NJ School Data
← District profile

Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission budget

Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission · 2025-26 User-Friendly Budget
Updated June 2026

Budget

In 2025-26, Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission proposed a $1.6 million General Fund operating budget.

Operating revenue

  • Local sources$1.6 million

Operating spending

  • Instruction and day-to-day operations$450,000
  • Special schools$1.1 million

These are proposed NJDOE User-Friendly Budget planning rows—not audited actuals, household tax bills, or all-funds totals.

Budget front brief

For Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, the first budget read is a named-row story: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27; Local sources supply 100% of operating revenue, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.

  • Named UFB rowUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27. Do not overread: Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Check Source rows
  • Who paysLocal sources supply 100% of proposed General Fund operating revenue (the recurring operating fund, not all funds), 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average. This is not a tax bill.Revenue families
  • What the money buyslargest high-level use is special schools, 71% of operating budget; named row Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is +95 pts versus the local peer average.Category evidence
  1. What is newsNamed UFB rowUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27. Do not overread: Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtot...Source rows
  2. What is backgroundNominal growthNominal operating budget moved +$600,000 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Treat that as background until a comparison, category, proposal, tax, service-load, or side-file signal explains why it matters.Trends and inflation
  3. What to verifyReporting checkAccount detail for the named source row. Ask who owns the account and what operational event produced the row.Source rows

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 Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, 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.

+95 pts

What is the budget story to test first?

Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27.

  • Which named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?
  • Proof route: Source rows.

Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.

Source rows
+$64,000

What changed in the latest budget file?

Operating budget moves +$64,000 from revised/current to proposed, +4 pts of proposed operating scale.

  • Largest named row: Other (-$119,642).

This is not the long-run inflation-adjusted trend or the board/contract/formula reason for the change.

Proposal changes
100%

Who pays for the operating budget?

Local sources supply 100% of proposed General Fund operating revenue.

  • That source share is 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.

Revenue shares are not tax bills, sustainability findings, or proof of spending quality.

Revenue families
Other named rows

Which budget family explains more than the total?

Other named rows: Current scale: 319% of operating-budget scale, $4,940,562.

  • Peer gap: +305 pts versus the Hunterdon County average.
  • Real movement: +$3,515,733 across loaded UFB years.
  • Latest proposal movement: -$70,019.

Budget families are contextual, nested source-row groups; do not add them into an accounting schedule.

Categories and lines
side files

Which outside-operating or side-file rows can change the story?

Special Revenue Funds is $970,000, 63% of operating-budget scale.

  • Projected close-year recap balances total $1.6 million.
  • Shared-service file lists 13 district-reported rows.

Side-file and outside-operating rows can be restricted, one-time, projected, or contextual; they are not recurring General Fund spending by themselves.

Side files

Each answer names its comparison, time basis, fund scope, or denominator. The limits are as important as the figures: UFB can surface budget signals, but outside records still have to explain causes, choices, service quality, tax bills, and sustainability.

Peer position snapshot

Before the map, these strips show whether the opening cost, funding, and category signals are near the local pack or visibly apart from it. Gray dots are peer districts, the accent dot is this district, the dashed mark is the Hunterdon County average, and the short solid tick is the peer median.

local peer distribution - dashed avg, solid median tickFunding sourceLocal revenue share100%rank 1 of 2783% avg84% med0%100%Spending categorySpecial revenue63%rank 1 of 279% avg7% med0%100%

Each strip has its own unit and scale; higher is not automatically better or worse. Use the rank as order, then use dot spacing to judge whether the rank reflects a meaningful spread or a tight cluster.

How to read this report

Budget language key

Use these terms before reading any rank, trend, category, source-row, or side-file claim. The report compares several evidence bases; the label tells which one is being used.

TermUse it forDo not read it as
Comparative costNJDOE’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-rollThe 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 dollarsDollar 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 basisGeneral 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 familiesNamed 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 filesTax-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 framesCounty peers, statewide ranks, budget-model clusters, scale groups, and category slices that test whether a number is unusual for the comparison.Causal peers, targets, or judgments that a district should match a different district’s budget.

This key is an orientation layer for the generated budget report. It does not replace the statewide measure guide; it keeps the most common bases visible before the long evidence tables.

Budget thesis and reporting order

What is this budget story here?

Categories and source rows. Categories and named rows are the first explanation layer. Largest high-level use is special schools, 71% of operating budget; special revenue funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; named row Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is +95 pts versus local peers. 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.

  1. 1Compare firstCategories and named rows are the first explanation layer.Largest high-level use is special schools, 71% of operating budget; special revenue funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; named row Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is +95 pts versus local peers.Check categories and source rows
  2. 2Use inflation as a guardrailA simple spending-went-up frame is weak.Operating scale changed +$353,687 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Check inflation and denominator evidence
  3. 3Report beyond UFBWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Pull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.Check Source rows

What the numbers support now

Start here before writing from a single cost rank.

  • Categories and source rowsCategories and named rows are the first explanation layer. Largest high-level use is special schools, 71% of operating budget; special revenue funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; named row Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is +95 pts versus local peers.This is where the report moves from one cost number to the spending categories and source rows that are actually distinctive.Check categories and source rows
  • Who paysFunding model changes the meaning of the same cost figure. Local sources supply 100% of operating revenue, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.A locally funded, state-funded, federally supported, or balance-supported budget can have the same per-pupil cost for different reasons.Check revenue families

What changes the interpretation

Use these rows to keep inflation, denominator, and service-load context attached to the claim.

  • Not the story by itselfA simple spending-went-up frame is weak. Operating scale changed +$353,687 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Use the inflation and denominator evidence as background before claiming a district-specific budget story.Check inflation and denominator evidence

What still needs reporting

UFB identifies the question; these checks name what has to be verified outside the source file.

  • Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up? Pull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Check Source rows
  • Spending mixWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers? Identify the program, contract, transfer recipient, school allocation, or staffing pattern behind the category before attaching a policy explanation.High-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.Check Spending categories
  • Funding modelWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers? 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.Check Revenue families

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.

LeadUFB signalRecords to pullInterviews / checksUnsupported read to block
1Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Source rows+95 ptsUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27.
  • Account detail for the named source row.
  • Board packet or resolution tied to the account.
  • Grant, contract, tuition, or transfer document if the row is restricted.
  • Ask who owns the account and what operational event produced the row.
  • Check whether the row is a subtotal, nested row, one-time item, or restricted source.
Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
2Spending mixWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?Spending categories63%Special Revenue Funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27.
  • Appropriation account detail behind the large category.
  • Program, contract, transfer, or staffing schedules tied to the row.
  • Budget amendments and board agenda items around the change.
  • Ask which program, contract, staffing pattern, or pass-through sits inside the category.
  • Check whether the category is recurring, restricted, or an accounting structure.
High-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.
3Funding modelWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?Revenue families100%The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.
  • State-aid notices and aid-calculation summary.
  • Budget-book revenue schedule and levy-cap worksheet.
  • Board minutes or resolutions for fund-balance and reserve use.
  • Ask what share is formula aid, levy, reserve use, or one-time support.
  • Compare the explanation with state notices and board approvals.
Operating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation.
4Line movementWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Line history+$1,533,111Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, +$1,533,111 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
  • Account detail for the moving row in first and latest loaded years.
  • Budget amendments, grant notices, contracts, or formula memos behind the shift.
  • Board packet sections explaining the row in both years.
  • Ask which formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event moved the row.
  • Check both endpoints and any intervening spike before writing a trend explanation.
The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.
5Outside operating budgetDo grants, debt, capital, or special-revenue rows make the all-funds view materially different?Budget anatomy$1.3 millionAll-funds net spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above the proposed operating budget; largest outside-operating row is special revenue funds at $970,000.
  • Special-revenue, grant, capital, and debt-service schedules.
  • Grant award letters and capital project or debt resolutions.
  • Restriction schedules in the audit or budget book.
  • Ask whether the outside-operating rows are restricted grants, capital, debt, or special revenue.
  • Check restrictions before mixing the rows with recurring General Fund decisions.
Outside-operating rows use operating budget only as a scale reference.

The records and checks are reporting targets, not files contained in the UFB release. They are generated from the same signal ranking as the lead sheet so the report stays anchored in source evidence while making the next journalism step explicit.

Budget machine

Why this budget behaves this way

The budget story for Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission starts with cost engine; who pays; budget-year bridge. This panel extracts the basic resident-facing read from UFB before the report opens the long proof sections.

  1. Local-revenue modelWho pays
    Claim
    Local sources are the largest operating-revenue source, at 100% of proposed General Fund operating revenue.
    Evidence
    $1.6 million; 100% of operating budget; 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average. After inflation, local sources moved +$353,687 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
    Why it matters
    This names the revenue machine behind the cost comparison: a local-tax district, state-aid district, grant-heavy district, and fund-balance-supported district have different budget stories.
    Do not write
    Revenue mix is not an all-funds view, not a household tax bill, and not proof of what the district buys.
    Revenue families
  2. Recurring usesCost engine
    Claim
    The strongest recurring-use signals are transfers and tuition, instruction programs.
    Evidence
    Transfers and tuition: 0% of operating-budget scale, -$1,194,424 after inflation, -8 pts versus Hunterdon County average. Instruction programs: 20% of operating-budget scale, +$176,484 after inflation, -12 pts versus Hunterdon County average, largest row: Total Adult Education-Local-Instruction.
    Why it matters
    This turns the broad spending total into named categories a resident can inspect: current scale, movement after inflation, and peer gap all matter.
    Do not write
    These families can be nested or contextual. They do not prove cuts, waste, staffing quality, or legal service obligations.
    Category evidence
  3. Real trendInflation and denominator
    Claim
    Real operating-budget scale moved +$353,687 across loaded UFB years.
    Evidence
    $1.2 million in 2019-20 to $1.6 million in 2025-26, in 2025 dollars.
    Why it matters
    This separates real movement from nominal budget growth before the report looks for a category or source-row reason.
    Do not write
    A real-dollar total is not a per-student cost, proposal change, or audited actual spending claim.
    Inflation trends
  4. Proposal and reservesBudget-year bridge
    Claim
    The live-year read depends on proposal, outside-operating rows.
    Evidence
    Latest proposal moves operating budget +$64,000 (4%) from revised/current to proposed. Top named proposal row: Other at -$119,642. All-funds net spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above the operating budget.
    Why it matters
    This keeps current proposal movement, one-time support, and outside-operating rows separate from the long-run CPI-adjusted trend.
    Do not write
    Do not turn this into audited actual spending, a cut list, recurring revenue, or proof of fiscal distress without local records.
    Proposal changes

The machine read uses UFB summary, revenue, appropriation, pupil-cost, budget-enrollment, reserve, and side-file rows through 2025-26. Money trends use 2025 CPI-U dollars where labeled; proposal rows are nominal revised/current-to-proposed movement.

Budget squeeze explainer

What is actually putting pressure on the budget?

For Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, 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.

LaneEvidenceReader readCheck next
Revenue ceilingTrends and inflationlocal sources supply 100% of proposed operating revenue, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average; recurring local, state, and federal source summaries moved +$353,687 after inflation while operating scale moved +$353,687.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 linesTransfers and tuition: 0% of operating-budget scale, -$1,194,424 after inflation, -8 pts versus Hunterdon County average; Instruction programs: 20% of operating-budget scale, +$176,484 after inflation, -12 pts versus Hunterdon County average, largest row: Total Adult Education-Local-Instruction; Special education and student supports: 23% of operating-budget scale, -$388,983 after inflation, +4 pts versus Hunterdon County average, largest row: Transfers from Other Funds; Employee benefits: 11% of operating-budget scale, -$109,055 after inflation, -8 pts versus Hunterdon 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.
Balancing layerProposal changeslatest proposal moves operating budget +$64,000 from revised/current to proposed.This separates the current budget vote and one-time support rows from the multi-year inflation-adjusted trend.Pull the adopted budget book, audit, appropriation-of-surplus resolution, reserve schedules, and budget adoption minutes before calling this recurring revenue, audited cash stress, or a complete cut list.

Money movement uses 2025 CPI-U dollars where the row says after inflation. This is a reporting synthesis, not a deficit finding, tax-bill estimate, quality rating, or claim that a listed category caused a cut.

Budget evidence board

The four checks before writing the budget story

For Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, the useful budget read is a sequence: compare the published cost position, explain the category families, check inflation and denominator movement, then verify whether the live proposal continues or complicates that pattern.

Compare

$1,550,000; $17,372,203 below the Hunterdon County average.

FrameDistrictAverageGapRank
Hunterdon County districtsclosest local comparison frame$1,550,000$18,922,203-$17,372,20327 of 27
All NJ UFB districtsstatewide baseline before narrowing the frame$1,550,000$59,598,751-$58,048,751586 of 595
Mostly locally fundedsame funding model, so revenue dependence is not hidden by one rank$1,550,000$47,843,562-$46,293,562383 of 389
Peer and slice proof

Explain Categories

Other named rows: 319% of operating scale, +305 pts vs Hunterdon County average, +$3.5 million after inflation.

