In 2025-26, Burlington County Special Services proposed a $43.9 million General Fund operating budget.
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 Special Services, the first budget read is a recurring operating-pressure story: local sources supply 100% of proposed operating revenue, 37 pts above the Burlington County average; real operating budget per planning student moved -$12,518.
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 Special Services, 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.
NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $57,234 above the Burlington County average.
NJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost.
Peer evidenceComparative cost per pupil is $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts. Statewide rank 3 of 566.
A cost rank is not an efficiency, adequacy, quality, or waste finding.
Peer evidenceOperating budget moves +$1,097,503 from revised/current to proposed, +3 pts of proposed operating scale.
This is not the long-run inflation-adjusted trend or the board/contract/formula reason for the change.
Proposal changesLocal sources supply 100% of proposed General Fund operating revenue.
Revenue shares are not tax bills, sustainability findings, or proof of spending quality.
Revenue familiesTransfers and tuition: Current scale: 87% of operating-budget scale, $38,258,881.
Budget families are contextual, nested source-row groups; do not add them into an accounting schedule.
Categories and lines2019-20 to 2025-26: Real operating budget per UFB planning student moved -$12,518 from $95,731 to $83,213.
Real movement is context for the multi-year budget path, not proof of the current proposal’s cause.
Trends and inflationUFB planning on-roll is 527, versus 472 fall-enrolled students in the profile.
UFB planning rows are budget denominators and service-load clues, not direct evidence of need, quality, staffing, or compliance.
Costs and studentsFacilities acquisition and construction is $234,741, <1% of operating-budget scale.
Side-file and outside-operating rows can be restricted, one-time, projected, or contextual; they are not recurring General Fund spending by themselves.
Side filesEach 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
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. | Complete payroll, audited savings, spendable cash, recurring revenue, or tax-bill advice. |
| Peer and slice frames | 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
Operating squeeze. Test recurring operating pressure before outside-operating rows take over. local sources supply 100% of proposed operating revenue, 37 pts above the Burlington County average; real operating budget per UFB planning student moved -$12,518 as UFB on-roll changed -40. 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.
Start here before writing from a single cost rank.
Use these rows to keep inflation, denominator, and service-load context attached to the claim.
UFB identifies the question; these checks name what has to be verified outside the source file.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Cost positionDoes the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered?Peer evidence | $79,585NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $57,234 above the Burlington County average. |
|
| NJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost. |
| 2Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Source rows | +61 ptsTuition from Local Education Authorities is 63% of the operating-budget scale, +61 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41. |
|
| Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals. |
| 3Funding modelWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?Revenue families | 100%The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 37 pts above the Burlington County average. |
|
| Operating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation. |
| 4Pupil-cost lineWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?Pupil-cost rows | $18,299Support services per pupil is $18,299, $13,976 above the Burlington County average. |
|
| Several pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge. |
| 5Tax effortHow does local tax effort compare once levy per planning student, estimated rate, and tax base are separated?Tax context | $9,488Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $9,488, $4,158 below the Burlington County average; local rank 29 of 39. |
|
| Estimated tax-rate side-file rows are context; they are not audited property-tax bills. |
| 6Special education planningIs a visible share of the planning denominator tied to special-education on-roll rows?Service load | 93%Special-education on-roll planning share is 93%, 75 pts above the Burlington County average. |
|
| Planning rows signal service load; they do not identify student need by themselves. |
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
The budget story for Burlington County Special Services starts with operating squeeze, then checks fair cost position, payer mix, recurring cost categories, inflation and denominator movement, and proposal or reserve timing. This panel extracts the basic resident-facing read from UFB before the report opens the long proof sections.
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
For Burlington County Special Services, 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.
| Lane | Evidence | Reader read | Check next |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue ceilingTrends and inflation | local sources supply 100% of proposed operating revenue, 37 pts above the Burlington County average; recurring local, state, and federal source summaries moved -$10,426,122 after inflation while operating scale moved -$10,426,122. | 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. |
| Cost engineCategories and lines | Transfers and tuition: 87% of operating-budget scale, -$9,058,528 after inflation, +73 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities; Special education and student supports: 49% of operating-budget scale, -$3,231,417 after inflation, +31 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Special Education-Instruction; Employee benefits: 31% of operating-budget scale, -$3,903,880 after inflation, +14 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits. | 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. |
| Students and service loadCosts and students | real operating budget per UFB planning student moved -$12,518 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; UFB planning on-roll moved -40; special-education on-roll is 490 (93% 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. |
| Balancing layerProposal changes | latest proposal moves operating budget +$1,097,503 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
For Burlington County Special Services, 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.
$79,585; $57,234 above the Burlington County average.
| Frame | District | Average | Gap | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burlington County districtsclosest local comparison frame | $79,585 | $22,351 | +$57,234 | 1 of 39 |
| All NJ UFB districtsstatewide baseline before narrowing the frame | $79,585 | $23,591 | +$55,994 | 3 of 566 |
| Mostly locally fundedsame funding model, so revenue dependence is not hidden by one rank | $79,585 | $24,352 | +$55,233 | 3 of 368 |
| 500-2,499 UFB on-rollsimilar UFB planning-enrollment scale | $79,585 | $22,956 | +$56,629 | 2 of 268 |
Transfers and tuition: 87% of operating scale, +73 pts vs Burlington County average, -$9.1 million after inflation.
| Family | Latest | Peer gap | Real move | Proposal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfers and tuitionTuition from Local Education Authorities | 87% | +73 pts | -$9.1M | +$1.8M |
| Special education and student supportsTotal Special Education-Instruction | 49% | +31 pts | -$3.2M | +$518K |
| Capital, facilities, and debtTotal Capital Outlay | 3% | -9 pts | +$679K | +$497K |
| Local taxes and local sourcesCounty Tax Levy-Base Budget | 24% | -39 pts | +$3.6M | -$229K |
UFB on-roll moved -40; operating-budget numerator moved -$10.4 million after CPI-U.
| Measure | Value | Moved |
|---|---|---|
| Real operating per UFB on-rollUFB on-roll moved -40; operating-budget numerator moved -$10.4 million after CPI-U. | $95,731 to $83,213 | -$12,518 |
| Comparative cost per pupilLatest peer gap +$57,234; first gap was +$70,264. | $79,585 vs $22,351 avg | -$13,030 |
| Support services per pupilLatest peer gap +$13,754; first gap was +$13,480. | $18,299 vs $4,545 avg | +$275 |
| Classroom instruction per pupilLatest peer gap +$32,665; first gap was +$38,826. | $45,365 vs $12,700 avg | -$6,161 |
Latest-file proposal rows are nominal and should be read apart from CPI-adjusted history.
| Current-year clue | Move | Op. scale |
|---|---|---|
| Operating budget proposalnominal revised/current-to-proposed movement | +$1.1M | 3% |
| Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue; peer net +4 pts of operating scale across 41 districts | +$1.6M | 4% |
| Tuition from Local Education AuthoritiesRevenue; peer comparison limited | +$1.2M | 3% |
| Total Personal Services-Employee BenefitsAppropriation; peer net +1 pt of operating scale across 39 districts | +$822K | 2% |
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
For Burlington County Special Services, 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.
$43.9 million proposed General Fund operating budget; $83,213 per UFB planning student; $57,788 above 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.
Cost basisMain operating sources: local sources 100% ($43.9 million); 37 pts above 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.
Revenue familiesLargest visible source families by operating-budget scale: Transfers and tuition 87%; Special education and student supports 49%; Employee benefits 31%. Largest visible row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities.
Families are source-row groups, not an additive accounting schedule. Use them to decide which category proof section to open first.
Category proofreal operating budget per UFB planning student moved -$12,518 from $95,731 to $83,213; operating-budget numerator moved -$10.4 million after CPI-U while UFB on-roll moved -40; top family movement: General current expense -$11.0 million after inflation.
This is the guardrail against the generic nominal-spending-growth story: separate inflation, budget numerator, and UFB planning denominator before writing.
Inflation proofoperating budget proposal moved +$1.1 million (3%) from revised/current to proposed; largest visible increase: Total Revenues from Local Sources +$1.6 million; largest visible decrease: Adjustment for Prior Year Encumbrances -$515,424.
These are nominal latest-file proposal rows. They should be read beside, not merged into, the CPI-adjusted history.
Proposal proofspecial-education on-roll is 75 pts above the Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39; tax levy per UFB planning student is $4,158 below the Burlington County average; rank 29 of 39.
Use these as follow-up checks before writing deficit, tax-bill, service-cut, adequacy, or efficiency claims from UFB alone.
Side-file checksThe 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 Special Services 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| +$1.1Mproposal changeWhat changed in the current proposal?Live proposal | The live proposal changes the operating budget +$1,097,503 (3%) 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. | Check proposal changes |
| $79,585comparative costIs the district high, low, or typical against a fair benchmark?Fair comparison | NJDOE comparative cost is $57,234 above 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. | Check peer and slice evidence |
| 100%largest sourceWho pays for the operating budget?Who pays | Local sources supplied the largest operating-revenue share, 37 pts above 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. | Check revenue families |
| +73 ptsvs avgWhere does the operating budget go?What money buys | Transfers and tuition is the strongest generated spending/category clue: 73 pts above the Burlington County average, -$9,058,528 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26, 87% of operating-budget scale. | 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. | Check spending categories |
| 527UFB on-rollWhat student or service-load context changes the read?Students and services | UFB planning on-roll is 527, versus 472 fall-enrolled students on the profile. | 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. | Check students and service load |
| -$10,426,122real operating changeWhat changed across loaded UFB years after inflation?What changed after inflation | After inflation, operating-budget scale changed -$10,426,122 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. | Check inflation trends |
| $9.3 millionside-file contextWhat else can change the budget story?Reserves and side files | Projected close-year recap balances total $9.3 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. | Check reserves and side files |
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
Transfers and tuition is the largest current family outside the broad current-expense total, at 87% of operating-budget scale. Transfers and tuition has the widest local peer gap, +73 pts against the Burlington County average. Transfers and tuition moved the most after inflation, -$9,058,528 across loaded UFB years.
These are the source-row families where current scale, peer position, inflation-adjusted movement, or the latest proposal move most change the story.
