?
1 rowno savings reported
Food ServicesCafeteria
This panel classifies the latest UFB unusual-item and shared-service side files using the same reporting categories as the statewide budget explorer. Positive unusual-item dollars can duplicate named revenue or appropriation rows elsewhere in the budget. Shared-service savings are optional district-entered context, not audited offsets to current spending. Peer comparisons use Burlington County districts where enough peers have usable side-file rows.
Budget notes and shared services
Shared-service entries
Category
Description
Savings
Business Services
Administrative Assistant to the Business Administrator
not reported
Business Services
Business Administrator
not reported
Business Services
Business Office
not reported
Business Services
Executive Assistant to the Business Administrator
not reported
Custodial and Maintenance Services
Director of Facilities
not reported
Food Services
Cafeteria
not reported
Showing 6 of 13 shared-service rows.
Unusual items and shared services are district-reported UFB explanation rows. Shared-service savings are optional, so a listed arrangement can show no dollar amount.
Listed administrative salary history
The UFB employees side file lists selected administrative salary rows for 7 loaded budget years. Listed base salary moved from $944,722 in 2019-20 to $922,208 in 2025-26 in 2025 dollars (down $22,514). The selected-row count changed from 6 to 8 (+2).
$922,208Latest listed base8 selected rows, shown in 2025 dollars.
8Latest listed FTE8 rows marked shared service.
$412Latest base per UFB on-rollScale check for selected listed administration only.
24Latest text term entriesPayout, buyback, comment, non-work-day, or post-employment text fields.
Loaded-year salary side-file trail
UFB year
Listed base
Rows / FTE
Highest listed role
Add-ons / terms
2019-20
$944,722
6 rows; FTE 65 shared
$260,670Christopher Nagy · Superintendent
$185,636 add-on dollar fields20 text-term field entries
2020-21
$1.1 million
7 rows; FTE 76 shared
$257,494Christopher Nagy · Superintendent
$203,645 add-on dollar fields24 text-term field entries
2021-22
$1.1 million
8 rows; FTE 88 shared
$250,858Christopher Nagy · Superintendent
$200,037 add-on dollar fields27 text-term field entries
2022-23
$1.1 million
8 rows; FTE 86 shared
$236,916Christopher Nagy · Superintendent
$191,927 add-on dollar fields27 text-term field entries
2023-24
$975,692
7 rows; FTE 77 shared
$232,100Christopher Nagy · Superintendent
$155,417 add-on dollar fields21 text-term field entries
2024-25
$1.2 million
9 rows; FTE 99 shared
$230,267Christopher Nagy · Superintendent
$253,913 add-on dollar fields27 text-term field entries
2025-26
$922,208
8 rows; FTE 88 shared
$168,100Eder Joseph · Assistant Superintendent
$93,043 add-on dollar fields24 text-term field entries
Latest local peer scale checks
Measure
This district
Burlington County average
Gap
Read as
Listed base per UFB on-roll
$412
$722
-$311
Selected admin base salaries divided by UFB planning on-roll.Local rank 28 of 39 among Burlington County districts with usable salary rows.
Listed rows per 1,000 UFB on-roll
3.6
6.3
-2.7
Selected listed administrative rows scaled to enrollment.Local rank 23 of 39 among Burlington County districts with usable salary rows.
Listed FTE per 1,000 UFB on-roll
3.6
6.1
-2.5
FTE field total scaled to enrollment; not district staffing headcount.Local rank 23 of 39 among Burlington County districts with usable salary rows.
Shared-service row share
100%
7%
+93 pts
Share of selected salary rows marked shared in the side file.Local rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts with usable salary rows.
Dollar columns in the history table are converted to 2025 dollars with CPI-U. The UFB employees side file lists selected administrative salary rows, FTE/shared flags, add-on compensation fields, work/leave terms, and comments; it is not full payroll, a staffing census, total compensation, or an operating-budget category. Peer checks use the latest matched year only and rank higher numeric values first.
Listed administrative salaries
The UFB salary side file lists 8 selected administrative rows totaling $922,208 in base salaries. It also includes district-reported add-on compensation fields, work and leave-day terms, and payout or buyback text where those fields are filled.
$922,208Listed base salaries8 selected administrative rows; not full payroll.