FamilyLatestPeer gapReal moveProposal
Other named rowsTotal Adult Education-Local319%+305 pts+$3.5M-$124K
Special revenue fundsTotal Special Revenue Funds125%+107 pts+$105K-$239K
State aidTotal Other State Projects70%+52 pts+$1.1M-$239K
Special education and student supportsTransfers from Other Funds23%+4 pts-$389Kn/a
Category proof

Check Inflation

Converted to 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.

MeasureValueMoved
Real operating-budget scaleConverted to 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.$1.2 million to $1.6 million+$353,687
Special Revenue Funds equivalentLatest peer gap +53 pts; first gap was +72 pts.63% vs 9% avg-19 pts
Debt Service Funds equivalentLatest peer gap +17 pts; first gap was +30 pts.23% vs 6% avg-14 pts
Local operating revenue shareLatest peer gap +17 pts; first gap was +17 pts.100% vs 83% avg-1 pt
Trend proof

Verify Proposal

Latest-file proposal rows are nominal and should be read apart from CPI-adjusted history.

Current-year clueMoveOp. scale
Operating budget proposalnominal revised/current-to-proposed movement+$64,0004%
OtherAppropriation; peer comparison limited-$120K-8%
Total Other State ProjectsAppropriation; peer net -2 pts of operating scale across 6 districts-$120K-8%
Total Special Revenue FundsAppropriation; peer net 0 pts of operating scale across 27 districts-$120K-8%
Proposal proof

The board uses the latest UFB year for comparison rows, 2025 CPI-U dollars where it says real or after inflation, proposed operating budget as the category scale denominator, and nominal revised/current-to-proposed dollars for proposal rows. Source-family rows are contextual and can be nested, so this is a reporting map rather than an additive accounting schedule.

Budget operating model

The budget model in six reads

For Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, 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.

  1. ScaleHow big is the operating budget?
    $1.6 million

    $1.6 million proposed General Fund operating budget.

    Use this as the recurring operating scale. It is not all funds, audited actual spending, or a household tax bill.

    Cost basis
  2. PayersWho funds the operating budget?
    Local sources: 100%

    Main operating sources: local sources 100% ($1.6 million); 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.

    Read this as General Fund operating revenue mix. Grants, debt service, capital funds, and tax-rate files sit on different bases.

    Revenue families
  3. UsesWhat does the budget buy?
    Other named rows: 319%

    Largest visible source families by operating-budget scale: Other named rows 319%; Special revenue funds 125%; Capital, facilities, and debt 45%. Largest visible row: Total Adult Education-Local.

    Families are source-row groups, not an additive accounting schedule. Use them to decide which category proof section to open first.

    Category proof
  4. TrendWhat changed after inflation?
    +$353,687

    real operating-budget scale moved +$353,687 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; top family movement: Other named rows +$3.5 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 proof
  5. ProposalWhat changes in the live budget file?
    +$64,000

    operating budget proposal moved +$64,000 (4%) from revised/current to proposed; largest visible increase: Total Revenues from Local Sources +$64,000; largest visible decrease: Other -$119,642.

    These are nominal latest-file proposal rows. They should be read beside, not merged into, the CPI-adjusted history.

    Proposal proof
  6. ChecksWhat can change the interpretation?
    0%

    fund balance / other operating sources is 6 pts below the Hunterdon County average; rank 26 of 27.

    Use these as follow-up checks before writing deficit, tax-bill, service-cut, adequacy, or efficiency claims from UFB alone.

    Side-file checks

The model uses 2025-26 UFB rows for the current read, 2025 CPI-U dollars where it says real or after inflation, proposed General Fund operating budget as the common scale where labeled, and Hunterdon County average for local peer comparisons where enough rows exist.

Budget answer sheet

This answer sheet gives the basic budget read for Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission 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.

QuestionAnswer from UFBHow to read itProof
+$64,000proposal changeWhat changed in the current proposal?Live proposalThe live proposal changes the operating budget +$64,000 (4%) 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
$1.6 millionoperating budgetIs the district high, low, or typical against a fair benchmark?Fair comparisonThe proposed operating budget is $1.6 million.This keeps the report from overstating one incomplete comparison metric. The useful evidence is in the category, side-file, and source-row sections.Check budget anatomy
100%largest sourceWho pays for the operating budget?Who paysLocal sources supplied the largest operating-revenue share, 17 pts above the Hunterdon 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
+32 ptsvs avgWhere does the operating budget go?What money buysCapital, facilities, and debt is the strongest generated spending/category clue: 32 pts above the Hunterdon County average, -$181,494 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26, 45% 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
+$353,687real operating changeWhat changed across loaded UFB years after inflation?What changed after inflationAfter inflation, operating-budget scale changed +$353,687 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
$1.6 millionside-file contextWhat else can change the budget story?Reserves and side filesProjected close-year recap balances total $1.6 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

What explains this budget first

Other named rows is the largest current family outside the broad current-expense total, at 319% of operating-budget scale. Other named rows has the widest local peer gap, +305 pts against the Hunterdon County average. Other named rows moved the most after inflation, +$3,515,733 across loaded UFB years.

Category, trend, and comparison scan

These are the source-row families where current scale, peer position, inflation-adjusted movement, or the latest proposal move most change the story.

  • Other named rowslarge now / peer gap / real movementTotal Adult Education-Local (Appropriation line 80340, $1,100,000)
    Current scale
    319%$4,940,562
    Peer gap
    +305 ptspeer avg 14%
    Real movement
    +$3,515,733+200 pts
    Live proposal
    -$70,019-5 pts of operating scale
  • State aidlarge now / peer gap / real movementTotal Other State Projects (Appropriation line 88180, $545,437)
    Current scale
    70%$1,090,874
    Peer gap
    +52 ptspeer avg 19%
    Real movement
    +$1,090,874+70 pts
    Live proposal
    -$239,284-15 pts of operating scale
  • Special revenue fundslarge now / peer gap / real movementTotal Special Revenue Funds (Appropriation line 88760, $970,000)
    Current scale
    125%$1,940,000
    Peer gap
    +107 ptspeer avg 19%
    Real movement
    +$104,563-28 pts
    Live proposal
    -$239,284-15 pts of operating scale
  • Local taxes and local sourceslarge now / peer gap / real movementUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues (Revenue line 300, $1,535,000)
    Current scale
    99%$1,535,000
    Peer gap
    +15 ptspeer avg 84%
    Real movement
    +$1,046,191+58 pts
    Live proposal
    +$64,000+4 pts of operating scale
  • Transfers and tuitionpeer gap / real movementNo positive latest-year source row.
    Current scale
    0%$0
    Peer gap
    -8 ptspeer avg 8%
    Real movement
    -$1,194,424-100 pts
    Live proposal
    n/aNo material named proposal row.

Bars are scaled separately within each scan column; use the printed values for exact cross-column comparisons.

SignalQuestionEvidenceUse and limit
Largest current familyOther named rowsWhich remaining named rows deserve a closer district-level look?$4,940,562 in latest source-row dollars; 319% of proposed operating-budget scale.Largest visible row: Total Adult Education-Local (Appropriation line 80340, $1,100,000).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 gapOther named rowsWhich remaining named rows deserve a closer district-level look?319% locally versus 14% for the Hunterdon County average; gap +305 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 movementOther named rowsWhich remaining named rows deserve a closer district-level look?+$3,515,733 from 2019-20 to 2025-26 after CPI-U adjustment to 2025 dollars.Operating-equivalent share changed +200 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 moveState aidWhich aid lines explain dependence on state funding or first-to-latest movement?-$239,284 from revised/current to proposed in the latest UFB file.That equals -15 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Largest named proposal row: Total Other State Projects (-$119,642 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 Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, start with this budget question: Which named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up? The package keeps the UFB-supported claim, fair comparison, inflation/category/proposal checks, next reporting move, and blocked overread on the same row.

PackageWhat UFB showsCompare / changeReport / block
Lead to testNamed UFB row+95 ptsUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27.Check: Source rowsCompare againstCompare 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.What changes the readReaders can see which line is specific enough to request board backup, account detail, or an agenda item.Report nextAccount detail for the named source row. Ask who owns the account and what operational event produced the row.Do not writeNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
Fair comparisonFunding model100%The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.Check: Revenue familiesCompare againstCompare operating revenue shares against the Hunterdon County average; keep state aid, local levy, federal support, and fund balance on their own bases.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 nextState-aid notices and aid-calculation summary. Ask what share is formula aid, levy, reserve use, or one-time support.Do not writeOperating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation.
Inflation testTrend and denominator2025 dollarsoperating scale changed +$353,687 after CPI-U adjustment from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Check: Inflation trendsCompare againstCompare this with the latest-year Hunterdon 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 explanationOther named rows319%Other named rows: $4,940,562 latest source-row dollars, 319% of operating-budget scale; +305 pts versus the Hunterdon County average; +$3,515,733 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; -$70,019 latest proposal movement; largest visible row: Total Adult Education-Local.Check: Category evidenceCompare againstCompare the same source-family share with the Hunterdon County average, then check category, peer, trend, proposal, and source-row sections.What changes the readThis is the category/slice evidence that can make a budget story specific; it is not a second total to add to the operating budget.Report nextAppropriation account detail behind the large category. Ask which program, contract, staffing pattern, or pass-through sits inside the category.Do not writeBudget families can be nested, repeated, or contextual, so they are reporting leads rather than an additive budget schedule.
Live proposalOther-$119,642Other changes -$119,642 from revised/current to proposed; -8 pts of operating-budget scale.Check: Proposal changesCompare 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 signalOutside operating budget$1.3 millionAll-funds net spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above the proposed operating budget; largest outside-operating row is special revenue funds at $970,000.Check: Budget anatomyCompare againstCompare all-funds scale with the operating budget, then separate grants, debt, capital, preschool, and other restricted rows.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-revenue, grant, capital, and debt-service schedules. Ask whether the outside-operating rows are restricted grants, capital, debt, or special revenue.Do not writeOutside-operating rows use operating budget only as a scale reference.

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 Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission into mechanisms: who pays; category or slice; proposal timing are the first lanes to test before a reader writes from totals, ranks, or nominal growth.

MechanismDistrict readProof already hereReport nextBlock this overread
In playWho paysLocal sources supply 100% of proposed General Fund operating revenue; 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.Operating revenue source share from UFB summary rows. Revenue familiesAsk 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 slicespecial education and student supports moved -$388,983 after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved -39 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +4 pts versus the Hunterdon County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.Budget-family scan combines latest operating-equivalent scale, local peer gap, CPI-adjusted movement, proposal movement, and largest source-row clues. Student loadReport 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 denominatorAfter CPI-U adjustment, operating-budget scale moved +$353,687 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.2025-dollar operating totals from loaded UFB summary rows. Inflation trendsUse the trend section to see whether row movement or denominator movement explains the change.Real-dollar scale is not the same as per-student cost, proposal movement, or audited actual spending.
Live decisionProposal timingoperating budget moves +$64,000 from revised/current to proposed; 4% latest-file change; top named proposal row is Other.+$64,000; -$119,642 in nominal latest-file dollars. Proposal changesAsk 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 supportprojected close-year recap balances total $1.6 million.recap balance side file. Reserves and balancesAsk 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 filesall-funds net spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above the operating budget; shared-service file lists 13 arrangements; largest outside-operating row: special revenue funds at $970,000.largest outside-operating row: special revenue funds at $970,000; selected administrative salary side file lists 15 rows. Budget anatomyAsk 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

The latest UFB summary does not publish a positive NJDOE comparative-cost value for this district. These clues name the usable denominator, funding, proposal, source-row, service-load, and budget-year evidence before the report moves into full source tables.

ClueEvidenceHow to read itProof
Headline metricNo published comparative-cost lineLatest UFB summary has no positive NJDOE comparative-cost value; no positive UFB on-roll denominatorDo not force this district into the ordinary comparative-cost rank. Use denominator, source-row, service-load, and side-file evidence instead.Denominators
Funding clueLocal operating revenue share100%; +31 pts vs NJ average; rank 1 of 595Funding 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
Funding clueFund balance / other operating revenue share0%; -7 pts vs NJ average; rank 572 of 595Funding 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
Peer clueSpecial Revenue Funds equivalent63%; +56 pts vs NJ average; rank 1 of 585This comparison clue can show what is distinctive, but the latest UFB row does not publish the normal comparative-cost metric.Categories
Peer clueDebt Service Funds equivalent23%; +19 pts vs NJ average; rank 1 of 406This comparison clue can show what is distinctive, but the latest UFB row does not publish the normal comparative-cost metric.Categories
Peer clueEmployee benefits share11%; -6 pts vs NJ average; rank 527 of 586This comparison clue can show what is distinctive, but the latest UFB row does not publish the normal comparative-cost metric.Categories
Peer clueOperations and maintenance share5%; -4 pts vs NJ average; rank 564 of 587This comparison clue can show what is distinctive, but the latest UFB row does not publish the normal comparative-cost metric.Categories
Named rowUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues99% of operating scale; +98 pts vs NJ average; rank 1 of 595This comparison clue can show what is distinctive, but the latest UFB row does not publish the normal comparative-cost metric.Source rows
Named rowTotal Adult Education-Local71% of operating scale; +71 pts vs NJ average; rank 1 of 595This comparison clue can show what is distinctive, but the latest UFB row does not publish the normal comparative-cost metric.Source rows

The clues use New Jersey UFB 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 Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, the cost-position read is without the normal NJDOE comparative-cost line. This ledger decides whether the visible UFB signals line up with that read, complicate it, or leave the explanation outside the budget files.