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 familyTransfers and tuition | Do charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story? | $38,258,881 in latest source-row dollars; 87% of proposed operating-budget scale.Largest visible row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities (Revenue line 200, $27,563,841). | 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.Categories Source rows |
| Widest local peer gapTransfers and tuition | Do charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story? | 87% locally versus 15% for the Burlington County average; gap +73 pts.The family sits above 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 evidence Comparisons Categories |
| Largest real movementTransfers and tuition | Do charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story? | -$9,058,528 from 2019-20 to 2025-26 after CPI-U adjustment to 2025 dollars.Operating-equivalent share changed 0 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.Trends Categories Source rows |
| Largest current proposal moveTransfers and tuition | Do charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story? | +$1,844,352 from revised/current to proposed in the latest UFB file.That equals +4 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Largest named proposal row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities (+$1,238,336 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.Proposal Source 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 Special Services, start with this budget question: Does the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered? 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 testCost position$79,585 | NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $57,234 above 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 readReaders can decide whether the fair next question is a local peer comparison, a statewide slice comparison, or a denominator/service-load check. | 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. |
| Fair comparisonTax effort$9,488 | Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $9,488, $4,158 below the Burlington County average; local rank 29 of 39.Check: Tax context | Compare againstCompare levy per UFB planning student, estimated school-tax rate, and tax-base rows separately before translating the signal into taxpayer burden.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 nextEstimated tax-rate worksheet and municipal rate or bill tables. Ask finance officials how equalized value and rate rows translate to local bills.Do not writeEstimated tax-rate side-file rows are context; they are not audited property-tax bills. |
| Inflation testTrend and denominator2025 dollars | real operating budget per UFB planning student changed -$12,518 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; UFB planning enrollment changed -40; NJDOE comparative cost changed -$13,833 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 explanationTransfers and tuition87% | Transfers and tuition: $38,258,881 latest source-row dollars, 87% of operating-budget scale; +73 pts versus the Burlington County average; -$9,058,528 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +$1,844,352 latest proposal movement; largest visible row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities.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 proposalTuition from Local Education Authorities+$1,238,336 | Tuition from Local Education Authorities changes +$1,238,336 from revised/current to proposed; +3 pts of operating-budget scale.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 planning93% | Special-education on-roll planning share is 93%, 75 pts above 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 Special Services 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 $57,234 above the Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts. | $79,585; +$57,234 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 100% of proposed General Fund operating revenue; 37 pts above the Burlington County average. Tax levy per UFB on-roll is $4,158 below the Burlington County average. | Operating revenue source share from UFB summary rows. Tax: $9,488; rank 29 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 | transfers and tuition moved -$9.1 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +73 pts versus the Burlington County average; latest proposal moves transfers and tuition +$1.8 million; largest proposal row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities. 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. Student load | 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 -$12,518 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; UFB on-roll moved -40. | $95,731 to $83,213 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 | UFB planning on-roll is 527, versus 472 fall-enrolled students; special-education planning rows are 490 (93% of UFB on-roll); support services per pupil is $13,976 above the Burlington County average. | denominator gap +55; special-education planning rows: 490; Support services per pupil: rank 1 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 +$1,097,503 from revised/current to proposed; 3% latest-file change; top named proposal row is Total Revenues from Local Sources. | +$1.1M; +$1,612,927 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 $9.3 million. | recap balance side file. Reserves and balances | Ask which support is recurring, restricted, already committed, or a one-year budget bridge. | Balance and reserve rows are planned-source or projected-balance context, not audited cash or structural-deficit proof. |
| CheckOutside operating and side files | shared-service file lists 7 arrangements; selected administrative salary side file lists 10 rows. | selected administrative salary side file lists 10 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 above 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 | $79,585; +$57,234 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 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. | Peer evidence |
| Peer clueSupport services per pupil | $18,299; +$13,976 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 41 | A higher-than-peer clue to inspect when explaining the above-average cost position; it is not proof that this row caused the gap. | Costs and students |
| Scale checkOperating budget per UFB on-roll student | $83,213; +$57,788 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 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. | Cost basis |
| Peer clueClassroom instruction per pupil | $45,365; +$33,285 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 41 | A higher-than-peer clue to inspect when explaining the above-average cost position; it is not proof that this row caused the gap. | Costs and students |
| Peer clueOperations and maintenance per pupil | $8,244; +$5,780 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 41 | A higher-than-peer clue to inspect when explaining the above-average cost position; it is not proof that this row caused the gap. | Costs and students |
| Proposal clueLatest operating proposal | operating budget +$1,097,503 from revised/current to proposed; 3% latest-file change; largest named proposal move: Local sources at +$1,612,927 | 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. | Proposal changes |
| Funding clueLocal operating revenue share | 100%; +37 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 41 | 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. | Revenue families |
| Tax clueTax levy per UFB on-roll student | $9,488; -$4,158 vs Burlington County average; rank 29 of 39 | Tax levy per UFB on-roll is a burden and tax-base clue to read beside the cost position; it is not a tax-bill estimate. | Tax effort |
| Peer clueSpecial Revenue Funds equivalent | 0%; -8 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 40 of 40 | A lower-than-peer counter-signal that may complicate a simple high-cost story. | Categories |
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 Special Services, the cost-position read is above 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: $79,585 (+$57,234 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39) | Treat the above-average cost position as the question to explain, not as proof of waste, adequacy, service level, or cause. | Peer evidence |
| Signals that line up | Support services per pupil: $18,299 (+$13,976 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 41); Classroom instruction per pupil: $45,365 (+$33,285 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 41); Operations and maintenance per pupil: $8,244 (+$5,780 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 41). | 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. | Category and funding evidence |
| Signals that complicate | Tax levy per UFB on-roll student: $9,488 (-$4,158 vs Burlington County average; rank 29 of 39); Special Revenue Funds equivalent: 0% (-8 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 40 of 40). | These measures move against the simple cost read. Keep them visible before writing a one-note high-cost or low-cost story. | Cost and student context |
| Named row to test | Tuition from Local Education Authorities: 63% of operating scale; +61 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. | Source rows |
| Generated story lane | transfers and tuition moved -$9.1 million after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +73 pts versus the Burlington County average; latest proposal moves transfers and tuition +$1.8 million; largest proposal row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities. 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. | Student load |
| Live decision point | operating budget +$1,097,503 from revised/current to proposed; 3% latest-file change. | This is a nominal current-proposal decision, not the inflation-adjusted history and not audited actual spending. | Proposal changes |
| Still unresolved | Adopted budget book and UFB narrative. Ask the business administrator which obligations make the peer set fair or unfair. | UFB can rank and compare the signal, but it still does not prove cause, adequacy, intent, quality, or taxpayer impact. NJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost. | Peer evidence |
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
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
Cost position. NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $57,234 above 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 evidenceThese 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 Special Services is not a single spending-up sentence or a lone rank. Test this question first: Does the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered? NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $57,234 above the Burlington County average.
NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 39. After inflation, operating budget per UFB planning student changed -$12,518 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; UFB planning enrollment changed -40. The latest UFB proposal column changes the operating budget +$1,097,503 from revised/current to proposed. Those facts matter, but they should travel with the cost position question instead of becoming the whole story.
Check: Peer evidenceChoose the fair peers, then check grade span, program obligations, placement load, and audited budget documents before treating the rank as efficiency or inefficiency.
| Context | UFB signal | Why it changes the read | Guardrail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Named UFB rowSource rows | Tuition from Local Education Authorities is 63% of the operating-budget scale, +61 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41. | Readers can see which line is specific enough to request board backup, account detail, or an agenda item. | Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals. |
| Funding modelRevenue families | The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 37 pts above the Burlington County average. | Readers can separate a budget that is locally funded, state-aid driven, federally supported, or temporarily balanced by reserves before judging the same cost number. | Operating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation. |
| Pupil-cost linePupil-cost rows | Support services per pupil is $18,299, $13,976 above the Burlington County average. | Readers can choose which standardized cost category deserves staffing, benefits, facilities, or program follow-up. | Several pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge. |
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; NJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost.
Question-to-reporting path
The first resident question for Burlington County Special Services is Does the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered? 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost positionDoes the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered? | NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $57,234 above the Burlington County average.NJDOE comparative-cost row, latest-year local peer rank, and local peer average gap where usable. | Start 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.Check: Peer evidence | Pull or ask
|
| Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up? | Tuition from Local Education Authorities is 63% of the operating-budget scale, +61 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 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
|
| Funding modelWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers? | The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 37 pts above the Burlington County average.Latest General Fund operating revenue summary, operating-budget denominator, and local peer source-share context. | Compare operating revenue shares against the Burlington County average; keep state aid, local levy, federal support, and fund balance on their own bases.Check: Revenue families | Pull or ask
|
| Pupil-cost lineWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average? | Support services per pupil is $18,299, $13,976 above the Burlington County average.NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows, latest local peer average, and real-dollar history where loaded. | Compare the same NJDOE standardized pupil-cost row with the Burlington County average; use it to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the whole budget.Check: Pupil-cost rows | Pull or ask
|
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 +$1,097,503 from revised/current to proposed. Top named row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities +$1,238,336 (Revenue line 200). | Budget-hearing presentation, revised/current-to-proposed detail, board resolutions, and the contract, grant, tuition, transfer, or staffing memo behind the largest changed row. | Proposal changes | 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 $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 39. | Adopted budget book, peer roster, grade-span/program notes, placement and transportation schedules, and budget presentations for the named peers. | Peer evidence | 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? | Transfers and tuition: $38,258,881; 87% of operating-budget scale; +73 pts versus Burlington County average; -$9,058,528 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; largest row: Tuition from Local Education Authorities. | 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. | Category evidence | 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 -$10,426,122 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Real operating budget per UFB planning student changed -$12,518. UFB planning on-roll changed -40. | 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. | Trends and inflation | 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 93%, 75 pts above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 39. | Enrollment projection worksheet, fall-enrollment comparison, placement and tuition schedules, transportation contracts, preschool/service-plan notes, and receiving/sending district records. | Costs and students | 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 $7.1 million. Shared-service file has 7 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. | Side files | 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 +$749,643 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 -$12,518. | 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 +$1,097,503 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 signalDoes the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered? | NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $57,234 above the Burlington County average. Evidence basis: NJDOE comparative-cost row, latest-year local peer rank, and local peer average gap where usable. | Use this as the first local budget question, then check the linked proof section.Peer evidence | NJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost. |
| Second-signal checkWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up? | Tuition from Local Education Authorities is 63% of the operating-budget scale, +61 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41. Evidence basis: Contextual UFB revenue or appropriation source row, operating-budget-equivalent scale, and same-row peer scan. | Carry this beside the lead so the first read is tested against another denominator, file, or comparison frame.Source rows | Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals. |
| Needs reportingTurn the cost position signal into a local explanation. | Adopted budget book and UFB narrative. Audit or ACFR schedules, staffing pages, and program descriptions. Ask the business administrator which obligations make the peer set fair or unfair. | Choose the fair peers, then check grade span, program obligations, placement load, and audited budget documents before treating the rank as efficiency or inefficiency.Peer evidence | A high or low cost rank can reflect service load, district size, aid structure, fixed costs, or pass-through rows; UFB alone does not prove waste or adequacy. |
| 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 cost position 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 Special Services, the strongest generated read is cost position. 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.
| Lane | Evidence | What it explains | What it cannot prove |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dominant first readCost positionPeer evidence | NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts; operating budget per UFB on-roll is $83,213, $57,788 above the Burlington County average; statewide comparative-cost rank is 3 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. |
| Strong supporting readWhat money buysCategories and lines | general current expense is the largest high-level use at 98% of operating budget; support services per pupil is $18,299, $13,976 above the Burlington County average; named row Tuition from Local Education Authorities is +61 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. |
| Strong supporting readWho paysRevenue families | local sources supply 100% of General Fund operating revenue; that source share is 37 pts above the Burlington County average; tax levy per UFB on-roll is $9,488, $4,158 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. |
| Context to carryTax effortTax basis | tax levy per UFB on-roll is $9,488, $4,158 below the Burlington County average; rank 29 of 39 among Burlington County districts. | Whether the budget story is partly a local-burden story after levy, planning enrollment, estimated rate rows, and tax-base context are separated. | A household tax bill, audited property-tax burden, or proof that school spending alone caused the rate. |
| Context to carryStudents and service loadCosts and students | special-education planning share is 93%, 75 pts above the Burlington County average. | Whether the per-student read is really about the denominator, placements, special education, or student-flow rows. | Fall enrollment, service severity, staffing need, service quality, or compliance. |
| Context to carryCurrent proposalProposal changes | operating budget changes +$1,097,503 from revised/current to proposed; largest named proposal movement is Local sources at +$1,612,927. | 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. |
| Context to carryTrend and denominatorTrends and inflation | operating scale changed -$10,426,122 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26; comparative cost changed -$13,833 after inflation; UFB planning on-roll changed -40. | Whether the background movement is real operating scale, published comparative cost, enrollment arithmetic, or a mix. | A current-year decision, or proof that inflation, enrollment, labor, or programs caused the movement. |
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
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 verdictConsistently above comparison frames. The comparative cost per pupil is above in 6 frames across the 6 front comparison frames shown.
Frame to checkBurlington County districts: +$57,234 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39.
Reporting useUse the detailed proof to test whether category, funding, or student-load rows explain the position. Open proof
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 | $79,5851 of 39 | $22,351Burlington County average | +$57,234 |
| All NJ UFB districtsBroad statewide baseline; useful, but not a fair peer group by itself.Comparative cost per pupil | $79,5853 of 566 | $23,591NJ average | +$55,994 |
| High special-education planning-share districtsSpecial-education planning share is a service-load comparison to read beside costs.Comparative cost per pupil | $79,5853 of 48 | $32,121slice average | +$47,464 |
| 500-2,499 UFB on-roll districtsScale helps separate large-system budgets from fixed-cost small-district pressure.Comparative cost per pupil | $79,5852 of 268 | $22,956slice average | +$56,629 |
| Top-decile comparative-cost districtsThis asks whether the district is unusual even among districts in the same cost band.Comparative cost per pupil | $79,5853 of 57 | $39,021slice average | +$40,564 |
| Mostly locally funded districtsFunding model changes what the same per-pupil cost can mean.Comparative cost per pupil | $79,5853 of 368 | $24,352slice average | +$55,233 |
| Frame | District | Comparison | Named check | How to use it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burlington County districtsClosest named local benchmark before any statewide ranking. | $79,5851 of 39 | $22,351Burlington County average; +$57,234 | Next higher: none in this frame; Next lower: Woodland Twp $31,174. | Closest named local benchmark before any statewide ranking.Open proof |
| All NJ UFB districtsBroad statewide baseline; useful, but not a fair peer group by itself. | $79,5853 of 566 | $23,591NJ average; +$55,994 | Next higher: Mercer Co Special Services $95,262; Next lower: Gloucester Co Spec Serv $64,243. | Broad statewide baseline; useful, but not a fair peer group by itself. Secondary clue: Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $83,213, $43,960 above the NJ average.Open proof |
| High special-education planning-share districtsSpecial-education planning share is a service-load comparison to read beside costs. | $79,5853 of 48 | $32,121slice average; +$47,464 | Next higher: Mercer Co Special Services $95,262; Next lower: Gloucester Co Spec Serv $64,243. | Special-education planning share is a service-load comparison to read beside costs. Secondary clue: Special-education on-roll planning share is 93%, 49 pts above the slice average.Open proof |
| 500-2,499 UFB on-roll districtsScale helps separate large-system budgets from fixed-cost small-district pressure. | $79,5852 of 268 | $22,956slice average; +$56,629 | Next higher: Bergen Co Special Service $103,100; Next lower: Gloucester Co Spec Serv $64,243. | Scale helps separate large-system budgets from fixed-cost small-district pressure. Secondary clue: Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $83,213, $55,332 above the slice average.Open proof |
| Top-decile comparative-cost districtsThis asks whether the district is unusual even among districts in the same cost band. | $79,5853 of 57 | $39,021slice average; +$40,564 | Next higher: Mercer Co Special Services $95,262; Next lower: Gloucester Co Spec Serv $64,243. | 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 $83,213, $35,364 above the slice average.Open proof |
| Mostly locally funded districtsFunding model changes what the same per-pupil cost can mean. | $79,5853 of 368 | $24,352slice average; +$55,233 | Next higher: Mercer Co Special Services $95,262; Next lower: Gloucester Co Spec Serv $64,243. | Funding model changes what the same per-pupil cost can mean. Secondary clue: Local operating revenue share is 100%, 16 pts above 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost positionDoes the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered? | $79,585NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $57,234 above 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. |
| Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up? | +61 ptsTuition from Local Education Authorities is 63% of the operating-budget scale, +61 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 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. |
| Funding modelWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers? | 100%The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 37 pts above the Burlington County average. | Revenue familiesBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete. | Read aid notices, budget-hearing materials, and board minutes to separate formula aid, one-time support, reserve use, and local decisions. | Operating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation. |
| Pupil-cost lineWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average? | $18,299Support services per pupil is $18,299, $13,976 above 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. |
| Tax effortHow does local tax effort compare once levy per planning student, estimated rate, and tax base are separated? | $9,488Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $9,488, $4,158 below the Burlington County average; local rank 29 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. |
| Special education planningIs a visible share of the planning denominator tied to special-education on-roll rows? | 93%Special-education on-roll planning share is 93%, 75 pts above the Burlington County average. | Service loadBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete. | Check service-plan, placement, and staffing records; UFB planning rows flag load but do not explain student need by themselves. | Planning rows signal service load; they do not identify student need by themselves. |
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.