$168,100Highest listed baseEder Joseph · Assistant Superintendent
Not Eligible (6 rows); Eligible; Max Amount Allowed
Vacation-day payout
8
3
12 Vacation Days (4 rows); 22 Vacation Days (3 rows); 16 Vacation Days
Highest listed base-salary rows
Listed employee
Role
Base salary
FTE/shared
Eder Joseph
Assistant Superintendent
$168,100
1 / shared
Andrew Willmott
Business Administrator
$153,750
1 / shared
Michael Coolidge
Other: Director of Facilities
$117,591
1 / shared
Veldon Harris
Other: Director Of Security
$110,676
1 / shared
Heather Cooper
Other: Human Resources Admin
$101,557
1 / shared
Kathleen Horton
Other: Data Systems Administrato
$97,375
1 / shared
Kelly Cox
Administrative Assistant
$97,159
1 / shared
Nereida Mack
Other: Administrative Assistant
$76,000
1 / shared
Administrative salary rows are selected listed roles from the UFB employees side file, not complete payroll, a contract audit, or an operating-budget total. Component fields are shown separately because allowances, benefits, remuneration, leave days, payouts, and comments are mixed units and can overlap in meaning. Dollar fields are nominal latest-file values.
Budget report section
Source rows
Which visible UFB revenue and appropriation rows support the report?
UFB source-file ledger
These are the exact NJDOE User-Friendly Budget CSV files behind this report. Links open the statewide source files for 2025-26, while the row counts show how much of each file matched this district in the local warehouse.
Named levy, aid, grant, tuition, fund-balance, reserve, and other source rows behind the operating-revenue mix.Includes subtotals and non-operating context rows; it is not one additive revenue schedule.
High-level operating uses, transfers, fund totals, lower-level program rows, capital, debt, and special-revenue scale.Many rows are nested; operating-equivalent shares are scale references, not additive totals.
NJDOE standardized per-pupil cost rows used for classroom, support, operations, administration, and benefits comparisons.These are published NJDOE rows; the report does not recompute them from appropriations or enrollment.
Budget-enrollment file2019-20 to 2025-26 (7 files)
UFB on-roll, special-education on-roll, sent/received placements, contract preschool, and denominator context.Planning enrollment is not the same as fall enrollment and should not be added to dollar rows.
Projected close-year balances, reserves, restricted balances, and fund-balance context.Balance rows are not current operating appropriations or spendable-cash claims.
District-reported shared-service arrangements and optional savings fields.Reported savings are context rows, not audited offsets against the operating budget.
Selected administrative salary rows, FTE, shared-service flags, contract fields, and comments where published.Selected listed administration is not complete payroll or total compensation.
The links are source-file provenance, not district-specific extracts. Each CSV covers all districts published in that UFB file; the generated report filters those rows to this district and keeps source-family caveats attached before making comparisons.
Largest current UFB lines
UFB row
File
Amount
Operating equiv.
Total General Current Expense
Appropriation
$41,747,602
98%
Total Revenues from Local Sources
Revenue
$24,561,276
58%
Total Undistributed Expenditures
Appropriation
$23,332,666
55%
Total Revenues from State Sources
Revenue
$18,011,280
42%
County Tax Levy-Base Budget
Revenue
$15,894,974
37%
Total Tax Levy
Revenue
$15,894,974
37%
Equalization Aid
Revenue
$15,013,125
35%
Tuition from Local Education Authorities
Revenue
$8,519,302
20%
Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits
Appropriation
$8,115,626
19%
Total Regular Programs-Instruction
Appropriation
$7,399,946
17%
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services
Appropriation
$6,588,564
15%
Total Vocational Programs
Appropriation
$6,477,864
15%
Total Special Education-Instruction
Appropriation
$2,635,680
6%
Categorical Special Education Aid
Revenue
$2,289,585
5%
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Support Services-School Administration
Appropriation
$1,790,560
4%
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Guidance
Appropriation
$1,332,918
3%
Selected dynamically from every positive revenue and appropriation row in the latest UFB files after dropping outer totals. Rows come from different files and fund sections, so the operating-equivalent column is only a scale reference.
Main funds and transfers
UFB appropriation row
Amount
Operating equiv.