JudgmentEvidenceReader takeNext check
Cost storyThe latest UFB summary lacks a positive NJDOE comparative-cost row; UFB on-roll is not available.Do not force a high-cost or low-cost story. Use operating scale, denominator, source-row, service-load, proposal, and side-file evidence instead.Denominators
Distinctive despite cost rankSpecial Revenue Funds equivalent: 63% (+53 pts vs Hunterdon County average; rank 1 of 27); Debt Service Funds equivalent: 23% (+17 pts vs Hunterdon County average; rank 1 of 19); Local operating revenue share: 100% (+17 pts vs Hunterdon County average; rank 1 of 27).These are the strongest peer-relative clues even though the headline cost rank is not itself a sharp high/low story.Category and funding evidence
Named row to testUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues: 99% of operating scale; +95 pts vs Hunterdon County average; rank 1 of 27.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 lanespecial education and student supports moved -$388,983 after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; operating-budget-scale share moved -39 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +4 pts versus the Hunterdon County average. Source-family rows can be nested, contextual, or outside recurring operating basis.This is the strongest generated source-family route. Use it to decide what to report next, not as an accounting total or causal model.Student load
Still unresolvedAccount detail for the named source row. Ask who owns the account and what operational event produced the row.UFB can rank and compare the signal, but it still does not prove cause, adequacy, intent, quality, or taxpayer impact. Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Source rows

The ledger uses Hunterdon County districts with usable latest-year UFB rows unless the row names another frame. It is a reporting synthesis, not an efficiency rating, adequacy claim, or causal model.

Budget report section

Start with the story

What is the short version, what can UFB prove, which signals deserve the first read, and which simple reads need a second signal?

What explains this budget

Named UFB row. Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27.

AskWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Do not overreadNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Check: Source rows
  1. 63%Spending mixSpecial Revenue Funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27.AskWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?Do not overreadHigh-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.Check: Spending categories
  2. 100%Funding modelThe largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.AskWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?Do not overreadOperating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation.Check: Revenue families
  3. +$1,533,111Line movementLargest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, +$1,533,111 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.AskWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Do not overreadThe selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.Check: Line history
  4. $1.3 millionOutside operating budgetAll-funds net spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above the proposed operating budget; largest outside-operating row is special revenue funds at $970,000.AskDo grants, debt, capital, or special-revenue rows make the all-funds view materially different?Do not overreadOutside-operating rows use operating budget only as a scale reference.Check: Budget anatomy

These are generated reporting leads ranked from the latest UFB row scans, county comparisons, planning-enrollment rows, and real-dollar trend checks. The question and counter-reading keep each lead from becoming a causal claim before the full report evidence is checked.

Budget reading memo

The useful budget read for Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission is not a single spending-up sentence or a lone rank. Test this question first: Which named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up? Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27.

Do not stop at the simple read

After inflation, operating scale changed +$353,687 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The latest UFB proposal column changes the operating budget +$64,000 from revised/current to proposed. Those facts matter, but they should travel with the named UFB row question instead of becoming the whole story.

Check: Source rows

Report this next

Pull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.

  • Account detail for the named source row.
  • Board packet or resolution tied to the account.
  • Grant, contract, tuition, or transfer document if the row is restricted.
  • Ask who owns the account and what operational event produced the row.
  • Check whether the row is a subtotal, nested row, one-time item, or restricted source.
ContextUFB signalWhy it changes the readGuardrail
Spending mixSpending categoriesSpecial Revenue Funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27.Readers can move from one total budget number to the source row, program, transfer, or cost family that actually needs explanation.High-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.
Funding modelRevenue familiesThe largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 17 pts above the Hunterdon 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.
Line movementLine historyLargest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, +$1,533,111 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Readers can identify the moving row that needs a formula, grant, contract, staffing, or accounting explanation.The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.

This memo is generated from ranked UFB signals, local peer context, loaded-year inflation checks, proposal columns, and side-file evidence. It is an editorial route through the evidence, not a causal finding; Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.

Question-to-reporting path

The first resident question for Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission is Which named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up? This path keeps the strongest UFB clues beside the first fair comparison, the records to pull, and the shortcut to block before writing.

Reader questionUFB clueFirst comparisonReporting move
Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27.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 rowsPull or ask
  • Account detail for the named source row.
  • Board packet or resolution tied to the account.
  • Ask who owns the account and what operational event produced the row.
Do not write yetNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
Spending mixWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?Special Revenue Funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27.High-level General Fund appropriation rows and operating-budget-share peer comparisons.Compare operating-use shares and named source rows with the Hunterdon County average; lower-level rows can be nested, repeated, or outside the operating fund.Check: Spending categoriesPull or ask
  • Appropriation account detail behind the large category.
  • Program, contract, transfer, or staffing schedules tied to the row.
  • Ask which program, contract, staffing pattern, or pass-through sits inside the category.
Do not write yetHigh-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.
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, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.Latest General Fund operating revenue summary, operating-budget denominator, and local peer source-share context.Compare operating revenue shares against the Hunterdon County average; keep state aid, local levy, federal support, and fund balance on their own bases.Check: Revenue familiesPull or ask
  • State-aid notices and aid-calculation summary.
  • Budget-book revenue schedule and levy-cap worksheet.
  • Ask what share is formula aid, levy, reserve use, or one-time support.
Do not write yetOperating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation.
Line movementWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, +$1,533,111 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Selected UFB revenue or appropriation row history converted to 2025 dollars.Compare the same named line across loaded UFB years in real dollars, then verify the formula, grant, contract, transfer, or accounting event behind the movement.Check: Line historyPull or ask
  • Account detail for the moving row in first and latest loaded years.
  • Budget amendments, grant notices, contracts, or formula memos behind the shift.
  • Ask which formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event moved the row.
Do not write yetThe selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.

This path is generated from the same ranked UFB signals as the budget memo and claim audit. It is a reporting crosswalk, not a finding that one row caused another.

Public hearing agenda

This turns the budget report into meeting questions: the generated UFB signal, the local record or explanation to ask for, the proof section to open, and the reading that should be blocked before a resident or reporter writes from the numbers.

QuestionUFB signalAsk for / checkProofBlock 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 +$64,000 from revised/current to proposed. Top named row: Other -$119,642 (Appropriation line 88140).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 changesDo not describe nominal proposal-column movement as the CPI-adjusted trend or as an audited spending result.
Categories and linesWhich category or source family is actually driving the story, and which account, program, restriction, or transfer sits underneath it?Other named rows: $4,940,562; 319% of operating-budget scale; +305 pts versus Hunterdon County average; +$3,515,733 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; largest row: Total Adult Education-Local.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 evidenceDo 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 +$353,687 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.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 inflationDo not make ordinary nominal growth the story until CPI-U, planning enrollment, peers, and category rows have been checked.
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?All-funds net spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above proposed operating budget. Largest projected balance row: Unrestricted-General Operating Budget at $1.6 million. Shared-service file has 13 rows.Audit or ACFR fund-balance note, reserve-transfer approvals, unusual-item explanations, shared-service agreements, grant award letters, capital project schedules, and debt-service documents.Side filesDo 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.

JudgmentEvidenceNext stepDo not write
BackgroundNominal budget growth or a plain spending-up sentence.Nominal operating budget moved +$600,000 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.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 inflationDo not publish a generic 'spending went up' read as the budget story unless the second signal explains why it matters.
Reportable UFB signalWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27. Evidence basis: Contextual UFB revenue or appropriation source row, operating-budget-equivalent scale, and same-row peer scan.Use this as the first local budget question, then check the linked proof section.Source rowsNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
Second-signal checkWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?Special Revenue Funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27. Evidence basis: High-level General Fund appropriation rows and operating-budget-share peer comparisons.Carry this beside the lead so the first read is tested against another denominator, file, or comparison frame.Spending categoriesHigh-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.
Needs reportingTurn the named ufb row signal into a local explanation.Account detail for the named source row. Board packet or resolution tied to the account. Ask who owns the account and what operational event produced the row.Pull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.Source rowsA large named row can be a subtotal, nested line, restricted source, transfer, or one-year accounting change.
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 rowsDo not turn named ufb row 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 Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, the strongest generated read is what money buys. 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.

LaneEvidenceWhat it explainsWhat it cannot prove
Dominant first readWhat money buysCategories and linesspecial schools is the largest high-level use at 71% of operating budget; special revenue funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; named row Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is +95 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 familieslocal sources supply 100% of General Fund operating revenue; that source share is 17 pts above the Hunterdon 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.
Strong supporting readTrend and denominatorTrends and inflationoperating scale changed +$353,687 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.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.
Context to carryOutside operating rowsBudget anatomyall-funds net above operating is $1.3 million, 85% of operating budget; 5 material outside-operating rows clear the scale threshold.Why grants, debt, capital, preschool, projects, or all-funds rows may change the budget-year context.A General Fund operating mix, recurring operating spending, or an additive use category.
Context to carryCurrent proposalProposal changesoperating budget changes +$64,000 from revised/current to proposed; largest named proposal movement is Special Revenue Funds at -$119,642.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 carryReserves and side filesSide filesprojected close-year recap balances total $1.6 million; 13 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.

The diagnosis is generated from published UFB summary, source rows, local peer comparisons, side files, and loaded-year movement. It ranks evidence for reporting priority; it is not a causal model, quality rating, or accounting equation.

Comparison brief

Relative cost before the long report

Usable peer or slice rows are thin for this district, so this table keeps the published UFB values visible and labels the missing comparison before the detailed source sections.

Comparison limitUsable peer or slice rows are too thin for a multi-frame cost verdict.

Available frameThe table below keeps published UFB values visible but labels the missing comparison rather than implying a rank.

Reporting useTreat the rows as source context, then open costs, categories, or comparison evidence before making a relative-cost claim. Open proof

FrameDistrictComparisonNamed checkHow to use it
Local operating revenue shareOperating revenue source mix; this is General Fund operating revenue, not all funds.100%published UFB valueNot availablepeer/slice rows too thinNo named local or statewide neighbor can be shown from usable comparison rows for this measure.Treat this as source-row context, then open the detailed proof section before making a relative-cost claim.Open proof

This fallback appears when usable peer or statewide slice rows are too thin for a named-neighbor comparison. It is a warning against making a relative-cost claim from the value alone.

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 pathUFB proofComparison / proofOutside reportingDo not overread
Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?+95 ptsUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27.Source rowsHunterdon 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.
Spending mixWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?63%Special Revenue Funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27.Spending categoriesHunterdon County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.Identify the program, contract, transfer recipient, school allocation, or staffing pattern behind the category before attaching a policy explanation.High-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.
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, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.Revenue familiesHunterdon 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.
Line movementWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?+$1,533,111Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, +$1,533,111 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Line historyHunterdon County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.Find the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.
Outside operating budgetDo grants, debt, capital, or special-revenue rows make the all-funds view materially different?$1.3 millionAll-funds net spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above the proposed operating budget; largest outside-operating row is special revenue funds at $970,000.Budget anatomyHunterdon County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.Check grant, capital, debt, and restriction schedules before mixing outside-operating rows with recurring General Fund decisions.Outside-operating rows use operating budget only as a scale reference.

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.

  1. 1Named UFB row

    A named row can turn a broad budget into a reportable story

    Working nut graf. For Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27. 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.
  2. 2Spending mix

    The category mix is where the budget becomes concrete

    Working nut graf. For Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Special Revenue Funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27. The reporting question is: Which operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?

    Why readers careReaders can move from one total budget number to the source row, program, transfer, or cost family that actually needs explanation.Proof in UFBHigh-level General Fund appropriation rows and operating-budget-share peer comparisons. Spending categoriesReport nextIdentify the program, contract, transfer recipient, school allocation, or staffing pattern behind the category before attaching a policy explanation.Do not write yetA large share can be a pass-through, required service, accounting structure, or policy choice; the category label alone does not say which.
  3. 3Funding model

    Who pays may explain more than how much

    Working nut graf. For Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, the UFB-supported story to test is this: The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 17 pts above the Hunterdon 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.
  4. 4Line movement

    A moving source row needs the event behind it

    Working nut graf. For Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, +$1,533,111 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The reporting question is: Which named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?

    Why readers careReaders can identify the moving row that needs a formula, grant, contract, staffing, or accounting explanation.Proof in UFBSelected UFB revenue or appropriation row history converted to 2025 dollars. Line historyReport nextFind the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.Do not write yetA named-line movement is a reporting lead, not a complete bridge from first-year to latest-year spending.

Storylines are ranked from local peer gaps, source-row scale, planning-enrollment rows, side-file signals, proposal movement, and CPI-adjusted loaded-year checks. Money bases, fund scope, and denominators stay attached to each route; comparative cost remains NJDOE’s published metric.