Working nut graf. For Burlington County Special Services, the UFB-supported story to test is this: NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $57,234 above the Burlington County average. The reporting question is: Does the cost rank still make sense after funding model, scale, placements, and outside-operating rows are considered?
Why readers careReaders can decide whether the fair next question is a local peer comparison, a statewide slice comparison, or a denominator/service-load check.Proof in UFBNJDOE comparative-cost row, latest-year local peer rank, and local peer average gap where usable. Peer evidenceReport nextChoose the fair peers, then check grade span, program obligations, placement load, and audited budget documents before treating the rank as efficiency or inefficiency.Do not write yetA high or low cost rank can reflect service load, district size, aid structure, fixed costs, or pass-through rows; UFB alone does not prove waste or adequacy.Working nut graf. For Burlington County Special Services, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Tuition from Local Education Authorities is 63% of the operating-budget scale, +61 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 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.Working nut graf. For Burlington County Special Services, the UFB-supported story to test is this: The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 37 pts above the Burlington County average. The reporting question is: Who pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?
Why readers careReaders can separate a budget that is locally funded, state-aid driven, federally supported, or temporarily balanced by reserves before judging the same cost number.Proof in UFBLatest General Fund operating revenue summary, operating-budget denominator, and local peer source-share context. Revenue familiesReport nextRead aid notices, budget-hearing materials, and board minutes to separate formula aid, one-time support, reserve use, and local decisions.Do not write yetA state-funded, locally funded, or fund-balance-heavy budget can produce the same cost figure for different reasons.Working nut graf. For Burlington County Special Services, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Support services per pupil is $18,299, $13,976 above the Burlington County average. The reporting question is: Which NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?
Why readers careReaders can choose which standardized cost category deserves staffing, benefits, facilities, or program follow-up.Proof in UFBNJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows, latest local peer average, and real-dollar history where loaded. Pupil-cost rowsReport nextRead staffing, benefits, facilities, and program documents for the cost row; standardized pupil-cost categories are summaries, not explanations.Do not write yetPer-pupil cost rows are standardized comparison rows; they are not a complete staffing, contract, or program ledger.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 +$1,097,503 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. | Proposal changes |
| UFB-supported fact | NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts, $57,234 above the Burlington County average. | NJDOE comparative-cost row, latest-year local peer rank, and local peer average gap where usable. | NJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost. | Peer evidence |
| UFB-supported fact | Tuition from Local Education Authorities is 63% of the operating-budget scale, +61 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41. | Contextual UFB revenue or appropriation source row, operating-budget-equivalent scale, and same-row peer scan. | Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals. | Source rows |
| UFB-supported fact | The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 37 pts above the Burlington County average. | Latest General Fund operating revenue summary, operating-budget denominator, and local peer source-share context. | Operating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation. | Revenue families |
| UFB-supported fact | Support services per pupil is $18,299, $13,976 above the Burlington County average. | NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows, latest local peer average, and real-dollar history where loaded. | Several pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge. | Pupil-cost rows |
| UFB-supported fact | Tax levy per UFB on-roll student is $9,488, $4,158 below the Burlington County average; local rank 29 of 39. | UFB levy rows, estimated tax-rate side file where present, planning-student denominator, and local peer context. | Estimated tax-rate side-file rows are context; they are not audited property-tax bills. | Tax context |
| Needs outside reporting | Choose the fair peers, then check grade span, program obligations, placement load, and audited budget documents before treating the rank as efficiency or inefficiency. | Board materials, audits, contracts, tax records, staffing context, program records, or interviews outside the UFB files. | NJDOE comparative cost is the publisher’s metric; this is a comparison lead, not a judgment or a recomputed cost. | Peer evidence |
| Needs outside reporting | Pull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason. | Board materials, audits, contracts, tax records, staffing context, program records, or interviews outside the UFB files. | Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals. | Source rows |
| Unsupported shortcut | Do not turn the cost position signal into a claim about waste, adequacy, intent, quality, or cause without the outside reporting step. | Not established by UFB rows alone. | A high or low cost rank can reflect service load, district size, aid structure, fixed costs, or pass-through rows; UFB alone does not prove waste or adequacy. | Peer evidence |
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 | +$70,2642019-20 vs local peer average | +$57,2342025-26 vs local peer average | The measure moved closer to the Burlington County average; the gap moved -$13,030. | Peer trend proof |
| Support services per pupil2019-20 to 2025-26 | +$13,4802019-20 vs local peer average | +$13,7542025-26 vs local peer average | The measure moved farther above the Burlington County average; the gap moved +$275. | Cost and labor context |
| Classroom instruction per pupil2019-20 to 2025-26 | +$38,8262019-20 vs local peer average | +$32,6652025-26 vs local peer average | The measure moved closer to the Burlington County average; the gap moved -$6,161. | Cost and labor context |
| Operations and maintenance per pupil2019-20 to 2025-26 | +$8,0582019-20 vs local peer average | +$5,6542025-26 vs local peer average | The measure moved closer to the Burlington County average; the gap moved -$2,405. | Cost and labor context |
| Administrative costs per pupil2019-20 to 2025-26 | +$7,7202019-20 vs local peer average | +$4,4102025-26 vs local peer average | The measure moved closer to the Burlington County average; the gap moved -$3,310. | Cost and labor context |
| Operating budget per UFB on-roll student2019-20 to 2025-26 | +$69,4262019-20 vs local peer average | +$57,7882025-26 vs local peer average | The measure moved closer to the Burlington County average; the gap moved -$11,638. | Peer trend proof |
| Special-education on-roll planning share2019-20 to 2025-26 | +72 pts2019-20 vs local peer average | +75 pts2025-26 vs local peer average | The measure moved farther above the Burlington County average; the gap moved +3 pts. | Student and service load |
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 readAbove comparison frames over time. The latest real comparative cost is above in 5 frames.
Largest movementTop-decile comparative-cost districts moved -$16,244 versus its frame.
Reporting useUse category, denominator, and source-row sections to explain the relative position.
| Frame | First gap | Latest gap | Movement | Read the movement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burlington County districtsClosest named local comparison set. | +$70,2642019-20 vs Burlington County average | +$57,2342025-26 vs Burlington County average | -$13,0302019-20 to 2025-26 | The measure moved closer to the Burlington County average; the gap moved -$13,030. |
| All NJ UFB districtsBroad statewide baseline; useful, but not a fair peer group by itself. | +$70,1432019-20 vs NJ average | +$55,9942025-26 vs NJ average | -$14,1492019-20 to 2025-26 | The measure moved closer to the NJ average; the gap moved -$14,149. |
| 500-2,499 UFB on-roll districtsLatest-year UFB on-roll scale group held constant across loaded years. | +$70,5202019-20 vs slice average | +$56,6292025-26 vs slice average | -$13,8912019-20 to 2025-26 | The measure moved closer to the slice average; the gap moved -$13,891. |
| Mostly locally funded districtsLatest-year funding model held constant across loaded years. | +$68,7962019-20 vs slice average | +$55,2332025-26 vs slice average | -$13,5632019-20 to 2025-26 | The measure moved closer to the slice average; the gap moved -$13,563. |
| Top-decile comparative-cost districtsLatest-year comparative-cost band held constant across loaded years. | +$56,8082019-20 vs slice average | +$40,5642025-26 vs slice average | -$16,2442019-20 to 2025-26 | The measure moved closer to the slice average; the gap moved -$16,244. |
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.
| Budget basis | What UFB shows | Use it to say | Do not read it as |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recurring operating baseRevenue and use categories | proposed operating budget $43,853,201; local sources supply 100% of operating revenue; general current expense is 98% of operating usesScale: $43.9 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. |
| Current proposal movementProposal changes | Local sources changes +$1,612,927 from revised/current to proposedScale: 4% of operating budget | Use for what the latest budget proposal changes now, in nominal latest-file dollars. | Do not treat this as the inflation-adjusted long-run trend, and do not add overlapping source rows into one total. |
| Side-file contextSide files | projected close-year recap balances $9,300,924; 7 shared-service rowsScale: 21% | Use to explain tax basis, projected balances, district-entered unusual explanations, and shared-service context beside the operating story. | Do not read side-file rows as audited operating totals, complete payroll, audited savings, or tax-bill advice. |
| Outside-operating scaleBudget anatomy | Facilities acquisition and construction is the largest outside-operating row, $234,741Scale: <1% 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 Special Services 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.
| Test | UFB evidence | Safe read | Outside reporting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recurring-source testTrends and inflation | Local, state, and federal operating-source summaries moved -$10,426,122 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; those summaries equal 100% of the latest proposed operating budget; operating-budget scale moved -$10,426,122, about even with 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. |
| Operating-use testCategories and lines | Special education and student supports moved -$3,231,417 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; latest scale is 49% of proposed operating budget; 31 pts above the Burlington County average; largest latest source row: Total Special Education-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. |
| Denominator and service-load testCosts and students | UFB planning on-roll moved -40; special-education on-roll is 490 (93% 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. |
| Peer-frame testPeer evidence | Comparative cost per pupil is $79,585, +$57,234 vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts; Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $83,213, +$57,788 vs Burlington County average; Special-education on-roll planning share is 93%, +75 pts 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. |
| Outside-record gapStory checks | 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.
| Budget path | District scale | Use it to read | Compare / prove | Do not overread |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative cost framePeer evidence | NJDOE comparative cost $79,585; operating budget per UFB on-roll $83,213 | Start with whether the published cost position still looks unusual after the operating denominator and peer frame are named. | comparative cost +$57,234 vs Burlington County average; operating per UFB on-roll +$57,788 vs Burlington County average; statewide rank 3 of 566 | Do not turn a high or low cost position into quality, efficiency, or causality without the category, denominator, tax, and side-file checks below. |
| Money inRevenue families | Local sources: $43.9 million (100%) | Use this as the recurring General Fund operating-revenue basis: who funds the operating budget before all-funds, tax-rate, and reserve rows enter. | +37 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 1 of 41 | Do not call this all-funds revenue or a household tax bill; grants, debt, capital, and tax side files sit on different bases. |
| Money outCategories | General current expense: $42.9 million (98%); Capital outlay: $908,741 (2%) | Use this as the high-level operating-use basis before reading nested line rows or standardized pupil-cost rows. | +3 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 22 of 41 | Do not add high-level rows, lower-level detail rows, and pupil-cost rows into one spending decomposition; they overlap. |
| Live proposal movementProposal changes | operating budget +$1,097,503; Local sources +$1,612,927 | Use this for what the latest UFB file says is changing from revised/current to proposed, in nominal latest-file dollars. | +4 pts of operating scale; same-row peer context appears in the proposal-driver table. | Do not treat proposal movement as the long-run trend; trend panels convert dollars to 2025 only where labeled. |
| Outside operatingBudget anatomy | Facilities acquisition and construction: $234,741 (<1%) | 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. | Facilities acquisition and construction is <1% of operating scale. | Do not fold outside-operating rows into the General Fund operating mix or assume the operating-equivalent share recurs each year. |
| Context filesSide files | projected recap balances $9.3 million; 7 shared-service rows | 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. |
| Student basisCosts and students | UFB planning on-roll 527; fall enrollment 472; special-education planning rows 93% 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. | +75 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 1 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.