Total expenditures net of transfers
$43,399,231
102%
General Fund grand total
$42,573,312
100%
General current expense
$41,747,602
98%
Special Revenue Funds
$825,919
2%
Federal projects
$825,919
2%
Capital outlay
$613,745
1%
Facilities acquisition and construction
$370,013
<1%
Special schools
$211,965
<1%
Rows mix all-funds totals, General Fund rows, transfers, capital, special-revenue, and debt-service lines. The operating-equivalent column is a scale reference, not a claim that these rows add to the operating budget.
Selected operating cost lines
UFB line
Amount
Op. share
Peer avg
Employee benefits
$8,115,626
19%
17%
Regular programs instruction
$7,399,946
17%
22%
Operations and maintenance
$6,588,564
15%
9%
Vocational programs
$6,477,864
15%
<1%
Special education instruction
$2,635,680
6%
9%
School administration
$1,790,560
4%
2%
Guidance
$1,332,918
3%
1%
Child study teams
$1,042,939
2%
3%
Central services
$1,022,398
2%
2%
Improvement of instruction
$954,558
2%
1%
Not additive: these lower-level appropriation rows add texture, but they are nested inside broader fund categories and should not be added together as a complete budget mix.
Selected revenue lines
UFB revenue row
Amount
Op. share
Peer avg
Total tax levy
$15,894,974
37%
58%
Equalization aid
$15,013,125
35%
20%
Special education aid
$2,289,585
5%
6%
Security aid
$708,570
2%
<1%
IDEA Part B
$422,340
<1%
<1%
Title I
$403,579
<1%
<1%
Unrestricted miscellaneous revenue
$85,000
<1%
<1%
Medicaid reimbursement
$756
<1%
<1%
These are selected source rows from operating, special-revenue, debt-service, and reserve sections. They are not additive because several are subtotals or belong to different funds.
Current UFB line appendix
Revenue file · 17 contextual rows
Line
Account
UFB row
Amount
Op. equiv.
100/114
10-121x
Total Tax Levy
$15,894,974
37%
110
10-1210
County Tax Levy-Base Budget
$15,894,974
37%
200
10-1310
Tuition from Local Education Authorities
$8,519,302
20%
260
10-1910
Rents and Royalties
$42,000
<1%
300
10-1XXX
Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues
$85,000
<1%
340
10-1XXX
Interest Earned on Capital Reserve Funds
$20,000
<1%
370
n/a
Total Revenues from Local Sources
$24,561,276
58%
440
10-3132
Categorical Special Education Aid
$2,289,585
5%
460
10-3176
Equalization Aid
$15,013,125
35%
470
10-3177
Categorical Security Aid
$708,570
2%
520
n/a
Total Revenues from State Sources
$18,011,280
42%
540
10-4200
Medicaid Reimbursement
$756
<1%
570
n/a
Total Revenues from Federal Sources (570)
$756
<1%
775
20-4411-4416
Title I (775)
$403,579
<1%
805
20-4420-4429
I.D.E.A. Part B (Handicapped) (805)
$422,340
<1%
830
n/a
Total Revenues from Federal Sources (830)
$825,919
2%
840
n/a
Total Grants and Entitlements
$825,919
2%
Appropriation file · 35 contextual rows
Line
Account
UFB row
Amount
Op. equiv.