Budget claim audit

This audit turns the report’s strongest signals into sentence-level budget claims. It separates what the UFB rows support from what still requires board materials, contracts, audits, tax records, staffing context, program records, or interviews.

Claim statusSafe wordingEvidence basisStill not provenProof / next check
UFB-supported factUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27.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 factSpecial Revenue Funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27.High-level General Fund appropriation rows and operating-budget-share peer comparisons.High-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.Spending categories
UFB-supported factThe largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 17 pts above the Hunterdon 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 factLargest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, +$1,533,111 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Selected UFB revenue or appropriation row history converted to 2025 dollars.The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.Line history
UFB-supported factAll-funds net spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above the proposed operating budget; largest outside-operating row is special revenue funds at $970,000.All-funds net, special revenue, debt, capital, preschool, and other outside-operating UFB rows.Outside-operating rows use operating budget only as a scale reference.Budget anatomy
Needs outside reportingPull 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
Needs outside reportingIdentify the program, contract, transfer recipient, school allocation, or staffing pattern behind the category before attaching a policy explanation.Board materials, audits, contracts, tax records, staffing context, program records, or interviews outside the UFB files.High-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.Spending categories
Unsupported shortcutDo not turn the named ufb row signal into a claim about waste, adequacy, intent, quality, or cause without the outside reporting step.Not established by UFB rows alone.A large named row can be a subtotal, nested line, restricted source, transfer, or one-year accounting change.Source rows

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 Hunterdon County average from 2019-20 to 2025-26.

MeasureFirst gapLatest gapRead the movementCheck next
Special Revenue Funds equivalent2019-20 to 2025-26+72 pts2019-20 vs local peer average+53 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure moved closer to the Hunterdon County average; the gap moved -19 pts.Category evidence
Debt Service Funds equivalent2019-20 to 2025-26+30 pts2019-20 vs local peer average+17 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure moved closer to the Hunterdon County average; the gap moved -14 pts.Category evidence
Local operating revenue share2019-20 to 2025-26+17 pts2019-20 vs local peer average+17 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure moved closer to the Hunterdon County average; the gap moved -1 pt.Funding and categories
Employee benefits share2019-20 to 2025-26+4 pts2019-20 vs local peer average-8 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure crossed from above to below the Hunterdon County average; the gap moved -12 pts.Category evidence
Fund balance / other operating revenue share2019-20 to 2025-26-5 pts2019-20 vs local peer average-6 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure moved farther below the Hunterdon County average; the gap moved -2 pts.Funding and categories
Operations and maintenance share2019-20 to 2025-260 pts2019-20 vs local peer average-5 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure moved away from the Hunterdon County average; the latest value is below the average.Category evidence
State operating revenue share2019-20 to 2024-25-13 pts2019-20 vs local peer average-10 pts2024-25 vs local peer averageThe measure moved closer to the Hunterdon County average; the gap moved +3 pts.Funding and categories

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.

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 Hunterdon County average or statewide slices.

Budget basisWhat UFB showsUse it to sayDo not read it as
Recurring operating baseRevenue and use categoriesproposed operating budget $1,550,000; local sources supply 100% of operating revenue; special schools is 71% of operating usesScale: $1.6 millionUse 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 changesSpecial Revenue Funds changes -$119,642 from revised/current to proposedScale: -8% of operating budgetUse 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 filesprojected close-year recap balances $1,578,952; 13 shared-service rowsScale: 102%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 anatomyall-funds net above operating is the largest outside-operating row, $1,320,000Scale: 85% of operating budgetUse 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 Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission 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.

TestUFB evidenceSafe readOutside reporting
Recurring-source testTrends and inflationLocal, state, and federal operating-source summaries moved +$347,451 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; those summaries equal 127% of the latest proposed operating budget; operating-budget scale moved +$353,687, $6,236 more than that source movement.Use this to test whether the main recurring operating sources kept pace with operating scale after CPI-U. It is not a tax-cap or adequacy finding by itself.Pull the levy-cap worksheet, state-aid notice, cap-bank/waiver rows, budget book, and board presentation before writing a cap-limited or underfunded-budget claim.
Operating-use testCategories and linesSpecial education and student supports moved -$298,236 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; latest scale is 0% of proposed operating budget; 17 pts below the Hunterdon County average.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.
Peer-frame testPeer evidenceLocal operating revenue share is 100%, +17 pts vs Hunterdon 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 checksUFB 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 Hunterdon County average and the statewide slices below.

Budget pathDistrict scaleUse it to readCompare / proveDo not overread
Money inRevenue familiesLocal sources: $1.6 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.+17 pts vs Hunterdon County average; rank 1 of 27Do not call this all-funds revenue or a household tax bill; grants, debt, capital, and tax side files sit on different bases.
Money outCategoriesSpecial schools: $1.1 million (71%); General current expense: $450,000 (29%)Use this as the high-level operating-use basis before reading nested line rows or standardized pupil-cost rows.-8 pts vs Hunterdon County average; rank 26 of 27Do not add high-level rows, lower-level detail rows, and pupil-cost rows into one spending decomposition; they overlap.
Live proposal movementProposal changesoperating budget +$64,000; Special Revenue Funds -$119,642Use this for what the latest UFB file says is changing from revised/current to proposed, in nominal latest-file dollars.-8 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 anatomyAll-funds net above operating: $1.3 million (85%); Special Revenue Funds: $970,000 (63%); State projects: $545,437 (35%)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.+53 pts vs Hunterdon County average; rank 1 of 27Do not fold outside-operating rows into the General Fund operating mix or assume the operating-equivalent share recurs each year.
Context filesSide filesprojected recap balances $1.6 million; 13 shared-service rowsUse 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 studentsfall enrollment 2Use this before making per-student claims: the UFB planning denominator, fall enrollment, and service-load rows can point to different stories.Denominator and service-load comparisons appear in the costs-and-students section.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 testEvidence in this reportWhat it can explainWhat it cannot prove
Operating funding and tax-burden pressureRevenue familieslocal sources supply 100% of General Fund operating revenue; that source share is 17 pts above the Hunterdon 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.
Spending mix pressureCategories and linesspecial schools is the largest high-level use at 71% of operating budget; special revenue funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; named row Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is +95 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.
Current proposal pressureProposal changesoperating budget changes +$64,000 from revised/current to proposed; largest named proposal movement is Special Revenue Funds at -$119,642.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 filesprojected close-year recap balances total $1.6 million; 13 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.
Outside-operating pressureBudget anatomyAll-funds net above operating is $1.3 million, 85% of operating budget; 5 material outside-operating rows clear the scale threshold.Why all-funds, grants, debt, capital, preschool, or project rows may change the budget-year context.A General Fund operating spending mix, or evidence that outside-operating rows recur on the same basis.
Inflation and denominator pressureTrends and inflationoperating scale changed +$353,687 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.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.

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.

Category story map

Other named rows is the largest selected source-row family at 319% of operating-budget scale. Other named rows has the widest selected local peer gap, 305 pts above the Hunterdon County average. Other named rows moved the most after inflation, +$3,515,733 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 familyQuestion to testCategory evidenceSource row and proof
Other named rowslarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movementWhich remaining named rows deserve a closer district-level look?Latest scale $4,940,562 (319% op. equiv.)+305 pts versus the Hunterdon County average+$3,515,733 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26-$70,019 latest proposal movement; -5 pts of operating scaleTotal Adult Education-Local (Appropriation line 80340, $1,100,000)Other (-$119,642 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend
State aidlarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movementWhich aid lines explain dependence on state funding or first-to-latest movement?Latest scale $1,090,874 (70% op. equiv.)+52 pts versus the Hunterdon County average+$1,090,874 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26-$239,284 latest proposal movement; -15 pts of operating scaleTotal Other State Projects (Appropriation line 88180, $545,437)Total Other State Projects (-$119,642 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend
Special revenue fundslarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movementHow large are grant-funded or otherwise outside-operating programs relative to operating budgets?Latest scale $1,940,000 (125% op. equiv.)+107 pts versus the Hunterdon County average+$104,563 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26-$239,284 latest proposal movement; -15 pts of operating scaleTotal Special Revenue Funds (Appropriation line 88760, $970,000)Total Special Revenue Funds (-$119,642 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend Side files
Local taxes and local sourceslarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movementHow much of the budget story is local levy, tuition, fees, or miscellaneous local revenue?Latest scale $1,535,000 (99% op. equiv.)+15 pts versus the Hunterdon County average+$1,046,191 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$64,000 latest proposal movement; +4 pts of operating scaleUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues (Revenue line 300, $1,535,000)Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues (+$64,000 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend
Transfers and tuitionlocal peer gap / inflation-adjusted movementDo charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story?Latest scale $0 (0% op. equiv.)-8 pts versus the Hunterdon County average-$1,194,424 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26No positive latest-year source row.No material proposal row in this family.Categories Trend
Capital, facilities, and debtlarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movementAre capital projects, facilities acquisition, reserve withdrawals, or debt-service rows distorting all-funds comparisons?Latest scale $700,000 (45% op. equiv.)+32 pts versus the Hunterdon County average-$181,494 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26Total Debt Service Funds (Appropriation line 89980, $350,000)No material proposal row in this family.Categories Trend Side files

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 Other named rows, the proposal is a counter-move: -$70,019 in nominal latest-file movement versus +$3,515,733 across loaded years after inflation. Across material family rows, this scan finds 3 continuing trends, 5 counter-moves, and 0 current-only moves.

RelationshipLoaded-year trendCurrent proposalHow to read it
Counter-moveOther named rows+$3,515,7332019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +200 pts.-$70,019-5 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Other (Appropriation, line 88140, -$119,642)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 trendLocal taxes and local sources+$1,046,1912019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +58 pts.+$64,000+4 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues (Revenue, line 300, +$64,000)The latest proposal points in the same direction as the inflation-adjusted movement across loaded UFB years.Proposal Trend Categories Peers
Counter-moveState aid+$1,090,8742019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +70 pts.-$239,284-15 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Total Other State Projects (Appropriation, line 88180, -$119,642)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 revenue funds+$104,5632019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved -28 pts.-$239,284-15 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Total Special Revenue Funds (Appropriation, line 88760, -$119,642)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-moveGeneral current expense-$708,1572019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved -68 pts.+$1,5240 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Total General Current Expense (Appropriation, line 72260, +$1,524)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 trendInstruction programs+$176,4842019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +9 pts.+$18,163+1 pt of proposed operating-budget scale.Total Adult Education-Local-Instruction (Appropriation, line 80180, +$18,163)The latest proposal points in the same direction as the inflation-adjusted movement across loaded UFB years.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.

  1. 1Named UFB row+95 ptsUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27.Reader questionWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Do not overreadNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Source rows
  2. 2Spending mix63%Special Revenue Funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27.Reader questionWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?Do not overreadHigh-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.Spending categories
  3. 3Funding model100%The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.Reader questionWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?Do not overreadOperating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation.Revenue families
  4. 4Line movement+$1,533,111Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, +$1,533,111 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Reader questionWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Do not overreadThe selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.Line history
  5. 5Outside operating budget$1.3 millionAll-funds net spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above the proposed operating budget; largest outside-operating row is special revenue funds at $970,000.Reader questionDo grants, debt, capital, or special-revenue rows make the all-funds view materially different?Do not overreadOutside-operating rows use operating budget only as a scale reference.Budget anatomy

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 Hunterdon County Educational Services Commission, the useful budget question is how to read local sources supply 100% of operating revenue and largest use is special schools at 71%. UFB can establish the money basis, peer position, row scale, and loaded-year movement; it cannot by itself prove whether the pattern reflects policy choices, student need, contracts, facilities, tax capacity, or one-time accounting.

What UFB can establish

  • Named UFB rowUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99% of the operating-budget scale, +95 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 27.Source rows
  • Spending mixSpecial Revenue Funds equivalent is 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27.Spending categories
  • Funding modelThe largest operating revenue source is local sources, 100% of the proposed operating budget, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.Revenue families
  • Line movementLargest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, +$1,533,111 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Line history

What still needs reporting

  • Named UFB rowPull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.
  • Spending mixIdentify the program, contract, transfer recipient, school allocation, or staffing pattern behind the category before attaching a policy explanation.
  • Funding modelRead aid notices, budget-hearing materials, and board minutes to separate formula aid, one-time support, reserve use, and local decisions.
  • Line movementFind the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.

Competing readings to keep alive

  • Named UFB rowA large named row can be a subtotal, nested line, restricted source, transfer, or one-year accounting change.
  • Spending mixA large share can be a pass-through, required service, accounting structure, or policy choice; the category label alone does not say which.
  • Funding modelA state-funded, locally funded, or fund-balance-heavy budget can produce the same cost figure for different reasons.
  • Line movementA named-line movement is a reporting lead, not a complete bridge from first-year to latest-year spending.

This frame is generated from the same UFB signals as the lead sheet. It is designed to prevent the report from turning row evidence into unsupported causality.