| Pressure to test | Evidence in this report | What it can explain | What it cannot prove |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relative cost pressurePeer evidence | Comparative cost per pupil is $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 39; Operating budget per UFB on-roll student is $83,213, $57,788 above the Burlington County average; statewide comparative-cost rank 3 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. |
| Spending mix pressureCategories and lines | general current expense is the largest high-level use at 98% of operating budget; support services per pupil is $18,299, $13,976 above the Burlington County average; named row Tuition from Local Education Authorities is +61 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. |
| Operating funding and tax-burden pressureRevenue families | local sources supply 100% of General Fund operating revenue; that source share is 37 pts above the Burlington County average; tax levy per UFB on-roll is $9,488, $4,158 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. |
| Student and service-load pressureCosts and students | special-education planning share is 93%, 75 pts above the Burlington County average. | Whether a per-student read is really about the denominator, placements, special education, or student-flow rows. | Fall enrollment, program severity, service quality, or audited staffing need. |
| Current proposal pressureProposal changes | operating budget changes +$1,097,503 from revised/current to proposed; largest named proposal movement is Local sources at +$1,612,927. | What the latest UFB file says the board is changing now, in nominal revised/current-to-proposed dollars. | The long-run inflation-adjusted trend, or a causal explanation for why the proposal changed. |
| Reserve and side-file pressureSide files | projected close-year recap balances total $9.3 million; 7 shared-service rows. | Whether reserve use, projected balances, unusual explanations, or shared-service entries should travel with the operating story. | Recurring revenue, audited cash, complete savings, or a structural-deficit finding without board and audit records. |
| Inflation and denominator pressureTrends and inflation | operating scale changed -$10,426,122 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26; comparative cost changed -$13,833 after inflation; UFB planning on-roll changed -40. | Whether the background movement is real operating scale, published comparative cost, denominator movement, or a mix. | The current proposal decision, or proof that prices, enrollment, labor, or programs caused the change. |
| Outside-operating pressureBudget anatomy | Facilities acquisition and construction is $234,741, <1% of operating budget. | 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 | Comparative cost per pupil is $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts.Comparative cost per pupil changed -$13,833 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26. | The district can still sit above local peers even when the real per-student line has eased, so the rank and the trend answer different questions. | Peer evidence Trends |
| Cost position vs local tax burden | Comparative cost per pupil is $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts.Tax levy as operating-budget equivalent is 11%, 47 pts below the Burlington County average; rank 40 of 41 among Burlington County districts. | A high cost read may be carried by state aid, federal rows, or balance sources rather than the local levy alone. | Peer evidence Tax basis |
| Current proposal vs loaded-year trend | Operating budget changes +$1,097,503 from revised/current to proposed in the latest UFB file.Operating scale changed -$10,426,122 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. | Proposal Trends |
| Cost position vs spending slice | Comparative cost per pupil is $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts.Support services per pupil is $18,299, $13,976 above the Burlington County average; rank 1 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. | Categories Peer evidence |
| Funding model vs spending slice | Local operating revenue share is 100%, 37 pts above the Burlington County average; rank 1 of 41 among Burlington County districts.Support services per pupil is $18,299, $13,976 above the Burlington County average; rank 1 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. | Categories Anatomy |
| Per-pupil cost vs service load | Comparative cost per pupil is $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts.special-education planning share is 93%, 75 pts above 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. | Students Peer evidence |
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
Transfers and tuition is the largest selected source-row family at 87% of operating-budget scale. Transfers and tuition has the widest selected local peer gap, 73 pts above the Burlington County average. Transfers and tuition moved the most after inflation, -$9,058,528 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 $38,258,881 (87% op. equiv.)+73 pts versus the Burlington County average-$9,058,528 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$1,844,352 latest proposal movement; +4 pts of operating scale | Tuition from Local Education Authorities (Revenue line 200, $27,563,841)Tuition from Local Education Authorities (+$1,238,336 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend |
| Special education and student supportslarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movement | Are special education, child study, therapies, guidance, or student supports driving the budget question? | Latest scale $21,442,019 (49% op. equiv.)+31 pts versus the Burlington County average-$3,231,417 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$518,109 latest proposal movement; +1 pt of operating scale | Total Special Education-Instruction (Appropriation line 10300, $15,617,719)Total Special Education-Instruction (+$355,377 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend |
| 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 $10,572,320 (24% op. equiv.)-39 pts versus the Burlington County average+$3,613,555 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26-$228,925 latest proposal movement; -1 pt of operating scale | County Tax Levy-Base Budget (Revenue line 110, $5,000,000)Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues (-$226,487 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend |
| Employee benefitslarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movement | How large are benefit rows, and are they moving differently from the overall budget? | Latest scale $13,504,417 (31% op. equiv.)+14 pts versus the Burlington County average-$3,903,880 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$822,234 latest proposal movement; +2 pts of operating scale | Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits (Appropriation line 71260, $13,504,417)Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits (+$822,234 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend |
| State aidlocal peer gap | Which aid lines explain dependence on state funding or first-to-latest movement? | Latest scale $0 (0% op. equiv.)-36 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 |
| Instruction programslocal peer gap | Which classroom or instructional program rows define the core spending structure? | Latest scale $705,198 (2% op. equiv.)-26 pts versus the Burlington County average-$90,703 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26-$48,471 latest proposal movement; 0 pts of operating scale | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Improvement of Instruction Services (Appropriation line 43200, $386,153)Total Undistributed Expenditures-Improvement of Instruction Services (-$55,016 latest-file move)Categories Trend |
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 Transfers and tuition, the proposal is a counter-move: +$1,844,352 in nominal latest-file movement versus -$9,058,528 across loaded years after inflation. Across material family rows, this scan finds 3 continuing trends, 7 counter-moves, and 0 current-only moves.
| Relationship | Loaded-year trend | Current proposal | How to read it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counter-moveTransfers and tuition | -$9,058,5282019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved 0 pts. | +$1,844,352+4 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Tuition from Local Education Authorities (Revenue, line 200, +$1,238,336) | The latest proposal points opposite the loaded-year real movement, so this is the first place to check whether the budget is pivoting.Proposal Trend Categories Peers |
| Continues trendCapital, facilities, and debt | +$678,7802019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +2 pts. | +$497,042+1 pt of proposed operating-budget scale.Total Capital Outlay (Appropriation, line 76400, +$511,269) | The latest proposal points in the same direction as the inflation-adjusted movement across loaded UFB years.Proposal Trend Categories Peers |
| Counter-moveGeneral current expense | -$10,996,0882019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved -1 pt. | +$586,234+1 pt of proposed operating-budget scale.Total General Current Expense (Appropriation, line 72260, +$586,234) | The latest proposal points opposite the loaded-year real movement, so this is the first place to check whether the budget is pivoting.Proposal Trend Categories Peers |
| Counter-moveLocal taxes and local sources | +$3,613,5552019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +11 pts. | -$228,925-1 pt of proposed operating-budget scale.Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues (Revenue, line 300, -$226,487) | The latest proposal points opposite the loaded-year real movement, so this is the first place to check whether the budget is pivoting.Proposal Trend Categories Peers |
| Counter-moveSpecial education and student supports | -$3,231,4172019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +3 pts. | +$518,109+1 pt of proposed operating-budget scale.Total Special Education-Instruction (Appropriation, line 10300, +$355,377) | The latest proposal points opposite the loaded-year real movement, so this is the first place to check whether the budget is pivoting.Proposal Trend Categories Peers |
| Counter-moveEmployee benefits | -$3,903,8802019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved -1 pt. | +$822,234+2 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits (Appropriation, line 71260, +$822,234) | The latest proposal points opposite the loaded-year real movement, so this is the first place to check whether the budget is pivoting.Proposal Trend Categories Peers |
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.
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 Special Services, the useful budget question is how to read comparative cost is $57,234 above the Burlington County average, local sources supply 100% of operating revenue, largest use is general current expense at 98%, and real operating scale changed -$10,426,122 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.
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 higher local cost position, mostly locally funded, 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 $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average; rank 1 of 39 locally; statewide rank 3 of 566; operating budget per UFB on-roll is $83,213, $57,788 above 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 100% of operating revenue, 37 pts above the Burlington County average; tax levy per UFB on-roll is $9,488, $4,158 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 employee benefits share at 31%, 13 pts above the Burlington County average; named-row standout: Tuition from Local Education Authorities is +61 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 93%, 75 pts above the Burlington County average; free/reduced-price lunch is 21%, -10 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 +$1,097,503; real operating scale changed -$10,426,122 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; UFB on-roll changed -40; operating per UFB on-roll changed -$12,518 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 $9.3 million; shared-service file lists 7 arrangements; selected administrative base-salary rows total $1.2 million | 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 | $79,585Burlington County average: $22,351 | +$57,234Rank 1 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. | Peer evidence |
| Cost basisOperating budget per UFB on-roll | $83,213Burlington County average: $25,425 | +$57,788Rank 1 of 39 | A scale check using the UFB planning denominator. It can confirm or complicate the published comparative-cost position. | Cost basis |
| Source per UFB on-rollLocal sources | $83,213Burlington County average: $16,120 | +$67,093Rank 1 of 39 | Funding rows show who pays for the budget. They explain pressure on the model, not what the district buys. | Revenue families |
| Use per UFB on-rollEmployee benefits | $25,625Burlington County average: $4,583 | +$21,043Rank 1 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. | Labor context |
| Pupil-cost rowLegal costs | $440Burlington County average: $57 | +$383Rank 1 of 41 | NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total. | Pupil-cost rows |
| Service-load denominatorSpecial-education on-roll planning share | 93%Burlington County average: 18% | +75 ptsRank 1 of 39 | Service-load rows can change the fairness of a per-student comparison. They are planning counts, not direct need or quality measures. | Service load |
| Pupil-cost rowSupport services salaries and benefits | $17,297Burlington County average: $3,312 | +$13,985Rank 1 of 41 | NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total. | Pupil-cost rows |
| Pupil-cost rowSupport services | $18,299Burlington County average: $4,323 | +$13,976Rank 1 of 41 | NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total. | Pupil-cost rows |
| Pupil-cost rowClassroom salaries and benefits | $42,293Burlington County average: $11,078 | +$31,215Rank 1 of 41 | NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total. | Pupil-cost rows |
| Pupil-cost rowClassroom instruction | $45,365Burlington County average: $12,080 | +$33,285Rank 1 of 41 | NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total. | Pupil-cost rows |
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 | $43.9 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 | 11 positive rows; 8 contextual rows in the appendix; largest: Total Revenues from Local Sources at $43.9 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 | 24 positive rows; 21 contextual rows in the appendix; largest: Total General Current Expense at $42.9 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. |
| Budget-enrollment file | 2 planning rows; on-roll 527, special ed 490. | UFB planning enrollment, special-education on-roll, sent/received placement rows, contract preschool, and denominator context. | 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 $7.1 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 | 7 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 | 10 listed salary rows; listed base salary total $1.2 million. | 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.
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 $79,585. UFB on-roll here is 527.
| Comparison frame | Measure | District | Comparison avg | Gap | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burlington CountyThis is the closest local comparison frame before statewide slices. | Comparative cost per pupil | $79,585 | $22,351 | +$57,234 | 1 of 39 |
| All NJ UFB districtsThis is the statewide baseline before narrowing to a more comparable slice. | Comparative cost per pupil | $79,585 | $23,591 | +$55,994 | 3 of 566 |
| High special-education planning-share districtsSpecial-education planning share is a student-load signal to read beside placements, services, and pupil-cost rows. | Comparative cost per pupil | $79,585 | $32,121 | +$47,464 | 3 of 48 |
| 500-2,499 UFB on-roll districtsUFB on-roll scale helps separate fixed-cost pressure from large-system operating scale. | Comparative cost per pupil | $79,585 | $22,956 | +$56,629 | 2 of 268 |
| Top-decile comparative-cost districtsThis compares the district with others already in a similar published comparative-cost band. | Comparative cost per pupil | $79,585 | $39,021 | +$40,564 | 3 of 57 |
| Mostly locally funded districtsFunding model changes what a cost comparison means, because local levy, state aid, and other sources carry different reader questions. | Comparative cost per pupil | $79,585 | $24,352 | +$55,233 | 3 of 368 |
Read down the ladder before treating one rank as the story: local peers, all NJ, and overlapping statewide slices can point in different directions.
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 mostly locally funded, 500-2,499 UFB on-roll, high special-education planning share, top-decile comparative cost, then keeps cost, funding, use, service, and tax clues in the same row.
| Named comp | Why similar | Cost basis | Funding and use | Service/tax clue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gloucester Co Spec ServGloucester County · 529 UFB on-roll | mostly locally funded, 500-2,499 UFB on-roll, high special-education planning share | comparative $64,243; operating/UFB on-roll $64,860 | mostly locally funded; high special-education planning share (local 88%) | special-ed planning 100%; tax levy/UFB on-roll $5,246 |
| Mercer Co Special ServicesMercer County · 470 UFB on-roll | mostly locally funded, high special-education planning share, top-decile comparative cost | comparative $95,262; operating/UFB on-roll $97,062 | mostly locally funded; high special-education planning share (local >99%) | special-ed planning 100%; tax levy/UFB on-roll $10,638 |
| Bergen Co Special ServiceBergen County · 587 UFB on-roll | mostly locally funded, 500-2,499 UFB on-roll, high special-education planning share | comparative $103,100; operating/UFB on-roll $109,690 | mostly locally funded; high special-education planning share (local 98%) | special-ed planning 100%; tax levy/UFB on-roll $19,981 |
| Salem Co Special ServiceSalem County · 160 UFB on-roll | mostly locally funded, high special-education planning share, top-decile comparative cost | comparative $63,018; operating/UFB on-roll $64,837 | mostly locally funded; high special-education planning share (local 100%) | special-ed planning 100%; tax levy/UFB on-roll $225 |
| Cape May Co Special ServCape May County · 244 UFB on-roll | mostly locally funded, high special-education planning share, top-decile comparative cost | comparative $62,303; operating/UFB on-roll $64,316 | mostly locally funded; high special-education planning share (local 93%) | special-ed planning 100%; tax levy/UFB on-roll $16,948 |
| Educational Services Commission of New JerseyMiddlesex County · 731 UFB on-roll | mostly locally funded, 500-2,499 UFB on-roll, high special-education planning share | operating/UFB on-roll $182,341 | mostly locally funded; high special-education planning share (local 95%) | special-ed planning >99% |
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.