3200
11-1XX-100-XX
Total Regular Programs-Instruction
$7,399,946
17%
10300
11-2XX-100-XX
Total Special Education-Instruction
$2,635,680
6%
12160
11-240-100-XX
Total Bilingual Education-Instruction
$146,941
<1%
15180
11-3XX-100-XX
Total Vocational Programs
$6,477,864
15%
17100
11-401-100-XX
Total School-Sponsored Cocurricular Or Extracurricular Activities-Instruction
$837,206
2%
17600
11-402-100-XX
Total School-Sponsored Athletics-Instruction
$863,929
2%
25100
11-4XX-100-XX
Total Other Instructional Programs-Instruction
$53,370
<1%
30620
11-000-213-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Health Services
$247,835
<1%
40580
11-000-216-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related Services
$76,000
<1%
41660
11-000-218-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Guidance
$1,332,918
3%
42200
11-000-219-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Child Study Teams
$1,042,939
2%
43200
11-000-221-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Improvement of Instruction Services
$954,558
2%
43620
11-000-222-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Education Media Services/Library
$180,239
<1%
44180
11-000-223-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instructional Staff Training Services
$18,800
<1%
45300
11-000-230-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Support Services-General Administration
$638,104
1%
46160
11-000-240-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Support Services-School Administration
$1,790,560
4%
47200
11-000-251-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Central Services
$1,022,398
2%
47620
11-000-252-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Administrative Informationtechnology
$789,750
2%
51120
11-000-26X-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services
$6,588,564
15%
52480
11-000-270-XX
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Student Transportation Services
$534,375
1%
71260
11-XXX-XXX-2X
Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits
$8,115,626
19%
72140
n/a
Total Undistributed Expenditures
$23,332,666
55%
72260
n/a
Total General Current Expense
$41,747,602
98%
75880
12-XXX-XXX-73
Total Equipment
$223,732
<1%
76260
12-000-400-XX
Total Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services
$370,013
<1%
76380
10-604
Interest Deposit to Capital Reserve
$20,000
<1%
76400
n/a
Total Capital Outlay
$613,745
1%
77140
13-330-100-XX
Total Post-Secondary Programs-Instruction
$157,437
<1%
77280
13-330-200-XX
Total Post-Secondary Programs-Support Services
$54,528
<1%
77300
13-330-X00-XX
Total Post-Secondary Programs
$211,965
<1%
83080
13-XXX-XXX-XX
Total Special Schools
$211,965
<1%
88500
20-XXX-XXX-XX
Title I (88500)
$403,579
<1%
88620
20-XXX-XXX-XX
I.D.E.A. Part B (Handicapped) (88620)
$422,340
<1%
88740
20-XXX-XXX-XX
Total Federal Projects
$825,919
2%
88760
n/a
Total Special Revenue Funds
$825,919
2%
This appendix lists all 52 contextual positive latest-year UFB revenue and appropriation rows after dropping outer totals, deduct rows, and known duplicate tax-levy label variants. Rows are still source-file rows, not one additive schedule; the operating-equivalent column uses the proposed operating budget only as a common scale reference.
The budget answer sheet turns the current proposal, peer and slice position, revenue model, use categories, student/service load, inflation-adjusted movement, and reserve/side-file context into direct reader questions in the first-read path. The budget front brief replaces the dense opening paragraph with a lead sentence, anchored takeaways, and a short synthesis paragraph so each load-bearing number has a comparison, time basis, fund scope, or denominator before the detailed report opens. The budget essentials panel answers the main resident questions before the long evidence stack: first read, peer cost, proposal movement, payer mix, category/source-family signal, inflation-adjusted trend, student denominator, and side-file context. The budget machine panel now appears immediately after the thesis and reporting notebook, preserving the same operating-squeeze route as the front brief when recurring pressure is the selected first read, then extracting the resident-facing mechanism across cost position, funding model, recurring cost engine, inflation and denominator movement, and proposal/reserve timing before the long evidence sections. The budget squeeze explainer now appears in the first-read path, connecting recurring operating sources, recurring cost families, CPI-adjusted per-student movement, service-load denominators, current proposal rows, one-time support, and local record checks before the long evidence sections. The budget evidence board now appears in the first-read path, putting peer and slice comparison frames, category-family movers, inflation/denominator checks, and nominal proposal rows side by side before the answer sheet and detailed proof sections. The budget operating model turns the first-read evidence into six compact resident reads: operating scale, payer mix, source-family uses, CPI-adjusted movement, latest proposal movement, and one-time, tax, or service-load checks that can change the interpretation. The comparison brief puts the published cost line into named local peer, statewide, funding-model, scale, cost-band, and high-signal category or service-load frames before the long report begins. The budget diagnosis ranks the strongest generated explanatory lanes before the long evidence sections, separating what each lane can explain from what it cannot prove. The peer position snapshot now follows the front brief so the opening cost, funding, and category or service-load comparisons are visible as local peer distributions before the report map, language key, and long evidence sections. The budget