Budget model synthesis

Read this budget as mostly locally funded. The table below connects the strongest structural signals so the report is not just a list of panels.

Structural questionUFB evidenceWorking read and proof section
Who pays, and is the tax-burden basis unusual?local sources supply 100% of operating revenue, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County averageCan 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 special schools, 71% of operating budget; strongest peer mix gap is special revenue funds equivalent at 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; named-row standout: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is +95 pts versus peersCan 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?free/reduced-price lunch is 50%, +33 pts versus county fall-enrollment contextCan 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 +$64,000; real operating scale changed +$353,687 from 2019-20 to 2025-26Can 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 $1.6 million; shared-service file lists 13 arrangements; selected administrative base-salary rows total $1.6 millionCan 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.

UFB source coverage

The latest matched UFB row for 2025-26 exposes 6 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 familyLatest coverageWhat it can establishWhere it appears
Summary$1.6 million proposed operating budget; 7 loaded UFB years: 2019-20 to 2025-26.Published comparative cost, operating budget, summary revenue shares, tax levy, and UFB on-roll planning enrollment.peer evidence · anatomySummary rows are the profile-facing spine, but they do not replace detailed source files.
Revenue file14 positive rows; 10 contextual rows in the appendix; largest: Total Revenues from Local Sources at $1.6 million.Named aid, levy, fund-balance, reserve, tuition, grant, and other source rows behind the operating mix.families · source rowsRevenue rows can include subtotals or non-operating sources; do not add the contextual rows into one revenue total.
Appropriation file22 positive rows; 18 contextual rows in the appendix; largest: Total Adult Education-Local at $1.1 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 file0 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 file0 planning rows.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 / balances14 balance rows; Unrestricted-General Operating Budget at $1.6 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 file0 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 file0 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 file13 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 file0 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 file15 listed salary rows; listed base salary total $1.6 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.

  1. 63%Large outside-operating scaleSpecial-revenue, grant, or debt-service scale is large enough to change the all-funds story.Compare special-revenue rows, debt-service rows, recap balances, and unusual appropriations.Outside-operating rows use proposed operating budget only as a scale reference.

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.

Relative-cost ladder

Comparison frameMeasureDistrictComparison avgGapRank
All NJ UFB districtsThis is the statewide baseline before narrowing to a more comparable slice.Proposed operating budget$1,550,000$59,598,751-$58,048,751586 of 595
Large outside-operating scale districtsSpecial-revenue and debt-service scale can make the all-funds story differ from the operating-budget story.Proposed operating budget$1,550,000$40,353,230-$38,803,23097 of 97
Mostly locally funded districtsFunding model changes what a cost comparison means, because local levy, state aid, and other sources carry different reader questions.Proposed operating budget$1,550,000$47,843,562-$46,293,562383 of 389

Read down the ladder before treating one rank as the story: local peers, all NJ, and overlapping statewide slices can point in different directions.

  1. Rank 586 of 595All NJ UFB districtsProposed operating budget: $1,550,000, $58,048,751 below the NJ average ($59,598,751). This is the statewide baseline before narrowing to a more comparable slice.595 districts have usable proposed operating budget values in this latest-year slice. Slice membership is latest-year and overlapping.
  2. Rank 97 of 97Large outside-operating scale districtsProposed operating budget: $1,550,000, $38,803,230 below the slice average ($40,353,230). Special Revenue Funds equivalent: 63%, 49 pts above the slice average (13%). Special-revenue and debt-service scale can make the all-funds story differ from the operating-budget story.97 districts have usable proposed operating budget values in this latest-year slice. Slice membership is latest-year and overlapping.
  3. Rank 383 of 389Mostly locally funded districtsProposed operating budget: $1,550,000, $46,293,562 below the slice average ($47,843,562). Local operating revenue share: 100%, 16 pts above the slice average (84%). Funding model changes what a cost comparison means, because local levy, state aid, and other sources carry different reader questions.389 districts have usable proposed operating budget values in this latest-year slice. Slice membership is latest-year and overlapping.

Slices are comparison frames, not causal peer cohorts. Districts can appear in several slices, and dollar figures in this panel are latest-year UFB dollars unless another section says it converts to real dollars.

Named similar-budget-model comps

The closest statewide comparison question is not only local geography. This screen names districts whose latest UFB profile is nearest on mostly locally funded, outside-operating scale visible, then keeps cost, funding, use, service, and tax clues in the same row.

Named compWhy similarCost basisFunding and useService/tax clue
Flemington-Raritan RegHunterdon County · 3,349 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, outside-operating scale visiblecomparative $19,574; operating/UFB on-roll $22,026mostly locally funded; outside-operating scale visible (local 90%, state 10%)sent placements 4% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 16%
Watchung Hills RegionalSomerset County · 1,627 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, outside-operating scale visiblecomparative $25,285; operating/UFB on-roll $30,398mostly locally funded; outside-operating scale visible (local 91%, state 6%)sent placements 4% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 13%
Monroe TwpMiddlesex County · 6,761 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, outside-operating scale visiblecomparative $19,511; operating/UFB on-roll $21,690mostly locally funded; outside-operating scale visible (local 89%, state 9%)sent placements <1% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 14%
Verona BoroEssex County · 2,206 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, outside-operating scale visiblecomparative $18,464; operating/UFB on-roll $20,714mostly locally funded; outside-operating scale visible (local 89%, state 9%)sent placements 2% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 16%
Oceanport BoroMonmouth County · 611 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, outside-operating scale visiblecomparative $23,249; operating/UFB on-roll $23,428mostly locally funded; outside-operating scale visible (local 89%, state 8%)sent placements 1% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 18%
North Haledon BoroPassaic County · 622 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, outside-operating scale visiblecomparative $19,912; operating/UFB on-roll $20,962mostly locally funded; outside-operating scale visible (local 89%, state 7%)sent placements <1% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 18%

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.

  1. +$354KOperating scaleAfter inflation, the proposed operating budget changed +$353,687 (30%) from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Uses proposed operating budget converted to 2025 dollars and UFB planning enrollment, not fall enrollment.
  2. +68 ptsOperating-use shiftSpecial schools moved from 3% to 71% of the proposed operating budget, a real-dollar change of +$1,061,844.High-level use shares come from General Fund appropriation rows; nested lower-level rows are handled later in the category table.
  3. +$1.5MLargest named-line increaseUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues rose from $1,889 to $1,535,000.This is a contextual revenue row. Its operating-budget share changed +99 pts.
  4. -$1.2MLargest named-line decreaseTotal Tuition fell from $1,194,424 to $0.This is a contextual revenue row. Its operating-budget share changed -100 pts.

This is not an additive budget bridge. UFB rows are contextual and sometimes nested, and loaded UFB year columns mix actual-cost, revised/original-budget, and proposed-budget bases.

Operating budget
$1.6 million
proposed General Fund, 2025-26
Local sources
$1.6 million
100% of operating-budget scale
Top use family
125%
Special revenue funds
All funds net
$2.9 million
$1.3 million outside operating budget

Budget report section

Reader questions

What should a resident ask before reading the row-level tables?

Budget walkthrough

Read the budget in five passes: money in, money out, costs and students, what changed, and which UFB side files deserve attention.

Money in

Local sources supplied 100% of the proposed operating budget, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.

  • Operating sources: local sources 100%.

Money out

The largest high-level use is special schools, $1.1 million or 71% of the operating budget.

  • Special schools: $1.1 million (71%).
  • General current expense: $450,000 (29%).
  • Nested detail row: employee benefits is $172,240 (11% of operating budget; peer average 19%).
  • Nested detail row: central services is $131,325 (8% of operating budget; peer average 2%).
  • All-funds net spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above the operating budget.

What changed

  • Largest named-line increase: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, up $1,533,111 in 2025 dollars.
  • Largest named-line decrease: Total Tuition, down $1,194,424 in 2025 dollars.
  • Aggregate operating budget changed +$353,687 in real terms; read that scale check with the UFB on-roll denominator before treating it as the story.
  • Largest operating-use share shift: special schools moved +68 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26.
  • Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues: +95 pts versus the local peer average.

Side files to check

  • Projected balance: Unrestricted-General Operating Budget at $1.6 million, $0 versus the prior balance column.
  • Shared-service entries: 13, savings often not reported.
  • Listed administrative salary rows total $1.6 million across 15 UFB rows.

This walkthrough uses the same generated measures as the tables below. It is an orientation layer, not a substitute for the UFB source rows.

Budget diagnostic

These generated checks turn the UFB source files into reader questions: cost position, funding model, spending mix, student-service load, inflation-adjusted movement, and side-file context.

Is this a size story or a cost story?

  • All-funds spending is $2.9 million, $1.3 million above the operating budget.
  • <1% of operating dollars among Hunterdon County districts.

Who pays for the operating budget?

  • Largest operating source: local sources, 100% of operating revenue, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average.

Where does the spending mix differ?

  • Largest high-level use: special schools, 71% of the operating budget.
  • Special Revenue Funds equivalent: 63%, 53 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 27.
  • Debt Service Funds equivalent: 23%, 17 pts above the Hunterdon County average; local rank 1 of 19.

What changed after inflation?

  • Largest named-line increase: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues, up $1,533,111 in 2025 dollars.
  • Largest named-line decrease: Total Tuition, down $1,194,424 in 2025 dollars.
  • Aggregate operating budget changed +$353,687 in real terms; read that scale check with the UFB on-roll denominator before treating it as the story.

What one-time notes, balances, or side files matter?

  • Largest projected balance row: Unrestricted-General Operating Budget at $1.6 million.
  • Shared-service file lists 13 district-reported entries, with savings often not reported.
  • Administrative salary file lists 15 base-salary rows totaling $1.6 million.

The diagnostics compare measures only where enough local peers have usable UFB values. Ranks and gaps are flags for reporting, not judgments about whether the spending is good or bad.

Budget report section

Proposal changes

What changed from revised/current to proposed, and which named rows explain the movement?

Current proposal changes

This section compares the latest UFB revised/current-budget column with the proposed-budget column. It answers what the proposal changes now, before the report turns to long-run inflation-adjusted trends.

  1. +$64,000Operating budgetThe proposed operating budget is +$64,000 (4%) versus the revised/current-budget column. The Hunterdon County average proposal change was -1% of proposed operating-budget scale.
  2. -$120KLargest use rowSpecial Revenue Funds changed -$119,642 from revised/current to proposed. Peer average proposal movement for the same row was >-1% of operating scale.
  3. +$64,000Largest revenue rowLocal sources changed +$64,000 from revised/current to proposed. Peer average proposal movement for the same row was 3% of operating scale.

Revenue proposal changes

UFB rowRevised/currentProposedChangeOp. equiv.Peer avg
Local sourcesUFB line 370$1,486,000$1,550,000+$64,0004%3%
Operating budgetUFB line 720$1,486,000$1,550,000+$64,0004%-1%
Unrestricted miscellaneous revenueUFB line 300$1,471,000$1,535,000+$64,0004%<1%
Federal sourcesUFB line 830$424,563$424,563$00%>-1%

Use proposal changes

UFB rowRevised/currentProposedChangeOp. equiv.Peer avg
Special Revenue FundsUFB line 88760$1,089,642$970,000-$119,642-8%>-1%
Special schoolsUFB line 83080$1,037,524$1,100,000+$62,4764%n/a
Employee benefitsUFB line 71260$144,985$172,240+$27,2552%1%
Operations and maintenanceUFB line 51120$65,325$71,530+$6,205<1%>-1%
General current expenseUFB line 72260$448,476$450,000+$1,524<1%2%
Debt Service FundsUFB line 89980$350,000$350,000$00%>-1%

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 Hunterdon County districts with usable rows, so it is a scale comparison rather than an additive accounting bridge. Pupil-cost rows use NJDOE-published per-pupil lines, and enrollment rows are UFB planning enrollment, not fall enrollment.

Proposal package

The material named-row proposal scan has a net reduction of -$558,625. The largest family in the package is Other named rows, with $233,265 of increases and $358,926 of reductions. Reductions in the same scan total $883,145 against $324,520 of increases.

Budget familyIncreasesReductionsNet scanPeer netLargest rows
Other named rows7 material named rows$233,26515% of op. scale$358,92623% of op. scale-$125,661-8 pts of op. scale+2 ptsHunterdon County averageTotal Revenues from Local Sources (Revenue, line 370, +$64,000)Other (Appropriation, line 88140, -$119,642)
Special revenue funds2 material named rows$00% of op. scale$239,28415% of op. scale-$239,284-15 pts of op. scale0 ptsHunterdon County averageNo material increase in this family.Total Special Revenue Funds (Appropriation, line 88760, -$119,642)
State aid2 material named rows$00% of op. scale$239,28415% of op. scale-$239,284-15 pts of op. scale+1 ptHunterdon County averageNo material increase in this family.Total Other State Projects (Appropriation, line 88180, -$119,642)
Local taxes and local sources1 material named row$64,0004% of op. scale$00% of op. scale+$64,000+4 pts of op. scale+3 ptsHunterdon County averageUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues (Revenue, line 300, +$64,000)No material reduction in this family.
Administration and central services1 material named row$00% of op. scale$45,6513% of op. scale-$45,651-3 pts of op. scale0 ptsHunterdon County averageNo material increase in this family.Total Undistributed Expenditures-Central Services (Appropriation, line 47200, -$45,651)
Employee benefits1 material named row$27,2552% of op. scale$00% of op. scale+$27,255+2 pts of op. scale+1 ptHunterdon County averageTotal Personal Services-Employee Benefits (Appropriation, line 71260, +$27,255)No material reduction in this family.