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.
Budget report section
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.
Local sources supplied 100% of the proposed operating budget, 37 pts above the Burlington County average.
The largest high-level use is general current expense, $42.9 million or 98% of the operating budget.
NJDOE comparative cost is $79,585 per pupil, $57,234 above the Burlington County average (1 of 39 locally).
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.
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
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.
| UFB row | Revised/current | Proposed | Change | Op. equiv. | Peer avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local sourcesUFB line 370 | $42,240,274 | $43,853,201 | +$1,612,927 | 4% | 4% |
| Operating budgetUFB line 720 | $42,755,698 | $43,853,201 | +$1,097,503 | 3% | 1% |
| Unrestricted miscellaneous revenueUFB line 300 | $417,965 | $191,478 | -$226,487 | >-1% | <1% |
| Total tax levyUFB line 114 | $5,000,000 | $5,000,000 | $0 | 0% | 3% |
| UFB row | Revised/current | Proposed | Change | Op. equiv. | Peer avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employee benefitsUFB line 71260 | $12,682,183 | $13,504,417 | +$822,234 | 2% | 1% |
| General current expenseUFB line 72260 | $42,358,226 | $42,944,460 | +$586,234 | 1% | 2% |
| Capital outlayUFB line 76400 | $397,472 | $908,741 | +$511,269 | 1% | >-1% |
| Special education instructionUFB line 10300 | $15,262,342 | $15,617,719 | +$355,377 | <1% | <1% |
| Operations and maintenanceUFB line 51120 | $3,861,764 | $3,584,711 | -$277,053 | >-1% | <1% |
| Student transportationUFB line 52480 | $189,594 | $194,876 | +$5,282 | <1% | <1% |
| UFB row | Revised/current | Proposed | Change | Peer avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparative cost | $79,309 | $79,585 | +$276 | +$196 |
| On-roll, full | 32 | 37 | +5 | 5% |
| Special education on-roll, full | 486 | 490 | +4 | 2% |
| Classroom salaries and benefits | $41,089 | $42,293 | +$1,204 | +$114 |
| Equipment costs | $239 | $1,237 | +$998 | +$12 |
| Classroom instruction | $44,383 | $45,365 | +$982 | +$135 |
| Operations and maintenance | $8,829 | $8,244 | -$585 | -$15 |
| Administrative costs | $6,861 | $6,450 | -$411 | -$115 |
| Support services | $18,025 | $18,299 | +$274 | +$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 increase of +$5,224,603. The largest family in the package is Other named rows, with $2,366,635 of increases and $515,424 of reductions. Reductions in the same scan total $1,460,786 against $6,685,389 of increases.
| Budget family | Increases | Reductions | Net scan | Peer net | Largest rows |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other named rows4 material named rows | $2,366,6355% of op. scale | $515,4241% of op. scale | +$1,851,211+4 pts of op. scale | +6 ptsBurlington County average | Total Revenues from Local Sources (Revenue, line 370, +$1,612,927)Adjustment for Prior Year Encumbrances (Revenue, line 710, -$515,424) |
| Transfers and tuition2 material named rows | $1,844,3524% of op. scale | $00% of op. scale | +$1,844,352+4 pts of op. scale | 0 ptsBurlington County average | Tuition from Local Education Authorities (Revenue, line 200, +$1,238,336)No material reduction in this family. |
| Employee benefits1 material named row | $822,2342% of op. scale | $00% of op. scale | +$822,234+2 pts of op. scale | +1 ptBurlington County average | Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits (Appropriation, line 71260, +$822,234)No material reduction in this family. |
| General current expense1 material named row | $586,2341% of op. scale | $00% of op. scale | +$586,234+1 pt of op. scale | +2 ptsBurlington County average | Total General Current Expense (Appropriation, line 72260, +$586,234)No material reduction in this family. |
| Special education and student supports3 material named rows | $554,6651% of op. scale | $00% of op. scale | +$554,665+1 pt of op. scale | +1 ptBurlington County average | Total Special Education-Instruction (Appropriation, line 10300, +$355,377)No material reduction in this family. |
| Capital, facilities, and debt1 material named row | $511,2691% of op. scale | $00% of op. scale | +$511,269+1 pt of op. scale | -2 ptsBurlington County average | Total Capital Outlay (Appropriation, line 76400, +$511,269)No material reduction in this family. |
| Administration and central services2 material named rows | $00% of op. scale | $441,8221% of op. scale | -$441,822-1 pt of op. scale | 0 ptsBurlington County average | No material increase in this family.Total Undistributed Expenditures-Central Services (Appropriation, line 47200, -$362,837) |
| Plant, operations, and maintenance1 material named row | $00% of op. scale | $277,053<1% of op. scale | -$277,053-1 pt of op. scale | 0 ptsBurlington County average | No material increase in this family.Total Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant S... (Appropriation, line 51120, -$277,053) |
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 Revenues from Local Sources, up $1,612,927 in the revenue file. The largest named reduction is Adjustment for Prior Year Encumbrances, down $515,424 in the revenue file.
| UFB row | Revised/current | Proposed | Change | Op. equiv. | Peer avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 370 | Acct. ' | $42,240,274 | $43,853,201 | +$1,612,927 | 4% | 4%n=41 |
| Tuition from Local Education AuthoritiesRevenue | Account row | UFB line 200 | Acct. '10-1310 | $26,325,505 | $27,563,841 | +$1,238,336 | 3% | n/a |
| Total Personal Services-Employee BenefitsUse | Subtotal | UFB line 71260 | Acct. '11-XXX-XXX-2X | $12,682,183 | $13,504,417 | +$822,234 | 2% | 1%n=39 |
| Other TuitionRevenue | Account row | UFB line 220 | Acct. '10-1320-1340 | $10,089,024 | $10,695,040 | +$606,016 | 1% | n/a |
| Total General Current ExpenseUse | Subtotal | UFB line 72260 | Acct. ' | $42,358,226 | $42,944,460 | +$586,234 | 1% | 2%n=41 |
| Total EquipmentUse | Subtotal | UFB line 75880 | Acct. '12-XXX-XXX-73 | $124,004 | $652,000 | +$527,996 | 1% | <1%n=30 |
| Adjustment for Prior Year EncumbrancesRevenue | Account row | UFB line 710 | Acct. ' | $515,424 | $0 | -$515,424 | -1% | -2%n=35 |
| Total Capital OutlayUse | Subtotal | UFB line 76400 | Acct. ' | $397,472 | $908,741 | +$511,269 | 1% | -1%n=39 |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures-Central ServicesUse | Subtotal | UFB line 47200 | Acct. '11-000-251-XX | $1,966,057 | $1,603,220 | -$362,837 | >-1% | >-1%n=41 |
| Total Special Education-InstructionUse | Subtotal | UFB line 10300 | Acct. '11-2XX-100-XX | $15,262,342 | $15,617,719 | +$355,377 | <1% | <1%n=38 |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant ServicesUse | Subtotal | UFB line 51120 | Acct. '11-000-26X-XX | $3,861,764 | $3,584,711 | -$277,053 | >-1% | <1%n=40 |
| Unrestricted Miscellaneous RevenuesRevenue | Account row | UFB line 300 | Acct. '10-1XXX | $417,965 | $191,478 | -$226,487 | >-1% | <1%n=30 |
| Total Undistributed ExpendituresUse | Subtotal | UFB line 72140 | Acct. ' | $26,824,884 | $27,050,596 | +$225,712 | <1% | 1%n=41 |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related ServicesUse | Subtotal | UFB line 40580 | Acct. '11-000-216-XX | $3,549,564 | $3,651,507 | +$101,943 | <1% | <1%n=39 |
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
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.
$79,585Rank 1 of 39; +$57,234 vs Burlington County average.
$83,213Rank 1 of 39; +$57,788 vs Burlington County average.
$18,299Rank 1 of 41; +$13,976 vs Burlington County average.
$45,365Rank 1 of 41; +$33,285 vs Burlington County average.
$8,244Rank 1 of 41; +$5,780 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 1 of 39 on that published cost line at $79,585.
| District | Comparative cost | Cost rank | UFB on-roll | Operating budget | Funding model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burlington Co Spec ServThis district | $79,585 | 1 of 39 | 527 | $43.9 million | Mostly locally funded100% local / n/a state |
| Woodland TwpPeer district | $31,174 | 2 of 39 | 82 | $3.1 million | Mostly locally funded79% local / 10% state |
| Burlington CityPeer district | $25,465 | 3 of 39 | 1,816 | $53.9 million | Mixed-source34% local / 52% state |
| Pemberton TwpPeer district | $25,019 | 4 of 39 | 4,328 | $112.5 million | Mostly state-funded24% local / 65% state |
| Maple Shade TwpPeer district | $24,533 | 5 of 39 | 2,254 | $59.0 million | Mixed-source50% local / 49% state |
| Beverly CityPeer district | $23,729 | 6 of 39 | 343 | $10.6 million | Mostly state-funded28% local / 68% state |
| Mount Holly TwpPeer district | $23,203 | 7 of 39 | 1,115 | $29.7 million | Mixed-source32% local / 56% state |
| Lenape RegionalPeer district | $22,630 | 8 of 39 | 6,336 | $178.4 million | Mostly locally funded80% local / 12% state |
| Edgewater Park TwpPeer district | $22,600 | 9 of 39 | 1,048 | $34.3 million | Mixed-source35% local / 53% state |
| Willingboro TwpPeer district | $22,372 | 10 of 39 | 4,115 | $108.0 million | Mixed-source36% local / 55% state |
| Riverside TwpPeer district | $22,280 | 11 of 39 | 1,620 | $43.8 million | Mostly state-funded24% local / 65% state |
| North Hanover TwpPeer district | $22,253 | 12 of 39 | 1,511 | $34.7 million | Mixed-source12% local / 62% state |
| RivertonPeer district | $21,792 | 13 of 39 | 267 | $7.0 million | Mostly locally funded90% local / 6% state |
| Hainesport TwpPeer district | $21,736 | 14 of 39 | 523 | $12.0 million | Mostly locally funded87% local / 7% state |
| Shamong TwpPeer district | $21,668 | 15 of 39 | 640 | $15.8 million | Mostly locally funded74% local / 14% state |
| Medford Lakes BoroPeer district | $21,065 | 16 of 39 | 447 | $10.0 million | Mostly locally funded74% local / 14% state |
| Moorestown TwpPeer district | $20,890 | 17 of 39 | 4,008 | $92.9 million | Mostly locally funded84% local / 9% state |
| Chesterfield TwpPeer district | $20,731 | 18 of 39 | 692 | $14.2 million | Mostly locally funded73% local / 23% state |
| Northern Burlington RegPeer district | $20,535 | 19 of 39 | 2,078 | $52.1 million | Mixed-source46% local / 48% state |
| Southampton TwpPeer district | $20,518 | 20 of 39 | 728 | $16.0 million | Mostly locally funded83% local / 10% state |
| Delran TwpPeer district | $20,411 | 21 of 39 | 2,823 | $66.0 million | Mixed-source53% local / 46% state |
| Burlington TwpPeer district | $20,375 | 22 of 39 | 3,506 | $79.3 million | Mixed-source61% local / 38% state |
| Bordentown RegionalPeer district | $20,289 | 23 of 39 | 2,101 | $49.1 million | Mostly locally funded77% local / 18% state |
| New Hanover TwpPeer district | $20,230 | 24 of 39 | 258 | $6.2 million | Mixed-source34% local / 48% state |
| Palmyra BoroPeer district | $20,213 | 25 of 39 | 1,035 | $23.9 million | Mixed-source56% local / 36% state |
| Lumberton TwpPeer district | $20,174 | 26 of 39 | 1,326 | $27.7 million | Mostly locally funded76% local / 16% state |
| Florence TwpPeer district | $19,982 | 27 of 39 | 1,721 | $37.9 million | Mixed-source61% local / 36% state |
| Cinnaminson TwpPeer district | $19,462 | 28 of 39 | 3,138 | $68.1 million | Mixed-source59% local / 32% state |
| Mansfield TwpPeer district | $19,401 | 29 of 39 | 687 | $15.1 million | Mostly locally funded83% local / 8% state |
| Delanco TwpPeer district | $18,686 | 30 of 39 | 370 | $10.9 million | Mostly locally funded69% local / 20% state |
| Mount Laurel TwpPeer district | $18,509 | 31 of 39 | 4,336 | $89.6 million | Mostly locally funded85% local / 11% state |
| WestamptonPeer district | $18,498 | 32 of 39 | 991 | $19.2 million | Mostly locally funded69% local / 28% state |
| Burlington Co VocationalPeer district | $18,363 | 33 of 39 | 2,239 | $42.6 million | Mixed-source58% local / 42% state |
| Rancocas Valley RegionalPeer district | $18,281 | 34 of 39 | 1,930 | $49.2 million | Mixed-source58% local / 39% state |
| Evesham TwpPeer district | $18,063 | 35 of 39 | 4,710 | $100.2 million | Mostly locally funded91% local / 9% state |
| Tabernacle TwpPeer district | $17,504 | 36 of 39 | 781 | $12.9 million | Mostly locally funded79% local / 19% state |
| Eastampton TwpPeer district | $16,859 | 37 of 39 | 650 | $11.1 million | Mixed-source55% local / 40% state |
| Medford TwpPeer district | $16,779 | 38 of 39 | 3,643 | $64.4 million | Mostly locally funded88% local / 8% state |
| Springfield TwpPeer district | $15,839 | 39 of 39 | 280 | $4.8 million | Mostly locally funded79% local / 16% state |
| Bass River TwpPeer district | n/a | n/a | n/a | $1.7 million | Mixed-source64% local / 15% state |
| Washington TwpPeer district | n/a | n/a | n/a | $2.2 million | Mostly locally funded83% local / 10% state |
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.