explanation brief now appears in the top report path after the answer sheet, separating largest current source-row family, widest local peer gap, largest inflation-adjusted family movement, and latest proposal-column movement before the map and detailed proof sections. The budget story package now appears in the top report path after the explanation brief, keeping the UFB-supported claim, fair comparison, inflation/category/proposal checks, next reporting move, and blocked overread on the same row before the peer snapshot and map. The budget mechanism read now appears in the top report path before the map, separating relative-cost, funding, category/slice, inflation/denominator, student/service-load, proposal-timing, one-time-support, and outside-operating explanations into proof, next-reporting, and blocked-overread columns. The budget thesis and reporting-order panel now appears directly after the front brief, turning the first-read evidence into an editor-style route: compare peers and slices first, then read categories/source rows, use CPI-adjusted movement and denominator checks as guardrails, and hand causal claims to outside reporting. The opening budget-story panel ranks the strongest generated reporting leads from latest-year peer comparisons, row-level scans, planning-enrollment rows, and inflation-adjusted movement. The budget story spine keeps each reportable signal beside its UFB proof, fair comparison, outside-reporting need, and overread caveat before the report opens the longer evidence sections. The budget storylines panel packages the strongest UFB signals as article routes with a working nut graf, reader value, proof basis, outside-reporting gap, and sentence to avoid before writing. The budget reading memo turns the strongest UFB signals into an opening editorial route: the lead angle to test, why the simple read is weak, which context changes the read, and what records or checks should come next. The question-to-reporting path turns the strongest district-specific UFB signals into resident questions, first comparison frames, records to pull, and unsupported shortcuts to block before writing. The public-hearing agenda converts the proposal, relative-cost, category, inflation, student/service, and side-file signals into concrete meeting questions, record requests, proof links, and unsupported readings to block. The budget news judgment filter labels ordinary nominal growth as background, separates UFB-ready facts from leads that need a second signal or outside records, and blocks causal or quality claims from UFB alone. The budget claim audit turns the strongest UFB-supported signals into sentence-level claims, then labels what still needs outside reporting and which unsupported shortcuts to block before writing. The comparison movement brief pulls selected peer-position trend measures into the opening story so readers can see whether the district moved toward or away from the local average on cost, funding, tax, category, and service-load signals. The comparison-frame movement panel takes the latest-year local, statewide, funding-model, scale, and cost-band frames from the relative-cost ladder and checks whether published comparative cost moved closer to or farther from each frame after inflation. The operating story basis panel separates recurring General Fund operating evidence from live proposal movement, fund-balance/reserve sources, side-file context, and outside-operating rows before readers interpret the budget story. The structural squeeze test checks whether main operating-source movement, appropriation/use-family movement, limited support, service-load denominators, and peer position support a recurring-pressure hypothesis, while naming the outside records needed before writing a deficit, levy-cap, cut, or causal claim. The budget flow bridge keeps the relative cost frame, money in, money out, proposal movement, outside-operating rows, side files, and student denominator in one scan before readers enter the detailed evidence sections. The budget pressure map ranks the cost, funding, category, proposal, student/service-load, inflation, reserve/side-file, and outside-operating pressures a reader should test first, while separating what each pressure can explain from what it cannot prove. The budget tension checks pair current cost position, inflation-adjusted movement, proposal movement, tax burden, funding model, category slices, service load, reserves, and outside-operating rows so a reader can see which simple budget reads need a second signal. The category story map pulls current source-row scale, local peer gaps, inflation-adjusted movement, and latest proposal movement into one first-read map before the detailed category, trend, and proposal tables. The proposal-versus-trend bridge checks whether latest proposal-column movement continues, counters, or sits apart from loaded-year inflation-adjusted category movement. The budget reporting lead sheet turns the strongest generated signals into a ranked reporting agenda with evidence, reader questions, caveats, and links to the proof sections. The budget reporting notebook now appears directly after the thesis, translating the ranked UFB leads into outside records, interview checks, proof links, and unsupported readings to block before the longer report path opens. The editorial frame separates what UFB can establish from what still requires board documents, tax records, contracts, staffing context, or other outside reporting before causal claims are made. The budget model synthesis connects cost position, funding model, spending structure, service load, live proposal movement, inflation-adjusted trend, and side-file context into one reporting frame before the detailed evidence sections. The cost gap ledger translates the comparison into