This panel groups material named UFB proposal-row movement between the revised/current and proposed columns. Dollar changes are nominal latest-file dollars. Increases, reductions, and net scan values are a reporting summary of contextual source rows, not a balanced accounting bridge, because UFB rows can be nested, repeated, subtotals, or outside the operating fund. Peer net is the average same-family net movement as a share of proposed operating budget among Hunterdon 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 $64,000 in the revenue file. The largest named reduction is Other, down $119,642 in the appropriation file.

UFB rowRevised/currentProposedChangeOp. equiv.Peer avg
OtherUse | Account row | UFB line 88140 | Acct. '20-XXX-XXX-XX$665,079$545,437-$119,642-8%n/a
Total Other State ProjectsUse | Subtotal | UFB line 88180 | Acct. '$665,079$545,437-$119,642-8%-2%n=6
Total Special Revenue FundsUse | Subtotal | UFB line 88760 | Acct. '$1,089,642$970,000-$119,642-8%>-1%n=27
Total State ProjectsUse | Subtotal | UFB line 88200 | Acct. '20-XXX-XXX-XX$665,079$545,437-$119,642-8%<1%n=19
Other Restricted EntitlementsRevenue | Account row | UFB line 765 | Acct. '20-32XX$665,079$545,437-$119,642-8%n/a
Total Grants and EntitlementsRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 840 | Acct. '$1,089,642$970,000-$119,642-8%>-1%n=27
Total Revenues from State SourcesRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 770 | Acct. '$665,079$545,437-$119,642-8%<1%n=19
Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 370 | Acct. '$1,486,000$1,550,000+$64,0004%3%n=27
Unrestricted Miscellaneous RevenuesRevenue | Account row | UFB line 300 | Acct. '10-1XXX$1,471,000$1,535,000+$64,0004%<1%n=19
Total Adult Education-LocalUse | Subtotal | UFB line 80340 | Acct. '13-602-X00-XX$1,037,524$1,100,000+$62,4764%n/a
Total Special SchoolsUse | Subtotal | UFB line 83080 | Acct. '13-XXX-XXX-XX$1,037,524$1,100,000+$62,4764%n/a
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Central ServicesUse | Subtotal | UFB line 47200 | Acct. '11-000-251-XX$176,976$131,325-$45,651-3%>-1%n=26
Total Adult Education-Local-Support ServicesUse | Subtotal | UFB line 80320 | Acct. '13-602-200-XX$741,249$785,562+$44,3133%n/a
Total Personal Services-Employee BenefitsUse | Subtotal | UFB line 71260 | Acct. '11-XXX-XXX-2X$144,985$172,240+$27,2552%1%n=27

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 Hunterdon County districts with usable changed rows, not a target. Subtotal rows and detail rows can overlap, rows can move because a grant or fund section is being closed out, and these rows are evidence for reporting questions rather than an additive accounting bridge.

Budget report section

Peer evidence

Where does this district sit among local peers, named neighbors, and peer trends?

Local peer evidence

local peer distribution · each row has its own scaleGeneral current expense share-65 pts vs avg · rank 27 of 2729%94% avg0%100%Special Revenue Funds equivalent+53 pts vs avg · rank 1 of 2763%9% avg0%100%Debt Service Funds equivalent+17 pts vs avg · rank 1 of 1923%6% avg0%100%Local operating revenue share+17 pts vs avg · rank 1 of 27100%83% avg0%100%Employee benefits share-8 pts vs avg · rank 26 of 2711%19% avg0%100%

Each strip shows one generated budget measure across Hunterdon County districts. Gray dots are peer districts, the accent dot is this district, and the dashed mark is the Hunterdon 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 Hunterdon County districts around this district, so a rank or average can be checked against specific local districts rather than anonymous dots alone.

General current expense share

29%Rank 27 of 27; -65 pts vs Hunterdon County average.

Next higher value
Hunterdon Co Vocational 81%
Next lower value
No local peer lower
Hunterdon County average
94%

Special Revenue Funds equivalent

63%Rank 1 of 27; +53 pts vs Hunterdon County average.

Next higher value
No local peer higher
Next lower value
Frenchtown Boro 26%
Hunterdon County average
9%

Debt Service Funds equivalent

23%Rank 1 of 19; +17 pts vs Hunterdon County average.

Next higher value
No local peer higher
Next lower value
South Hunterdon Regional 13%
Hunterdon County average
6%

Local operating revenue share

100%Rank 1 of 27; +17 pts vs Hunterdon County average.

Next higher value
No local peer higher
Next lower value
Delaware Valley Regional 91%
Hunterdon County average
83%

Employee benefits share

11%Rank 26 of 27; -8 pts vs Hunterdon County average.

Next higher value
Hampton Boro 14%
Next lower value
Hunterdon Co Vocational 9%
Hunterdon County average
19%

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 27 rows in the local peer set behind averages and ranks for Hunterdon County districts. 26 have a usable NJDOE comparative-cost value; this district does not have a usable NJDOE comparative-cost value in the latest row, so it is listed without a cost rank.

DistrictComparative costCost rankUFB on-rollOperating budgetFunding model
Milford BoroPeer district$36,0951 of 2666$2.7 millionMostly locally funded82% local / 13% state
Frenchtown BoroPeer district$32,7792 of 26102$3.1 millionMostly locally funded83% local / 11% state
Tewksbury TwpPeer district$31,5313 of 26484$17.0 millionMostly locally funded83% local / 8% state
Lebanon BoroPeer district$29,5124 of 2697$3.4 millionMostly locally funded91% local / 5% state
South Hunterdon RegionalPeer district$29,0165 of 26787$25.5 millionMostly locally funded83% local / 13% state
Califon BoroPeer district$28,5136 of 2698$3.3 millionMostly locally funded86% local / 3% state
Hampton BoroPeer district$28,4087 of 26123$4.4 millionMixed-source62% local / 31% state
Bloomsbury BoroPeer district$27,6658 of 26113$3.7 millionMixed-source56% local / 26% state
Hunterdon Central RegPeer district$27,5239 of 262,180$77.5 millionMostly locally funded81% local / 6% state
High Bridge BoroPeer district$27,06610 of 26377$8.9 millionMostly locally funded82% local / 9% state
Franklin TwpPeer district$26,45711 of 26325$9.5 millionMostly locally funded85% local / 9% state
North Hunterdon-Voorhees RegionalPeer district$26,29012 of 262,076$66.6 millionMostly locally funded85% local / 6% state
Delaware Valley RegionalPeer district$25,63413 of 26662$19.8 millionMostly locally funded91% local / 7% state
Delaware TwpPeer district$25,61714 of 26415$11.0 millionMostly locally funded86% local / 11% state
Lebanon TwpPeer district$25,53615 of 26545$15.0 millionMostly locally funded87% local / 9% state
East Amwell TwpPeer district$24,75616 of 26408$10.2 millionMostly locally funded86% local / 10% state
Holland TwpPeer district$24,16317 of 26529$13.0 millionMostly locally funded85% local / 10% state
Bethlehem TwpPeer district$24,05518 of 26381$10.0 millionMostly locally funded83% local / 9% state
Clinton TwpPeer district$23,86019 of 261,282$34.7 millionMostly locally funded83% local / 8% state
Alexandria TwpPeer district$23,52020 of 26429$11.4 millionMostly locally funded88% local / 10% state
Kingwood TwpPeer district$23,42021 of 26333$8.8 millionMostly locally funded80% local / 10% state
Readington TwpPeer district$23,11522 of 261,600$38.8 millionMostly locally funded89% local / 8% state
Union TwpPeer district$21,43123 of 26525$12.9 millionMostly locally funded84% local / 9% state
Clinton-Glen GardnerPeer district$19,76424 of 26539$10.8 millionMostly locally funded84% local / 13% state
Flemington-Raritan RegPeer district$19,57425 of 263,349$73.8 millionMostly locally funded90% local / 10% state
Hunterdon Co VocationalPeer district$14,57726 of 26420$13.4 millionMostly locally funded80% local / 7% state
Hunterdon Co Ed Ser CommThis districtn/an/an/a$1.6 millionMostly locally funded100% local / n/a state

This is the local comparison universe used elsewhere in this report when the Hunterdon 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 Hunterdon County average before the report moves into row-level trends. They answer a narrower question than the cost trend: whether this district funds or uses its operating budget differently from local peers.

Operating revenue sources

Local sources: 100% here versus 83% for the county avg, a +17 pts gap.

Operating revenue sources0%50%100%This districtcounty avg100%83%10%
Local sourcesState sourcesFederal sources

General Fund operating revenue sources, not all-funds revenue or tax bills. Peer bar is the unweighted average among 27 local peer rows with usable latest-year mix data.

High-level operating uses

Special schools: 71% here versus 3% for the county avg, a +68 pts gap.

High-level operating uses0%50%100%This districtcounty avg29%71%94%
General current expenseCapital outlaySpecial schools

High-level General Fund appropriation rows; lower-level rows can be nested. Peer bar is the unweighted average among 27 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

this district vs local peer average over loaded UFB yearsSpecial Revenue Funds equivalentlatest gap +53 pts · gap moved -19 pts0%135%63%9% avgDebt Service Funds equivalentlatest gap +17 pts · gap moved -14 pts0%55%23%6% avgLocal operating revenue sharelatest gap +17 pts · gap moved -1 pt75%105%100%83% avgEmployee benefits sharelatest gap -8 pts · gap moved -12 pts5%30%19% avg11%Fund balance / other operating...latest gap -6 pts · gap moved -2 pts0%25%0%6% avg2019202020212022202320242025
MeasureFirst peer gapLatest peer gapGap movement
Special Revenue Funds equivalent2019-20: +72 pts2025-26: +53 pts-19 pts
Debt Service Funds equivalent2019-20: +30 pts2025-26: +17 pts-14 pts
Local operating revenue share2019-20: +17 pts2025-26: +17 pts-1 pt
Employee benefits share2019-20: +4 pts2025-26: -8 pts-12 pts
Fund balance / other operating revenue share2019-20: -5 pts2025-26: -6 pts-2 pts

Each row tracks this district against the Hunterdon 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

share of operating budget funding 100%0%50%100%
Local sources

This bar shows proposed General Fund operating revenue sources for the latest UFB year. It is not an all-funds revenue mix.

Budget report section

Categories and lines

Which spending categories, budget families, and source rows are large or unusual?

share of proposed operating budget · 2025-260%50%100%Special schools71%General current expense29%bar this district · tick county avg

Budget family context matrix

Largest current family signal: Other named rows, $4,940,562 or 319% of operating-budget scale. Largest real movement: Other named rows, +$3,515,733 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Widest peer gap: Other named rows, 305 pts above the Hunterdon County average.

Family and source rowLatest scalePeer gapReal movement
Other named rows8 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Adult Education-LocalAppropriation line 80340 · $1,100,000319%$4,940,562+305 ptspeer avg 14%+$3,515,733+200 pts op. shift
Special revenue funds2 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Special Revenue FundsAppropriation line 88760 · $970,000125%$1,940,000+107 ptspeer avg 19%+$104,563-28 pts op. shift
State aid2 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Other State ProjectsAppropriation line 88180 · $545,43770%$1,090,874+52 ptspeer avg 19%+$1,090,874+70 pts op. shift
Local taxes and local sources1 latest rowsLargest latest rowUnrestricted Miscellaneous RevenuesRevenue line 300 · $1,535,00099%$1,535,000+15 ptspeer avg 84%+$1,046,191+58 pts op. shift
General current expense1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal General Current ExpenseAppropriation line 72260 · $450,00029%$450,000-65 ptspeer avg 94%-$708,157-68 pts op. shift
Transfers and tuition0 latest rowsLargest latest rowNo positive latest-year row.0%$0-8 ptspeer avg 8%-$1,194,424-100 pts op. shift
Capital, facilities, and debt2 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Debt Service FundsAppropriation line 89980 · $350,00045%$700,000+32 ptspeer avg 13%-$181,494-29 pts op. shift
Special education and student supports1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTransfers from Other FundsRevenue line 845 · $350,00023%$350,000+4 ptspeer avg 18%-$388,983-39 pts op. shift
Federal grants1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Federal ProjectsAppropriation line 88740 · $424,56327%$424,563+24 ptspeer avg 4%-$6,236-9 pts op. shift
Instruction programs1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Adult Education-Local-InstructionAppropriation line 80180 · $314,43820%$314,438-12 ptspeer avg 32%+$176,484+9 pts op. shift

This matrix ranks the highest-signal UFB families for this district. Latest scale is 2025-26 source-row dollars divided by proposed operating budget; peer gap uses the same denominator against the Hunterdon 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 Hunterdon County average.