Local sources: 100% here versus 63% for the county avg, a +37 pts gap.
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.
General current expense: 98% here versus 95% for the county avg, a +3 pts gap.
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: +$70,264 | 2025-26: +$57,234 | -$13,030 |
| Support services per pupil | 2019-20: +$13,480 | 2025-26: +$13,754 | +$275 |
| Classroom instruction per pupil | 2019-20: +$38,826 | 2025-26: +$32,665 | -$6,161 |
| Operations and maintenance per pupil | 2019-20: +$8,058 | 2025-26: +$5,654 | -$2,405 |
| Administrative costs per pupil | 2019-20: +$7,720 | 2025-26: +$4,410 | -$3,310 |
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
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
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 | -$14,207Operating budget per UFB on-roll student moved -$14,207 in 2025 dollars. UFB planning on-roll moved +82 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. | Trend evidence |
| Comparative-cost peer turn2024-25 to 2025-26 | -$14,156Comparative cost per pupil gap versus the Burlington County average moved -$14,156; the gap went from +$71,390 to +$57,234. | The measure moved closer to the Burlington County average; the gap moved -$14,156. | Peer evidence |
| Source-family turn2024-25 to 2025-26 | +$4,618,429Local taxes and local sources moved +$4,618,429 after inflation (+10 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. | Category evidence |
| Named-row turn2024-25 to 2025-26 | -$5,131,563County Tax Levy moved -$5,131,563 after inflation (-12 pts of operating scale); Revenue line 110. | This is the strongest annual source-row movement, but UFB rows are selected and often nested. Check the source row before turning it into a cause. | Source rows |
| Student/service-load turn2024-25 to 2025-26 | +82UFB planning on-roll moved +82 students. | 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. | Cost/student evidence |
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.
Comparative-cost timing basis
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 -$1,744 in 2025 dollars. Compared with the revised/current budget column (2024-25), the proposed column is +$276 in nominal UFB dollars.
| School year | UFB basis | Published comparative cost | 2025 dollars | How to use it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-23Year 1 | Actual cost | $71,422 | $78,570 | First actual-cost column in the latest UFB file. |
| 2023-24Year 2 | Actual cost | $76,974 | $81,329 | Second actual-cost column in the latest UFB file. |
| 2024-25Year 3 | Original budget | $91,381 | $93,785 | Original budget column for the year before the proposed budget. |
| 2024-25Year 4 | Revised/current budget | $79,309 | $81,396 | Revised or current budget column for the year before the proposed budget. |
| 2025-26Year 5 | Proposed budget | $79,585 | $79,585 | 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 $12,518 after inflation. The table separates how much came from operating-budget scale versus the planning-enrollment denominator.
Local peer gap. Operating per UFB on-roll was +$57,788 versus the Burlington County average in 2025-26; the gap moved -$11,638 since 2019-20.
| Step | Per-student value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point, 2019-20 | $95,731 | Real operating budget divided by first-year UFB on-roll. |
| Budget numerator effect | -$18,388 | Move to 2025-26 real operating dollars while holding 2019-20 UFB on-roll constant. |
| Enrollment denominator effect | +$5,870 | Then move from 567 to 527 UFB on-roll students. |
| Ending point, 2025-26 | $83,213 | The district’s latest real operating budget per UFB on-roll student. |
| Measure | 2019-20 | 2025-26 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operating budget | $54,279,323 | $43,853,201 | -$10,426,122 -19% |
| UFB on-roll planning enrollment | 567 | 527 | -40 -7% |
| Operating per UFB on-roll | $95,731 | $83,213 | -$12,518 |
| Burlington County average op. per UFB on-roll | $26,305 | $25,425 | -$880 |
| NJDOE comparative cost per pupil | $93,418 | $79,585 | -$13,833 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tuition from Local Education AuthoritiesRevenue | $34,573,315 | $27,563,841 | -$7,009,474 |
| County Tax LevyRevenue | $6,044,530 | $0 | -$6,044,530 |
| County Tax Levy-Base BudgetRevenue | $0 | $5,000,000 | +$5,000,000 |
| Total Tax LevyRevenue | $0 | $5,000,000 | +$5,000,000 |
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. Local sources moved from 100% to 100% of proposed operating funding, 0 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26. In the latest file, the biggest local peer gap was local sources, +37 pts versus the Burlington County average.
| Operating source | 2019-20 share | 2025-26 share | Share move | Real source move | Burlington County average | Latest peer gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Federal sources | 0% | 0% | 0 pts | $0 | 2% | -2 pts |
| Fund balance / other | 0% | 0% | 0 pts | $0 | <1% | -1 pt |
| Local sources | 100% | 100% | 0 pts | -$10,426,122 | 63% | +37 pts |
| State sources | 0% | 0% | 0 pts | $0 | 30% | -30 pts |
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 -$10,426,122; operating per on-roll -$12,518 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 | $54,279,323 | 567 | $95,731 | $26,305 | $93,418 | $23,154 | local 100% | General current expense >99% |
| 2020-21 | $55,047,257 | 575 | $95,734 | $26,410 | $91,691 | $23,162 | local 100% | General current expense 99% |
| 2021-22 | $49,566,402 | 510 | $97,189 | $26,493 | $93,610 | $23,153 | local 100% | General current expense >99% |
| 2022-23 | $47,105,455 | 449 | $104,912 | $26,043 | $99,773 | $22,591 | local 100% | General current expense 97% |
| 2023-24 | $44,845,826 | 482 | $93,041 | $25,567 | $87,951 | $21,989 | local 100% | General current expense 97% |
| 2024-25 | $43,351,729 | 445 | $97,420 | $25,726 | $93,785 | $22,396 | local 100% | General current expense >99% |
| 2025-26 | $43,853,201 | 527 | $83,213 | $25,425 | $79,585 | $22,351 | local 100% | 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 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
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
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
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.
Budget report section
Which spending categories, budget families, and source rows are large or unusual?
Budget family context matrix
Largest current family signal: General current expense, $42,944,460 or 98% of operating-budget scale. Largest real movement: General current expense, -$10,996,088 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Widest peer gap: Transfers and tuition, 73 pts above the Burlington County average.
| Family and source row | Latest scale | Peer gap | Real movement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfers and tuition2 latest rowsLargest latest rowTuition from Local Education AuthoritiesRevenue line 200 · $27,563,841 | 87%$38,258,881 | +73 ptspeer avg 15% | -$9,058,5280 pts op. shift |
| General current expense1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal General Current ExpenseAppropriation line 72260 · $42,944,460 | 98%$42,944,460 | +3 ptspeer avg 95% | -$10,996,088-1 pt op. shift |
| Special education and student supports4 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Special Education-InstructionAppropriation line 10300 · $15,617,719 | 49%$21,442,019 | +31 ptspeer avg 18% | -$3,231,417+3 pts op. shift |
| Local taxes and local sources4 latest rowsLargest latest rowCounty Tax Levy-Base BudgetRevenue line 110 · $5,000,000 | 24%$10,572,320 | -39 ptspeer avg 63% | +$3,613,555+11 pts op. shift |
| Employee benefits1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Personal Services-Employee BenefitsAppropriation line 71260 · $13,504,417 | 31%$13,504,417 | +14 ptspeer avg 17% | -$3,903,880-1 pt op. shift |
| State aid0 latest rowsLargest latest rowNo positive latest-year row. | 0%$0 | -36 ptspeer avg 36% | $00 pts op. shift |
| Instruction programs3 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Improvement of Instruction ServicesAppropriation line 43200 · $386,153 | 2%$705,198 | -26 ptspeer avg 28% | -$90,7030 pts op. shift |
| Special revenue funds0 latest rowsLargest latest rowNo positive latest-year row. | 0%$0 | -15 ptspeer avg 15% | $00 pts op. shift |
| Capital, facilities, and debt2 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Capital OutlayAppropriation line 76400 · $908,741 | 3%$1,143,482 | -9 ptspeer avg 11% | +$678,780+2 pts op. shift |
| Administration and central services4 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Central ServicesAppropriation line 47200 · $1,603,220 | 8%$3,378,845 | +1 ptpeer avg 6% | -$1,468,994-1 pt 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfers and tuitionDo charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story?Tuition from Local Education AuthoritiesRevenue line 200; $27,563,841 | 87%$38,258,881; rank 1 of 41+73 pts vs Burlington County average (15%) | Next higherNo local peer higherNext lowerBass River Twp 81% | Burlington Co Spec Serv 87% to Chesterfield Twp <1%Transfer and tuition rows often identify the districts where money leaves the district-run setting. |
| 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; $5,000,000 | 24%$10,572,320; rank 38 of 41-39 pts vs Burlington County average (63%) | Next higherBurlington City 27%Next lowerPemberton Twp 24% | Evesham Twp 91% to North Hanover Twp 12%Mostly revenue-file rows. Tax levy is merged across label variants where the source changed names. |
| Special education and student supportsAre special education, child study, therapies, guidance, or student supports driving the budget question?Total Special Education-InstructionAppropriation line 10300; $15,617,719 | 49%$21,442,019; rank 1 of 41+31 pts vs Burlington County average (18%) | Next higherNo local peer higherNext lowerLumberton Twp 27% | Burlington Co Spec Serv 49% to Bass River Twp 0%Rows can mix instruction, support services, and placement-related services. |
| State aidWhich aid lines explain dependence on state funding or first-to-latest movement?No positive latest-year source row. | 0%$0; rank 41 of 41-36 pts vs Burlington County average (36%) | Next higherMansfield Twp 8%Next lowerNo local peer lower | North Hanover Twp 101% to Burlington Co Spec Serv 0%Includes aid rows other than preschool-specific rows, which are separated because they often move as a program block. |
| Employee benefitsHow large are benefit rows, and are they moving differently from the overall budget?Total Personal Services-Employee BenefitsAppropriation line 71260; $13,504,417 | 31%$13,504,417; rank 1 of 41+14 pts vs Burlington County average (17%) | Next higherNo local peer higherNext lowerTabernacle Twp 30% | Burlington Co Spec Serv 31% to Bass River Twp 0%Benefit rows are named appropriation rows that can overlap with salary-bearing functions. |
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
Employee benefits sits 14 pts above the Burlington County average. General current expense changed -$10,996,088 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 | $42,944,460 | 98% | 95% | -1 pt | -$10,996,088 |
| School-based budgeting | High-level operating use | $0 | 0% | 3% | 0 pts | $0 |
| Capital outlay | High-level operating use | $908,741 | 2% | 2% | +1 pt | +$569,967 |
| Core instruction rows | Nested cost row | $15,617,719 | 36% | 33% | +1 pt | -$3,219,288 |
| Student supports and services | Nested cost row | $5,824,300 | 13% | 9% | +3 pts | -$12,129 |
| Instruction tuition | Nested cost row | $0 | 0% | 11% | 0 pts | $0 |
| Administration and central services | Nested cost row | $3,378,845 | 8% | 6% | -1 pt | -$1,468,994 |
| Operations and maintenance | Nested cost row | $3,584,711 | 8% | 9% | -1 pt | -$1,388,086 |
| Student transportation | Nested cost row | $194,876 | <1% | 6% | 0 pts | -$147,947 |
| Employee benefits | Nested cost row | $13,504,417 | 31% | 17% | -1 pt | -$3,903,880 |
| Special Revenue Funds | Outside-operating scale | $0 | 0% | 7% | 0 pts | $0 |
| 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, $42,944,460 or 98% of operating-budget scale. Largest first-to-latest real movement: General current expense, -$10,996,088 in 2025 dollars. Widest local peer gap: Transfers and tuition, 73 pts above the Burlington County average on the same operating-scale basis.
Transfer and tuition rows often identify the districts where money leaves the district-run setting.
General current expense is a high-level operating row; lower-level rows inside it can overlap and should not be added back to it.
Rows can mix instruction, support services, and placement-related services.
Mostly revenue-file rows. Tax levy is merged across label variants where the source changed names.
Benefit rows are named appropriation rows that can overlap with salary-bearing functions.
Includes aid rows other than preschool-specific rows, which are separated because they often move as a program block.
Instruction rows can be nested inside broader General Fund current-expense totals.
Special-revenue totals are outside-operating scale signals and should not be added to General Fund operating rows.
Capital and debt rows use operating budget only as a common scale reference.
This is source-row context, not a full administrative payroll analysis.