per-UFB-on-roll dollar gaps for operating scale, funding sources, use categories, pupil-cost rows, and service-load denominators before the detailed evidence sections. The cost-position clues panel now appears in the first-read path, naming the concrete UFB measures, funding and tax signals, named rows, proposal movement, denominator checks, and budget-year context that can explain or complicate the district’s comparative-cost position without claiming causality. The cost-position judgment panel now follows the clue scan in the first-read path, deciding whether the visible UFB signals line up with the published comparative-cost position, complicate it, or leave the explanation to outside reporting. The UFB source-coverage panel inventories the latest matched summary, revenue, appropriation, pupil-cost, planning-enrollment, tax, balance, unusual-item, shared-service, school-resource, and salary source families before the report routes them into evidence sections. The UFB source-file ledger links the exact latest NJDOE CSV files behind the district report and names the row count, use, and limit for each loaded budget file. The statewide budget-model panel names the broader comparison frames this district belongs to before the report moves into local peer evidence and source rows. The statewide slice-comparison panel opens with a relative-cost ladder across local peers, all NJ UFB districts, and matching latest-year groups for funding model, UFB on-roll scale, comparative-cost band, and generated category signals. The named similar-budget-model comps panel turns statewide slice logic into concrete district examples by naming districts with nearby latest-year UFB funding, scale, use, service-load, tax, and cost profiles. The change-driver panel summarizes first-to-latest UFB movement across real operating scale, planning-enrollment denominator shifts, peer-position changes, source shares, use shares, and named line rows. The comparative-cost timing-basis panel maps the latest UFB file’s actual-cost, original-budget, revised/current-budget, and proposed-budget columns before readers interpret trend or proposal claims. The per-student cost-change anatomy panel decomposes real operating budget per UFB on-roll into a budget-numerator effect and a planning-enrollment denominator effect, while keeping NJDOE comparative cost distinct. The operating funding-shift panel shows who paid differently across loaded UFB years by separating local, state, federal, and fund-balance/other operating-source shares, real-dollar movement, and latest local peer mix. The pupil-cost category movement panel shows which NJDOE standardized per-pupil cost rows moved after inflation and how the latest row values compare with the local peer average. The current-proposal panel compares the latest UFB revised/current-budget column with the proposed-budget column for operating revenue, high-level uses, NJDOE pupil-cost rows, and UFB planning enrollment. The proposal package panel groups material named revised/current-to-proposed UFB row movement into budget families, separating increases, reductions, net movement, largest rows, and local peer scale before the named-line driver table. The named-line proposal-driver panel scans every latest-year UFB revenue and appropriation row with revised/current and proposed amounts, then surfaces material nominal row changes with operating-budget-equivalent scale and same-row local peer context. The cost-basis reconciliation panel separates NJDOE comparative cost, operating-budget-per-student scale checks, all-funds context, and tax-levy pressure so per-student ranks are read with their numerator and denominator. The student-flow and money-path panel separates operating-dollar routes from UFB planning-enrollment routes so transfer rows, school-based budgeting, special-education load, sent placements, and received-student rows are read as distinct evidence. The dot strip compares 2025-26 comparative cost per pupil across Burlington County districts; each dot is one district, shown in 2025 dollars. The local-standout table ranks funding, spending, placement, and pupil-cost measures against the same peer set; rank 1 means the highest value, not the best value. The local peer evidence strips show the strongest generated budget measures as peer distributions, so the rank and gap can be checked visually. The named peer context panel identifies the local districts immediately above and below this district on selected measures, plus the local range behind the average. The local comparison roster names every district in the local peer set behind the averages and ranks, with comparative cost, UFB planning enrollment, operating scale, and funding-model context. The current operating mix comparison uses paired stacked bars to compare this district with the local peer average for General Fund operating revenue sources and high-level operating uses, keeping the operating-budget denominator and non-additive category caveat visible. The position-over-time panel tracks selected budget measures against the local peer average across loaded UFB years, with money values converted to real dollars. The fall-enrollment and student-need panel puts UFB planning enrollment beside fall enrollment, per-student scale checks, free/reduced-price lunch, multilingual learners, and homelessness for the same local peer frame. The service-load history panel tracks UFB planning-enrollment rows across loaded years so denominator movement, special-education on-roll, sent placements, contract preschool, and receiving rows are visible before per-pupil cost comparisons. The labor-cost context panel puts salary-bearing pupil-cost rows, employee benefits, and selected administrative salary side-file rows in the local peer frame without treating those rows as complete