Family and source rowThis districtNamed local checksLocal range
Other named rowsWhich remaining named rows deserve a closer district-level look?Total Adult Education-LocalAppropriation line 80340; $1,100,000319%$4,940,562; rank 1 of 27+305 pts vs Hunterdon County average (14%)Next higherNo local peer higherNext lowerHunterdon Co Vocational 16%Hunterdon Co Ed Ser Comm 319% to Bloomsbury Boro 0%A catch-all for contextual rows that do not fit the named families above.
Special revenue fundsHow large are grant-funded or otherwise outside-operating programs relative to operating budgets?Total Special Revenue FundsAppropriation line 88760; $970,000125%$1,940,000; rank 1 of 27+107 pts vs Hunterdon County average (19%)Next higherNo local peer higherNext lowerFrenchtown Boro 52%Hunterdon Co Ed Ser Comm 125% to Hunterdon Central Reg 1%Special-revenue totals are outside-operating scale signals and should not be added to General Fund operating rows.
General current expenseHow much of the operating story sits in the broad current-expense row before lower-level categories are inspected?Total General Current ExpenseAppropriation line 72260; $450,00029%$450,000; rank 27 of 27-65 pts vs Hunterdon County average (94%)Next higherHunterdon Co Vocational 81%Next lowerNo local peer lowerBloomsbury Boro 100% to Hunterdon Co Ed Ser Comm 29%General current expense is a high-level operating row; lower-level rows inside it can overlap and should not be added back to it.
State aidWhich aid lines explain dependence on state funding or first-to-latest movement?Total Other State ProjectsAppropriation line 88180; $545,43770%$1,090,874; rank 1 of 27+52 pts vs Hunterdon County average (19%)Next higherNo local peer higherNext lowerHampton Boro 43%Hunterdon Co Ed Ser Comm 70% to Califon Boro 3%Includes aid rows other than preschool-specific rows, which are separated because they often move as a program block.
Capital, facilities, and debtAre capital projects, facilities acquisition, reserve withdrawals, or debt-service rows distorting all-funds comparisons?Total Debt Service FundsAppropriation line 89980; $350,00045%$700,000; rank 1 of 27+32 pts vs Hunterdon County average (13%)Next higherNo local peer higherNext lowerUnion Twp 36%Hunterdon Co Ed Ser Comm 45% to Bloomsbury Boro <1%Capital and debt rows use operating budget only as a common scale reference.

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

Special schools sits 68 pts above the Hunterdon County average. Special schools changed +$1,061,844 in real dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.

Budget categoryLayerLatest amountLatest op. equiv.Peer avgShare changeReal $ change
General current expenseHigh-level operating use$450,00029%94%-68 pts-$708,157
Capital outlayHigh-level operating use$00%3%0 pts$0
Special schoolsHigh-level operating use$1,100,00071%3%+68 pts+$1,061,844
Core instruction rowsNested cost row$00%35%-12 pts-$148,678
Student supports and servicesNested cost row$00%10%-11 pts-$128,780
Instruction tuitionNested cost row$00%5%0 pts$0
Administration and central servicesNested cost row$206,23013%6%-17 pts-$154,709
Operations and maintenanceNested cost row$71,5305%10%-5 pts-$45,100
Student transportationNested cost row$00%5%0 pts-$1,259
Employee benefitsNested cost row$172,24011%19%-12 pts-$109,055
Special Revenue FundsOutside-operating scale$970,00063%9%-14 pts+$52,282
Debt Service FundsOutside-operating scale$350,00023%4%-14 pts-$90,747

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 Hunterdon County average where at least six local peer districts have usable UFB rows.

Budget family lens

Largest family-level source-row signal: Other named rows, $4,940,562 or 319% of operating-budget scale. Largest first-to-latest real movement: Other named rows, +$3,515,733 in 2025 dollars. Widest local peer gap: Other named rows, 305 pts above the Hunterdon County average on the same operating-scale basis.

Other named rows

Which remaining named rows deserve a closer district-level look?

Latest scale$4,940,562319% op. equiv.; 8 latest rowsPeer avg14%+305 pts vs peersReal movement+$3,515,733+200 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Adult Education-LocalAppropriation line 80340 · '13-602-X00-XX · $1,100,000

A catch-all for contextual rows that do not fit the named families above.

Special revenue funds

How large are grant-funded or otherwise outside-operating programs relative to operating budgets?

Latest scale$1,940,000125% op. equiv.; 2 latest rowsPeer avg19%+107 pts vs peersReal movement+$104,563-28 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Special Revenue FundsAppropriation line 88760 · ' · $970,000

Special-revenue totals are outside-operating scale signals and should not be added to General Fund operating rows.

State aid

Which aid lines explain dependence on state funding or first-to-latest movement?

Latest scale$1,090,87470% op. equiv.; 2 latest rowsPeer avg19%+52 pts vs peersReal movement+$1,090,874+70 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Other State ProjectsAppropriation line 88180 · ' · $545,437

Includes aid rows other than preschool-specific rows, which are separated because they often move as a program block.

Local taxes and local sources

How much of the budget story is local levy, tuition, fees, or miscellaneous local revenue?

Latest scale$1,535,00099% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg84%+15 pts vs peersReal movement+$1,046,191+58 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowUnrestricted Miscellaneous RevenuesRevenue line 300 · '10-1XXX · $1,535,000

Mostly revenue-file rows. Tax levy is merged across label variants where the source changed names.

General current expense

How much of the operating story sits in the broad current-expense row before lower-level categories are inspected?

Latest scale$450,00029% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg94%-65 pts vs peersReal movement-$708,157-68 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal General Current ExpenseAppropriation line 72260 · ' · $450,000

General current expense is a high-level operating row; lower-level rows inside it can overlap and should not be added back to it.

Transfers and tuition

Do charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story?

Latest scale$00% op. equiv.; 0 latest rowsPeer avg8%-8 pts vs peersReal movement-$1,194,424-100 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowNo positive latest-year row.

Transfer and tuition rows often identify the districts where money leaves the district-run setting.

Capital, facilities, and debt

Are capital projects, facilities acquisition, reserve withdrawals, or debt-service rows distorting all-funds comparisons?

Latest scale$700,00045% op. equiv.; 2 latest rowsPeer avg13%+32 pts vs peersReal movement-$181,494-29 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Debt Service FundsAppropriation line 89980 · ' · $350,000

Capital and debt rows use operating budget only as a common scale reference.

Special education and student supports

Are special education, child study, therapies, guidance, or student supports driving the budget question?

Latest scale$350,00023% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg18%+4 pts vs peersReal movement-$388,983-39 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTransfers from Other FundsRevenue line 845 · '40-5200 · $350,000

Rows can mix instruction, support services, and placement-related services.

Federal grants

Which federal rows are large, concentrated, or fading after pandemic-era aid?

Latest scale$424,56327% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg4%+24 pts vs peersReal movement-$6,236-9 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Federal ProjectsAppropriation line 88740 · '20-XXX-XXX-XX · $424,563

Federal rows are source-file grant lines and can sit outside the operating-budget story.

Instruction programs

Which classroom or instructional program rows define the core spending structure?

Latest scale$314,43820% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg32%-12 pts vs peersReal movement+$176,484+9 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Adult Education-Local-InstructionAppropriation line 80180 · '13-602-100-XX · $314,438

Instruction rows can be nested inside broader General Fund current-expense totals.

Administration and central services

Are administrative, central-service, board, legal, or technology rows unusually large or moving?

Latest scale$206,23013% op. equiv.; 3 latest rowsPeer avg6%+7 pts vs peersReal movement-$154,709-17 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Central ServicesAppropriation line 47200 · '11-000-251-XX · $131,325

This is source-row context, not a full administrative payroll analysis.

Employee benefits

How large are benefit rows, and are they moving differently from the overall budget?

Latest scale$172,24011% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg19%-8 pts vs peersReal movement-$109,055-12 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Personal Services-Employee BenefitsAppropriation line 71260 · '11-XXX-XXX-2X · $172,240

Benefit rows are named appropriation rows that can overlap with salary-bearing functions.

Plant, operations, and maintenance

Do facilities operations or maintenance explain spending differences?

Latest scale$71,5305% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg10%-5 pts vs peersReal movement-$45,100-5 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant ServicesAppropriation line 51120 · '11-000-26X-XX · $71,530

Operations rows are lower-level appropriation rows and should not be added to high-level totals.

Preschool

Is preschool aid, carryover, instruction, or support service scale material?

Latest scale$00% op. equiv.; 0 latest rowsPeer avg14%-14 pts vs peersReal movement$00 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowNo positive latest-year row.

Preschool rows can appear in revenue and appropriation files and can be outside ordinary K-12 comparisons.

Fund balance and reserves

Is the district leaning on fund balance, capital reserve, maintenance reserve, or similar one-time sources?

Latest scale$00% op. equiv.; 0 latest rowsPeer avg7%-7 pts vs peersReal movement$00 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowNo positive latest-year row.

Reserve and fund-balance rows are context signals, not recurring operating revenue.

Transportation

Is transportation a visible cost or aid signal relative to other districts?

Latest scale$00% op. equiv.; 0 latest rowsPeer avg5%-5 pts vs peersReal movement-$1,2590 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowNo positive latest-year row.

Transportation appears in both aid/revenue and appropriation rows; read the file label.

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 Hunterdon 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 rowType2019-202025-26Real changeOp. share change
Unrestricted Miscellaneous RevenuesRevenue$1,889$1,535,000+$1,533,111+99 pts
Total TuitionRevenue$1,194,424$0-$1,194,424-100 pts
Total Adult Education-LocalAppropriation$0$1,100,000+$1,100,000+71 pts
Total Special SchoolsAppropriation$38,156$1,100,000+$1,061,844+68 pts
Total General Current ExpenseAppropriation$1,158,157$450,000-$708,157-68 pts
Total Adult Education-Local-Support ServicesAppropriation$0$785,562+$785,562+51 pts
Total Undistributed ExpendituresAppropriation$988,701$450,000-$538,701-54 pts
Local ProjectsAppropriation$486,920$0-$486,920-41 pts
Other Revenue from Local SourcesRevenue$486,920$0-$486,920-41 pts
Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue$486,920$0-$486,920-41 pts

Ranked contextual UFB revenue and appropriation rows by movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Amounts are inflation-adjusted to 2025 dollars using BLS CPI-U annual averages. Rows are selected and often nested, so they do not add to a complete budget; the UFB year columns also mix actual-cost, revised/original-budget, and proposed-budget bases.

Budget report section

Costs and students

Which denominator, service-load, need, labor, and pupil-cost rows change the per-student read?

Cost basis reconciliation

Per-student budget claims depend on which numerator and denominator are being used. This table separates the published NJDOE cost line, operating-budget scale checks, all-funds context, and tax-levy pressure before the report interprets peer ranks.

Per-student basisThis districtLocal peer readWhat it means
NJDOE comparative cost per pupilnot publishedNo latest-year published comparative-cost value to rank.Published NJDOE comparative-cost line. The report does not recompute it from operating dollars or enrollment.
Operating budget per UFB on-rolln/aNo usable UFB planning on-roll denominator in the latest budget summary.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$775,000$746,100 above the Hunterdon County average; Hunterdon County average: $28,900; rank 1 of 27.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.

Use this panel before comparing per-pupil figures: the same district can look high, low, or ordinary depending on whether the report is using NJDOE comparative cost, operating budget, fall enrollment, all-funds totals, or tax levy.

Student flow and money path

The budget route map puts the cost question into reader terms: general current expense is the main operating route at 29% of the proposed operating budget. Dollar rows use operating-budget shares; student-flow rows use UFB planning-enrollment shares, so the table keeps the evidence separate instead of adding it together.

PathLatest scaleLocal peer readRead as
General current expense$450,000 (29% of operating)65 pts below the Hunterdon County average; Hunterdon County average: 94%; rank 27 of 27.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 budgetingno positive latest rownear the Hunterdon County average; Hunterdon County average: 0%; rank 1 of 27.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 transfersno positive latest rownear the Hunterdon County average; Hunterdon County average: <1%; rank 5 of 27.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.

This panel is a reporting map for Hunterdon 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.

  1. $775,000Fall-student scaleOperating budget per fall-enrolled student is $746,100 above the Hunterdon County average. Local rank is 1 of 27.
  2. 50%Student needThe free/reduced-price lunch share is 50% of fall enrollment, +33 pts versus the Hunterdon County average. Local rank is 1 of 31.

Denominator context

MeasureThis districtLocal contextRead as
Fall enrollment2<1% of peer fall enrollmentNJDOE fall enrollment count used on the district profile.
Operating budget per fall-enrolled student$775,000$28,900$746,100 above the Hunterdon County average

Student-need context

Fall rowCountShareLocal avg / rankGap
Free/reduced-price lunch150%17% · rank 1 of 31+33 pts
Students experiencing homelessness00%<1% · rank 12 of 270 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.

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.