Preschool rows can appear in revenue and appropriation files and can be outside ordinary K-12 comparisons.
Operations rows are lower-level appropriation rows and should not be added to high-level totals.
Reserve and fund-balance rows are context signals, not recurring operating revenue.
Transportation appears in both aid/revenue and appropriation rows; read the file label.
Federal rows are source-file grant lines and can sit outside the operating-budget story.
A catch-all for contextual rows that do not fit the named families above.
School-based budgeting rows are allocation signals; they can overlap with lower-level program and staffing rows.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total General Current Expense | Appropriation | $53,940,548 | $42,944,460 | -$10,996,088 | -1 pt |
| County Tax Levy | Revenue | $6,044,530 | $0 | -$6,044,530 | -11 pts |
| Total Revenues from Local Sources | Revenue | $54,279,323 | $43,853,201 | -$10,426,122 | 0 pts |
| County Tax Levy-Base Budget | Revenue | $0 | $5,000,000 | +$5,000,000 | +11 pts |
| Total Tax Levy | Revenue | $0 | $5,000,000 | +$5,000,000 | +11 pts |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures | Appropriation | $34,790,786 | $27,050,596 | -$7,740,190 | -2 pts |
| Tuition from Local Education Authorities | Revenue | $34,573,315 | $27,563,841 | -$7,009,474 | -1 pt |
| Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits | Appropriation | $17,408,297 | $13,504,417 | -$3,903,880 | -1 pt |
| Total Special Education-Instruction | Appropriation | $18,837,007 | $15,617,719 | -$3,219,288 | +1 pt |
| Other Tuition | Revenue | $12,744,094 | $10,695,040 | -$2,049,054 | +1 pt |
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
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 $79,585, $57,234 above the Burlington County average, and operating budget per UFB on-roll is $83,213, $57,788 above 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 | $79,585 | $57,234 above the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: $22,351; rank 1 of 39. | Published NJDOE comparative-cost line. The report does not recompute it from operating dollars or enrollment. |
| Operating budget per UFB on-roll | $83,213 | $57,788 above the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: $25,425; rank 1 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 | $92,909 | $68,105 above the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: $24,804; rank 1 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 | $9,488 | $4,158 below the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: $13,646; rank 29 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: special-education planning load is 93% of UFB on-roll. 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 | $42.9 million (98% of operating) | 3 pts above the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: 95%; rank 22 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 | 490 (93% of UFB on-roll) | 75 pts above the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: 18%; rank 1 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.
| Measure | This district | Local context | Read as |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fall enrollment | 472 | <1% of peer fall enrollment | NJDOE fall enrollment count used on the district profile. |
| UFB planning on-roll | 527 | 112% of fall enrollment | +55 versus fall |
| Operating budget per UFB on-roll | $83,213 | $25,425 | $57,788 above the Burlington County average |
| Operating budget per fall-enrolled student | $92,909 | $24,804 | $68,105 above the Burlington County average |
| Fall row | Count | Share | Local avg / rank | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free/reduced-price lunch | 99 | 21% | 31% · rank 26 of 42 | -10 pts |
| Multilingual learners | 0 | 0% | 4% · rank 39 of 41 | -4 pts |
| Students experiencing homelessness | 16 | 3% | <1% · rank 2 of 39 | +2 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 527. From 2019-20 to 2025-26, that denominator changed -40 (-7.1%). Latest planning-load shares: special education 93% of UFB on-roll. Largest latest service-load category: Special-education on-roll, 93% of on-roll. Largest count movement: Special-education on-roll, -17.
This is a planning-enrollment row, not a fall enrollment special-education count.
Combines private school, contract preschool, sent-to-other-district, and state-facility planning rows.
Combines regular and special-education sent-to-other-district UFB planning rows.
Received-from-other-district minus sent-to-other-district rows; private and preschool placements are separate.
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.
| NJDOE pupil-cost row | This district | Peer avg | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classroom salaries and benefits | $42,293 | $11,646 | +$30,647 |
| Support services salaries and benefits | $17,297 | $3,481 | +$13,816 |
| Operations and maintenance salaries and benefits | $3,878 | $1,164 | +$2,714 |
| Administration salaries and benefits | $4,228 | $1,594 | +$2,634 |
| Benefits as % of salaries | 59.22% | 35.75% | +23 pts |
| Measure | This district | Local context | Read as |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee benefits appropriation row | $13.5 million · 31% | 18% peer avg; 13 pts above the Burlington County average | Named UFB appropriation row, scaled to the operating budget. |
| Benefits as a share of salaries | 59.22% | 34% peer avg; 25 pts above the Burlington County average | NJDOE pupil-cost row, not an appropriation amount. |
| Listed administrative base salaries | $1.2 million · $2,252 per UFB on-roll | $722 peer avg; rank 1 of 39 | 10 selected UFB salary rows. |
| Highest listed administrative base salary | $215,000 | $190,841 peer avg; rank 11 of 39 | 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 -$13,833 per pupil after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The largest CPI-adjusted standardized pupil-cost row movement was classroom salaries and benefits, -$7,382 per pupil from 2019-20 to 2025-26. In the latest file, the largest local peer gap among these rows was classroom instruction, +$32,665 versus the Burlington County average.
| NJDOE pupil-cost row | 2019-20 real | 2025-26 real | Real movement | Burlington County average | Latest gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classroom salaries and benefits | $49,675 | $42,293 | -$7,382 | $11,646 | +$30,647 |
| Classroom instruction | $52,285 | $45,365 | -$6,920 | $12,700 | +$32,665 |
| Administrative costs | $10,121 | $6,450 | -$3,671 | $2,040 | +$4,410 |
| Operations and maintenance | $10,812 | $8,244 | -$2,568 | $2,590 | +$5,654 |
| Equipment costs | $370 | $1,237 | +$867 | $233 | +$1,004 |
| Support services | $17,488 | $18,299 | +$811 | $4,545 | +$13,754 |
| Classroom purchased services | $1,905 | $2,577 | +$672 | $662 | +$1,915 |
| Legal costs | $200 | $440 | +$240 | $60 | +$380 |
| Classroom supplies and textbooks | $705 | $495 | -$210 | $392 | +$103 |
| Extracurricular costs | $827 | $830 | +$3 | $392 | +$438 |
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 | $45,365 | $12,700 | +$32,665 |
| Classroom salaries and benefits | $42,293 | $11,646 | +$30,647 |
| Support services | $18,299 | $4,545 | +$13,754 |
| Operations and maintenance | $8,244 | $2,590 | +$5,654 |
| Administrative costs | $6,450 | $2,040 | +$4,410 |
| Classroom purchased services | $2,577 | $662 | +$1,915 |
| Classroom supplies and textbooks | $495 | $392 | +$103 |
| Extracurricular costs | $830 | $392 | +$438 |
| Equipment costs | $1,237 | $233 | +$1,004 |
| Legal costs | $440 | $60 | +$380 |
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 | 37 | 7% |
| Special education on-roll, full | 490 | 93% |
These are UFB budget-enrollment planning rows, not the fall enrollment counts used elsewhere on the profile.
Budget report section
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 $9,488, -$4,158 versus the Burlington County average.
| Measure | This district | Burlington County average | Gap | Local rank | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tax levy per UFB on-roll | $9,488 | $13,646 | -$4,158 | 29 of 39 | UFB summary tax levy divided by UFB on-roll planning enrollment. |
| Tax levy / operating budget | 11% | 58% | -47 pts | 40 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 | $18,299 | $4,323 | +$13,976 | 1 of 41 |
| Classroom instruction per pupil | $45,365 | $12,080 | +$33,285 | 1 of 41 |
| Comparative cost per pupil | $79,585 | $22,351 | +$57,234 | 1 of 39 |
| Operations and maintenance per pupil | $8,244 | $2,464 | +$5,780 | 1 of 41 |
| Administrative costs per pupil | $6,450 | $1,941 | +$4,509 | 1 of 41 |
| Operating budget per UFB on-roll student | $83,213 | $25,425 | +$57,788 | 1 of 39 |
| Listed admin base salaries per UFB on-roll student | $2,252 | $722 | +$1,529 | 1 of 39 |
| Special-education on-roll planning share | 93% | 18% | +75 pts | 1 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: Tuition from Local Education Authorities is 63%, +61 pts versus the peer average; Total Tax Levy is 11%, -47 pts versus the peer average.
| UFB row | File | Amount | Op. equiv. | Peer avg | Gap | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tuition from Local Education Authorities | Revenue | $27,563,841 | 63% | 2% | +61 pts | 1 of 41 |
| Total Tax Levy | Revenue | $5,000,000 | 11% | 58% | -47 pts | 40 of 41 |
| Total Revenues from Local Sources | Revenue | $43,853,201 | 100% | 63% | +37 pts | 1 of 41 |
| Total Revenues from State Sources | Revenue | $0 | 0% | 30% | -30 pts | 41 of 41 |
| Total Special Education-Instruction | Appropriation | $15,617,719 | 36% | 9% | +27 pts | 1 of 41 |
| Other Tuition | Revenue | $10,695,040 | 24% | <1% | +24 pts | 1 of 41 |
| Total Regular Programs-Instruction | Appropriation | $0 | 0% | 22% | -22 pts | 40 of 41 |
| Equalization Aid | Revenue | $0 | 0% | 20% | -20 pts | 29 of 41 |
| Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits | Appropriation | $13,504,417 | 31% | 17% | +14 pts | 1 of 41 |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition) | Appropriation | $0 | 0% | 11% | -11 pts | 40 of 41 |
| County Tax Levy-Base Budget | Revenue | $5,000,000 | 11% | 1% | +10 pts | 2 of 41 |
| Total Special Revenue Funds | Appropriation | $0 | 0% | 7% | -7 pts | 40 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 | $79,585 | $22,351 | 1 of 39 | $23,591 | 3 of 566 |
| Operating budget per UFB on-roll student | $83,213 | $25,425 | 1 of 39 | $39,253 | 15 of 578 |
| Tax levy per UFB on-roll student | $9,488 | $13,646 | 29 of 39 | $17,835 | 467 of 566 |
| Local operating revenue share | 100% | 63% | 1 of 41 | 69% | 1 of 595 |
| Federal operating revenue share | 0% | 1% | 29 of 30 | <1% | 350 of 386 |
| Fund balance / other operating revenue share | 0% | 6% | 39 of 41 | 7% | 572 of 595 |
| Employee benefits share | 31% | 18% | 1 of 39 | 17% | 2 of 586 |
| Operations and maintenance share | 8% | 9% | 28 of 41 | 9% | 372 of 587 |
| Student transportation share | <1% | 6% | 41 of 41 | 6% | 582 of 592 |
| Special Revenue Funds equivalent | 0% | 8% | 40 of 40 | 7% | 579 of 585 |
| Special-education on-roll planning share | 93% | 18% | 1 of 39 | 18% | 15 of 576 |
| Classroom instruction per pupil | $45,365 | $12,080 | 1 of 41 | $13,434 | 4 of 569 |
| Support services per pupil | $18,299 | $4,323 | 1 of 41 | $4,329 | 3 of 569 |
| Operations and maintenance per pupil | $8,244 | $2,464 | 1 of 41 | $2,879 | 5 of 569 |
| Administrative costs per pupil | $6,450 | $1,941 | 1 of 41 | $2,270 | 5 of 569 |
| Listed admin base salaries per UFB on-roll student | $2,252 | $722 | 1 of 39 | $1,366 | 42 of 575 |
| Highest listed admin base salary | $215,000 | $190,841 | 11 of 39 | $199,341 | 211 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
How do operating sources, operating uses, all-funds totals, grants, and debt fit together?
Budget anatomy
| Row | Amount | Op. share |
|---|---|---|
| Local sources | $43.9 million | 100% |
| Row | Amount | Op. share |
|---|---|---|
| General current expense | $42.9 million | 98% |
| Capital outlay | $908,741 | 2% |
| Row | Amount | Op. equiv. |
|---|---|---|
| Facilities acquisition and construction | $234,741 | <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 11 positive revenue rows and 24 positive appropriation rows; 10 changed revenue rows and 24 changed appropriation rows from the latest UFB files.
Budget report section
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 | Unrestricted--General Operating Budget $3.5 million | 14 shared-service rows | 5 admin salary rows · $758,330 |
| 2020-21 | n/a | Unrestricted--General Operating Budget $1.6 million | 17 shared-service rows | 3 admin salary rows · $366,861 |
| 2021-22 | n/a | Unrestricted--General Operating Budget $2.2 million | 7 shared-service rows | 4 admin salary rows · $446,861 |
| 2022-23 | n/a | Unrestricted-General Operating Budget $3.5 million | 7 shared-service rows | 5 admin salary rows · $531,181 |
| 2023-24 | n/a | Unrestricted-General Operating Budget $3.8 million | 7 shared-service rows | 8 admin salary rows · $771,892 |
| 2024-25 | n/a | Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capita... $7.0 million | 7 shared-service rows | 9 admin salary rows · $888,522 |
| 2025-26 | levy $5.0 million | Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capita... $7.1 million | 7 shared-service rows | 10 admin salary rows · $1.2 million |
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 $9,300,924, 21% of operating-budget scale. After inflation, total projected balance changed +$2,989,724 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Restricted or named-reserve rows account for 82% of the latest projected balance. Largest latest category: Capital reserve, $7,053,005. Largest real movement: Capital reserve, +$5,145,064.