payroll. The loaded-year ledger gives the annual operating-budget, UFB on-roll, real per-student cost, peer-average, funding-mix, and largest-use context behind the trend panels. The named-line history panel shows the selected UFB revenue and appropriation row movers year by year in real dollars and operating-budget-equivalent scale. The fund-balance and reserve source-history panel separates named balance, reserve, and carryover source rows from local, state, and federal operating-source summaries, then shows latest scale, local peer scale, proposal-column movement, and first-to-latest real movement. The category history table compares major operating uses, nested cost rows, and outside-operating scale rows by latest amount, peer share, first-to-latest share movement, and inflation-adjusted dollar movement. The budget-family context matrix gives a scan-first category view of which source-row families are largest now, furthest from local peers, or moving most after inflation before the detailed family cards and source rows. The named family peer context names the local districts immediately above and below this district on selected budget-family shares, plus the local range behind the peer average. The budget-family lens groups contextual UFB revenue and appropriation rows into reader-facing families with latest scale, local peer scale, first-to-latest real movement, and largest source-row evidence. The anatomy panel separates operating sources, high-level operating uses, and all-funds or outside-operating rows before the lower-level tables. The budget diagnostic turns the UFB source files into fixed reader questions about cost position, funding model, spending mix, student-service load, inflation-adjusted movement, and side-file context. The walkthrough gives the report a reader-facing path through money in, money out, costs and students, real-dollar changes, and UFB side files before the detailed tables. The comparison matrix extends the same measures to county and statewide averages and ranks where enough districts have usable values. The tax-effort panel separates UFB summary tax levy per planning student, estimated school-tax rates, equalized tax base, and municipal slice spread before the raw tax-rate side-file rows. The tax and balance panel uses NJDOE estimated tax-rate rows and recapitulation-of-balance rows, separating levy/rate context from operating spending. The side-file history table shows whether tax, balance, unusual-item, shared-service, school-resource, and salary context is persistent or latest-year-only. The balance and reserve history panel tracks projected close-year recap balances by category across loaded UFB years, with real-dollar movement, local peer scale, and restriction caveats. The administrative-salary table lists selected UFB administrative salary rows; it is not complete payroll. The listed administrative salary history panel tracks selected UFB employees side-file rows across loaded years in real dollars, then compares latest listed base, row, FTE, and shared-service scale with local peers. The budget-notes panel surfaces district-reported unusual revenue or appropriation explanations and shared-service entries. The unusual/shared-service profile classifies district-reported unusual-item explanations and shared-service arrangements before the raw side-file rows, while blocking additive or audited-savings readings. The spending-category bars use high-level General Fund appropriation rows as shares of the proposed operating budget; the neutral tick is the average among Burlington County districts with usable category data. The stacked trend bars show category shares of each loaded UFB year’s proposed operating budget, so they foreground structure rather than nominal dollar growth. The budget turning-points table compares adjacent loaded UFB years so annual real-dollar, peer-gap, payer-mix, source-family, named-row, and service-load movements surface before the longer trend evidence. The largest-lines table is selected from the positive line rows in the latest UFB revenue and appropriation files, excluding only outer totals. The current UFB line appendix lists every contextual positive latest-year revenue and appropriation row, keeping source-file line numbers and accounts visible. The peer-line table compares contextual UFB revenue and appropriation rows against the local peer set so unusually large, small, or absent named rows surface before the full line appendix. The main-funds table keeps all-funds, General Fund, transfer, special-revenue, capital, and debt-service rows visible without treating them as one additive mix. The selected cost table uses lower-level UFB appropriation rows for reader context; those rows are nested inside broader categories and are not additive. The trend-driver table compares contextual UFB rows from the first loaded budget year to the latest year in 2025 dollars; share changes use the operating budget as a scale reference. The selected revenue table pulls named aid, levy, reserve, and grant lines from the UFB revenue file; some rows are subtotals or come from non-operating funds. The pupil-cost table uses NJDOE-published per-pupil breakdown rows for the proposed budget year. The enrollment/placement table uses UFB budget-enrollment planning rows, which can differ from fall enrollment. The line adjusts NJDOE’s published comparative per-pupil cost for each loaded User-Friendly Budget year to 2025 dollars using BLS CPI-U annual averages. The lighter line shows the Burlington County average across districts with usable comparative-cost values, adjusted on the same basis. The stacked bar shows proposed General Fund operating revenue sources; grants, debt service, and transfers can make all-funds totals differ. Source: NJDOE User-Friendly Budgets, 2025-26; BLS CPI-U.