Capital reserve balances can make a district look cash-rich without changing current operating service levels.
Estimated close-year balance from the UFB recap file; not an operating appropriation.
Impact-aid reserve rows are restricted and may be sparse.
A restricted balance row, not a recurring operating cost line.
Maintenance reserve is a balance row; compare with facilities and capital lines before treating it as spending.
Special-revenue balances are context rows, not General Fund operating cushion.
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
| Recap category | Projected | Vs prior audited |
|---|---|---|
| Restricted-General Operating Budget: Capital Reserve | $7.1 million | +$46,500 |
| Unrestricted-General Operating Budget | $1.7 million | $0 |
| Restricted-General Operating Budget: Unemployment Fund | $444,035 | +$20,756 |
| Restricted-Special Revenue Fund: Scholarship Fund | $134,162 | $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 7 arrangements with no dollar savings reported, 0 pts versus the Burlington County average; peer average 10.3 rows. Most visible shared-service category: other staffing.
| Category | Rows / savings | Example arrangement |
|---|---|---|
| Other staffingAre non-leadership staffing arrangements listed as shared services? | 3 rowsno savings reported | Staffing - OtherShared Business Administrator/ Board Secretary with Burlington County Institute of Technology |
| Transportation shared servicesAre transportation arrangements part of the cost story? | 1 rowno savings reported | Transportation Services, including FuelShared Coordinator of Transportation and support staff with Burlington County Institute of Technology |
| Technology servicesAre technology services shared rather than separately staffed or contracted? | 1 rowno savings reported | Technology ServicesShared Coordinator of Technology and support staff with Burlington County Institute of Technology |
| Custodial, maintenance, and facilitiesDo facilities or maintenance arrangements explain part of operations spending? | 1 rowno savings reported | Custodial and Maintenance ServicesShared Director of Facilities with Burlington County Institute of Technology |
| Superintendent and leadershipAre superintendent or leadership services shared? | 1 rowno savings reported | Superintendent and Assistant Sup.Shared Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and support staff with Burlington County Institute of Technology |
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
| Category | Description | Savings |
|---|---|---|
| Custodial and Maintenance Services | Shared Director of Facilities with Burlington County Institute of Technology | not reported |
| Staffing - Other | Shared Business Administrator/ Board Secretary with Burlington County Institute of Technology | not reported |
| Staffing - Other | Shared Personnel and Business office staff with Burlington County Institute of Technology | not reported |
| Staffing - Other | Shared security staff with Burlington County Institute of Technology | not reported |
| Superintendent and Assistant Sup. | Shared Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and support staff with Burlington County Institute of Techn... | not reported |
| Technology Services | Shared Coordinator of Technology and support staff with Burlington County Institute of Technology | not reported |
Showing 6 of 7 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 $954,948 in 2019-20 to $1.2 million in 2025-26 in 2025 dollars (up $231,746). The selected-row count changed from 5 to 10 (+5).
| UFB year | Listed base | Rows / FTE | Highest listed role | Add-ons / terms |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-20 | $954,948 | 5 rows; FTE 55 shared | $260,670Christopher Nagy · Superintendent | $81,223 add-on dollar fields9 text-term field entries |
| 2020-21 | $456,350 | 3 rows; FTE 33 shared | $202,512Ashanti Holley · Assistant Superintendent | $56,621 add-on dollar fields10 text-term field entries |
| 2021-22 | $530,921 | 4 rows; FTE 44 shared | $193,425Ashanti Holley · Assistant Superintendent | $61,787 add-on dollar fields15 text-term field entries |
| 2022-23 | $584,340 | 5 rows; FTE 55 shared | $182,227Ashanti Holley · Assistant Superintendent: Equity and Diversity | $53,875 add-on dollar fields18 text-term field entries |
| 2023-24 | $815,568 | 8 rows; FTE 86 shared | $178,085Ashanti Holley · Assistant Superintendent | $121,890 add-on dollar fields25 text-term field entries |
| 2024-25 | $911,901 | 9 rows; FTE 98 shared | $177,308Holley, Ashanti · Assistant Superintendent: Assistant Supt. | $139,262 add-on dollar fields27 text-term field entries |
| 2025-26 | $1.2 million | 10 rows; FTE 109 shared | $215,000Holley, Ashanti · Superintendent | $207,033 add-on dollar fields30 text-term field entries |
| Measure | This district | Burlington County average | Gap | Read as |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Listed base per UFB on-roll | $2,252 | $722 | +$1,529 | Selected admin base salaries divided by UFB planning on-roll.Local rank 1 of 39 among Burlington County districts with usable salary rows. |
| Listed rows per 1,000 UFB on-roll | 19 | 6.3 | +12.7 | Selected listed administrative rows scaled to enrollment.Local rank 2 of 39 among Burlington County districts with usable salary rows. |
| Listed FTE per 1,000 UFB on-roll | 19 | 6.1 | +12.9 | FTE field total scaled to enrollment; not district staffing headcount.Local rank 2 of 39 among Burlington County districts with usable salary rows. |
| Shared-service row share | 90% | 7% | +83 pts | Share of selected salary rows marked shared in the side file.Local rank 2 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 10 selected administrative rows totaling $1.2 million 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.
| Field | Reported total | Count | Largest listed row | Read as |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base salary | $1.2 million | 10 | $215,000 · Holley, Ashanti · Superintendent | Selected listed administrative base salaries. |
| Post-employment benefits | $149,033 | 10 | $23,091 · Daly, Sean · Coordinator/Director/Manager/Supervisor: Transportation | District-reported post-employment benefit field. |
| Allowances | $53,000 | 10 | $16,500 · Holley, Ashanti · Superintendent | District-reported allowance field. |
| Stipends | $5,000 | 1 | $5,000 · Mungo, Jaime · Assistant Superintendent | District-reported stipend field. |
| Field | Median | Range | Rows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Work days | 240 | 240 to 260 | 10 |
| Vacation days | 20 | 12 to 27 | 10 |
| Sick days | 12 | 12 to 12 | 10 |
| Personal days | 4 | 4 to 4 | 10 |
| Field group | Count | Distinct terms | Common text examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal-day payout | 10 | 1 | not eligible (10 rows) |
| Sick-day payout | 10 | 2 | not eligible (6 rows); eligible (4 rows) |
| Vacation-day payout | 10 | 6 | 20 vacation days (4 rows); 15 vacation days (2 rows); 12 days |
| Listed employee | Role | Base salary | FTE/shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| Holley, Ashanti | Superintendent | $215,000 | 1 / shared |
| Downs, Bobbie | Assistant Superintendent | $160,000 | 1 / shared |
| Mungo, Jaime | Assistant Superintendent | $160,000 | 1 / shared |
| Van Laeys, Ryan | Coordinator/Director/Manager/Supervisor: Technology | $124,869 | 1 / shared |
| Daly, Sean | Coordinator/Director/Manager/Supervisor: Transportation | $97,091 | 1 / shared |
| Pichardo, Adalgiza | Coordinator/Director/Manager/Supervisor: Strategic Marketing | $96,350 | 1 / shared |
| Dooley, John | Other: Network Administrator | $87,125 | 1 / shared |
| Paige, Meghan | Other: Assistant to the BA | $87,018 | 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. Showing the top 8 of 10 listed rows.
Budget report section
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.
| File | Latest source file | Rows from this district | Use and limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue file2019-20 to 2025-26 (7 files) | rev26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV | 11 positive rows | 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. |
| Appropriation file2019-20 to 2025-26 (7 files) | approp26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV | 24 positive rows | 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. |
| Pupil-cost file2019-20 to 2025-26 (7 files) | pupcst26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV | 16 published rows | 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) | enroll26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV | 2 planning rows | 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. |
| Recap / balance file2019-20 to 2025-26 (7 files) | recap26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV | 8 balance rows | Projected close-year balances, reserves, restricted balances, and fund-balance context.Balance rows are not current operating appropriations or spendable-cash claims. |
| Shared-services file2019-20 to 2025-26 (7 files) | shared26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV | 7 arrangements | District-reported shared-service arrangements and optional savings fields.Reported savings are context rows, not audited offsets against the operating budget. |
| Admin-salary file2019-20 to 2025-26 (7 files) | employees26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV | 10 listed salary rows | 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 Revenues from Local Sources | Revenue | $43,853,201 | 100% |
| Total General Current Expense | Appropriation | $42,944,460 | 98% |
| Tuition from Local Education Authorities | Revenue | $27,563,841 | 63% |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures | Appropriation | $27,050,596 | 62% |
| Total Special Education-Instruction | Appropriation | $15,617,719 | 36% |
| Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits | Appropriation | $13,504,417 | 31% |
| Other Tuition | Revenue | $10,695,040 | 24% |
| County Tax Levy-Base Budget | Revenue | $5,000,000 | 11% |
| Total Tax Levy | Revenue | $5,000,000 | 11% |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related Services | Appropriation | $3,651,507 | 8% |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services | Appropriation | $3,584,711 | 8% |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures-Child Study Teams | Appropriation | $1,609,022 | 4% |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures-Central Services | Appropriation | $1,603,220 | 4% |
| Total Capital Outlay | Appropriation | $908,741 | 2% |
| Total Undistributed Expenditures-Support Services-School Administration | Appropriation | $740,060 | 2% |
| Total Equipment | Appropriation | $652,000 | 1% |
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 | $43,853,201 | 100% |
| General Fund grand total | $43,853,201 | 100% |
| General current expense | $42,944,460 | 98% |
| Capital outlay | $908,741 | 2% |
| Facilities acquisition and construction | $234,741 | <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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Special education instruction | $15,617,719 | 36% | 9% |
| Employee benefits | $13,504,417 | 31% | 17% |
| Speech, OT, PT and related services | $3,651,507 | 8% | 2% |
| Operations and maintenance | $3,584,711 | 8% | 9% |
| Child study teams | $1,609,022 | 4% | 3% |
| Central services | $1,603,220 | 4% | 2% |
| School administration | $740,060 | 2% | 2% |
| Health services | $563,771 | 1% | 1% |
| General administration | $563,520 | 1% | 2% |
| Administrative information technology | $472,045 | 1% | <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 | $5,000,000 | 11% | 58% |
| Unrestricted miscellaneous revenue | $191,478 | <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
| Line | Account | UFB row | Amount | Op. equiv. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100/114 | 10-121x | Total Tax Levy | $5,000,000 | 11% |
| 110 | 10-1210 | County Tax Levy-Base Budget | $5,000,000 | 11% |
| 200 | 10-1310 | Tuition from Local Education Authorities | $27,563,841 | 63% |
| 220 | 10-1320-1340 | Other Tuition | $10,695,040 | 24% |
| 230 | 10-1350 | Non-Resident Fees | $380,842 | <1% |
| 300 | 10-1XXX | Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues | $191,478 | <1% |
| 340 | 10-1XXX | Interest Earned on Capital Reserve Funds | $22,000 | <1% |
| 370 | n/a | Total Revenues from Local Sources | $43,853,201 | 100% |
| Line | Account | UFB row | Amount | Op. equiv. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10300 | 11-2XX-100-XX | Total Special Education-Instruction | $15,617,719 | 36% |
| 17100 | 11-401-100-XX | Total School-Sponsored Cocurricular Or Extracurricular Activities-Instruction | $276,145 | <1% |
| 30620 | 11-000-213-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Health Services | $563,771 | 1% |
| 40580 | 11-000-216-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related Services | $3,651,507 | 8% |
| 42200 | 11-000-219-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Child Study Teams | $1,609,022 | 4% |
| 43200 | 11-000-221-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Improvement of Instruction Services | $386,153 | <1% |
| 44180 | 11-000-223-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instructional Staff Training Services | $42,900 | <1% |
| 45300 | 11-000-230-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Support Services-General Administration | $563,520 | 1% |
| 46160 | 11-000-240-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Support Services-School Administration | $740,060 | 2% |
| 47200 | 11-000-251-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Central Services | $1,603,220 | 4% |
| 47620 | 11-000-252-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Administrative Informationtechnology | $472,045 | 1% |
| 51120 | 11-000-26X-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services | $3,584,711 | 8% |
| 52480 | 11-000-270-XX | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Student Transportation Services | $194,876 | <1% |
| 71260 | 11-XXX-XXX-2X | Total Personal Services-Employee Benefits | $13,504,417 | 31% |
| 72020 | 11-000-310-93 | Total Undistributed Expenditures-Food Services | $134,394 | <1% |
| 72140 | n/a | Total Undistributed Expenditures | $27,050,596 | 62% |
| 72260 | n/a | Total General Current Expense | $42,944,460 | 98% |
| 75880 | 12-XXX-XXX-73 | Total Equipment | $652,000 | 1% |
| 76260 | 12-000-400-XX | Total Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services | $234,741 | <1% |
| 76380 | 10-604 | Interest Deposit to Capital Reserve | $22,000 | <1% |
| 76400 | n/a | Total Capital Outlay | $908,741 | 2% |
This appendix lists all 29 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.
Budget report built from NJDOE User-Friendly Budget files loaded in the local warehouse, 2019-20 through 2025-26. Burlington County budget brief → · Compare all district budgets → · How this budget data works →