  1. $1.6 millionAdministrative salary fileThe UFB salary side file lists 15 selected administrative base-salary rows; highest listed role is Superintendent at $191,213.
  2. 11%Benefits rowEmployee benefits are 11% of operating-budget scale, 8 pts below the Hunterdon County average; local rank 26 of 27.

Operating and side-file context

MeasureThis districtLocal contextRead as
Employee benefits appropriation row$172,240 · 11%19% peer avg; 8 pts below the Hunterdon County averageNamed UFB appropriation row, scaled to the operating budget.
Listed administrative base salaries$1.6 millionn/a15 selected UFB salary rows.
Highest listed administrative base salary$191,213$179,420 peer avg; rank 9 of 27Superintendent

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 Hunterdon County districts with usable latest-year UFB rows.

Budget report section

Comparison matrix

Which tax basis, tax effort, averages, ranks, and gaps shape the comparison?

Tax effort and tax base

Mixed tax context.

  1. MixedTax-context signalGenerated from UFB tax levy, planning enrollment, and estimated tax-rate side rows.
MeasureThis districtHunterdon County averageGapLocal rankBasis
Municipal rate spread00.0275-0.02757 of 27Highest 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

MeasureThis districtPeer avgGapRank
General current expense share29%94%-65 pts27 of 27
Special Revenue Funds equivalent63%9%+53 pts1 of 27
Debt Service Funds equivalent23%6%+17 pts1 of 19
Local operating revenue share100%83%+17 pts1 of 27
Employee benefits share11%19%-8 pts26 of 27
Highest listed admin base salary$191,213$179,420+$11,7939 of 27
Fund balance / other operating revenue share0%6%-6 pts26 of 27
Operations and maintenance share5%10%-5 pts27 of 27

Peer averages and ranks compare against Hunterdon 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: Unrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues is 99%, +95 pts versus the peer average; Total Tax Levy is 0%, -76 pts versus the peer average.

UFB rowFileAmountOp. equiv.Peer avgGapRank
Unrestricted Miscellaneous RevenuesRevenue$1,535,00099%4%+95 pts1 of 27
Total Tax LevyRevenue$00%76%-76 pts27 of 27
Total Adult Education-LocalAppropriation$1,100,00071%3%+68 pts1 of 27
Total Special SchoolsAppropriation$1,100,00071%3%+68 pts1 of 27
Total General Current ExpenseAppropriation$450,00029%94%-65 pts27 of 27
Total Special Revenue FundsAppropriation$970,00063%9%+53 pts1 of 27
Total Grants and EntitlementsRevenue$970,00063%9%+53 pts1 of 27
Total Adult Education-Local-Support ServicesAppropriation$785,56251%2%+49 pts1 of 27
OtherAppropriation$545,43735%1%+34 pts1 of 27
Total Other State ProjectsAppropriation$545,43735%1%+34 pts1 of 27
Other Restricted EntitlementsRevenue$545,43735%1%+34 pts1 of 27
Total Undistributed ExpendituresAppropriation$450,00029%58%-29 pts27 of 27

This scans contextual revenue and appropriation rows against Hunterdon 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

MeasureThis districtHunterdon County averageLocal rankNJ avgNJ rank
Local operating revenue share100%83%1 of 2769%1 of 595
Fund balance / other operating revenue share0%6%26 of 277%572 of 595
Employee benefits share11%19%26 of 2717%527 of 586
Operations and maintenance share5%10%27 of 279%564 of 587
Special Revenue Funds equivalent63%9%1 of 277%1 of 585
Debt Service Funds equivalent23%6%1 of 194%1 of 406
Highest listed admin base salary$191,213$179,4209 of 27$199,341335 of 580

Averages and ranks use districts with usable values for the same latest UFB year. Ranks run from highest value to lowest value, so rank 1 is not automatically better or worse.

Budget report section

Budget anatomy

How do operating sources, operating uses, all-funds totals, grants, and debt fit together?

Budget anatomy

Money in

RowAmountOp. share
Local sources$1.6 million100%

Operating uses

RowAmountOp. share
Special schools$1.1 million71%
General current expense$450,00029%

All-funds and outside-operating rows

RowAmountOp. equiv.
All-funds net above operating$1.3 million85%
Special Revenue Funds$970,00063%
State projects$545,43735%
Federal projects$424,56327%
Debt Service Funds$350,00023%

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 14 positive revenue rows and 22 positive appropriation rows; 8 changed revenue rows and 18 changed appropriation rows from the latest UFB files.

Budget report section

Side files

Which tax, balance, reserve, unusual-item, shared-service, school-resource, or salary rows matter?

Side-file history

UFB yearTax fileBalances / reservesNotes / shared servicesResource / salary files
2019-20n/aUnrestricted--General Operating Budget $1.2 million11 shared-service rows · $55,000 saved2 admin salary rows · $293,328
2020-21n/aUnrestricted--General Operating Budget $778,12313 shared-service rows · $60,000 saved2 admin salary rows · $300,661
2021-22n/aUnrestricted--General Operating Budget $694,52210 shared-service rows · $180,000 saved10 admin salary rows · $1.1 million
2022-23n/aUnrestricted-General Operating Budget $731,4639 shared-service rows15 admin salary rows · $1.5 million
2023-24n/aUnrestricted-General Operating Budget $844,81811 shared-service rows14 admin salary rows · $1.5 million
2024-25n/aUnrestricted-General Operating Budget $1.4 million11 shared-service rows17 admin salary rows · $1.8 million
2025-26n/aUnrestricted-General Operating Budget $1.6 million13 shared-service rows15 admin salary rows · $1.6 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 $1,578,952, 102% of operating-budget scale. After inflation, total projected balance changed +$94,841 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Largest latest category: Unrestricted operating balance, $1,578,952. Largest real movement: Unrestricted operating balance, +$94,841.

Unrestricted operating balance

How much close-year operating cushion is not restricted to a named reserve?

Latest projected$1,578,952102% op. equiv.; 1 rowsPeer avg7%+95 pts vs peersReal movement+$94,841-22 pts op. shift
Largest latest recap rowUnrestricted-General Operating Budget$1,578,952

Estimated close-year balance from the UFB recap file; not an operating appropriation.

Capital reserve

How much balance is set aside for capital projects or capital expenses?

Latest projected$00% op. equiv.; 0 rowsPeer avg16%-16 pts vs peersReal movement$00 pts op. shift
Largest latest recap rowNo positive latest-year recap row.

Capital reserve balances can make a district look cash-rich without changing current operating service levels.

Maintenance reserve

How much facilities maintenance cushion appears outside current spending lines?

Latest projected$00% op. equiv.; 0 rowsPeer avg3%-3 pts vs peersReal movement$00 pts op. shift
Largest latest recap rowNo positive latest-year recap row.

Maintenance reserve is a balance row; compare with facilities and capital lines before treating it as spending.

Unemployment fund

How much balance is held in unemployment-fund rows?

Latest projected$00% op. equiv.; 0 rowsPeer avg1%-1 pt vs peersReal movement$00 pts op. shift
Largest latest recap rowNo positive latest-year recap row.

A restricted balance row, not a recurring operating cost line.

Current expense emergency reserve

Which current-expense emergency reserve balances appear in the UFB recap?

Latest projected$00% op. equiv.; 0 rowsPeer avg<1%-1 pt vs peersReal movement$00 pts op. shift
Largest latest recap rowNo positive latest-year recap row.

Emergency reserve rows are close-year balances and should not be stacked with operating uses.

Recap rows are UFB projected balances at the close of the budget year, not operating appropriations or a spendable-cash claim. Tiny placeholder rows below $1,000 are suppressed. Money movement compares 2019-20 with 2025-26 in 2025 dollars, and operating-equivalent shares use each year's proposed operating budget. Peer avg is the Hunterdon County average where at least six local peer districts have usable recap rows.

Taxes, reserves, and balances

Balances projected at year-end

Recap categoryProjectedVs prior audited
Unrestricted-General Operating Budget$1.6 million$0

Tax rates are NJDOE estimated school-tax-rate rows per $100 of valuation. Balance rows come from the UFB recapitulation file; the projected column is the estimated balance at the close of the budget year, not a spendable operating line.

Unusual items and shared-service profile

The shared-service file lists 13 arrangements with no dollar savings reported, 0 pts versus the Hunterdon County average; peer average 9.6 rows. Most visible shared-service category: business services.

Shared-service categories

CategoryRows / savingsExample arrangement
Business servicesAre business-office services shared or consolidated?2 rowsno savings reportedBusiness ServicesBusiness Administrator Shared Services
Food, nursing, and student servicesAre food, nursing, social-worker, psychologist, or student services shared?2 rowsno savings reportedNursing ServicesNursing Shared Services
Other shared servicesWhich remaining shared-service arrangements deserve follow-up?2 rowsno savings reportedOthersFacility Support
Transportation shared servicesAre transportation arrangements part of the cost story?1 rowno savings reportedTransportation Services, including FuelCoordination & Management of Transportation
Insurance and benefitsAre insurance, benefit, or coverage arrangements reported as shared services?1 rowno savings reportedInsurance Coverages and BenefitsProvided through NJSIG
Purchasing and procurementDoes the district report purchasing cooperation rather than a direct service consolidation?1 rowno savings reportedPurchasingCooperative Purchasing Programs (HCESC, ESCNJ, State & County of Somerset)
Special education servicesAre shared special-education services part of the placement or support story?1 rowno savings reportedSpecial Education ServicesCST Evaluations & Related Services
Technology servicesAre technology services shared rather than separately staffed or contracted?1 rowno savings reportedTechnology ServicesDesktop, Network Management, Website & Support Services
Other staffingAre non-leadership staffing arrangements listed as shared services?1 rowno savings reportedStaffing - OtherPreschool Instructional Coach Shared Services
Curriculum and professional developmentAre instructional-support services reported as shared?1 rowno savings reportedProfessional Staff DevelopmentInstructional and Specialized Teacher Training

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 Hunterdon County districts where enough peers have usable side-file rows.

Budget notes and shared services

Shared-service entries

CategoryDescriptionSavings
Business ServicesBusiness Administrator Shared Servicesnot reported
Business ServicesBusiness Office Services (Payroll, A/P, Administrative Assistant)not reported
Insurance Coverages and BenefitsProvided through NJSIGnot reported
Nursing ServicesNursing Shared Servicesnot reported
OthersFacility Supportnot reported
OthersParticipate in ACES for electric & gar servicesnot reported

Showing 6 of 13 shared-service rows.

Unusual items and shared services are district-reported UFB explanation rows. Shared-service savings are optional, so a listed arrangement can show no dollar amount.

Listed administrative salary history

The UFB employees side file lists selected administrative salary rows for 7 loaded budget years. Listed base salary moved from $369,381 in 2019-20 to $1.6 million in 2025-26 in 2025 dollars (up $1.2 million). The selected-row count changed from 2 to 15 (+13).

  1. $1.6 millionLatest listed base15 selected rows, shown in 2025 dollars.
  2. 15Latest listed FTE1 row marked shared service.
  3. n/aLatest base per UFB on-rollScale check for selected listed administration only.
  4. 45Latest text term entriesPayout, buyback, comment, non-work-day, or post-employment text fields.

Loaded-year salary side-file trail

UFB yearListed baseRows / FTEHighest listed roleAdd-ons / terms
2019-20$369,3812 rows; FTE 21 shared$207,781Marie Gorey Kisch · Superintendent$37,401 add-on dollar fields8 text-term field entries
2020-21$374,0022 rows; FTE 21 shared$210,380Marie Gorey-Kisch · Superintendent$77,203 add-on dollar fields8 text-term field entries
2021-22$1.3 million10 rows; FTE 101 shared$206,732Marie B (Gorey) Kisch · Superintendent$84,712 add-on dollar fields47 text-term field entries
2022-23$1.7 million15 rows; FTE 151 shared$192,513Corinne Steinmetz · Superintendent$43,123 add-on dollar fields71 text-term field entries
2023-24$1.5 million14 rows; FTE 141 shared$189,525Corinne Steinmetz · Superintendent$44,276 add-on dollar fields65 text-term field entries
2024-25$1.8 million17 rows; FTE 171 shared$188,697Corinne Steinmetz · Superintendent$72,714 add-on dollar fields51 text-term field entries
2025-26$1.6 million15 rows; FTE 151 shared$191,213Corinne Steinmet · Superintendent$95,114 add-on dollar fields45 text-term field entries

Latest local peer scale checks

MeasureThis districtHunterdon County averageGapRead as
Shared-service row share7%6%0 ptsShare of selected salary rows marked shared in the side file.Local rank 5 of 27 among Hunterdon 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 15 selected administrative rows totaling $1.6 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.

  1. $1.6 millionListed base salaries15 selected administrative rows; not full payroll.
  2. $191,213Highest listed baseCorinne Steinmet · Superintendent
  3. $62,259Largest add-on fieldPost-employment benefits; 2 reported rows.
  4. 45 row entriesText term fieldsPayout, buyback, comment, or non-work-day text fields reported in the side file.

Compensation fields in the salary side file

FieldReported totalCountLargest listed rowRead as
Base salary$1.6 million15$191,213 · Corinne Steinmet · SuperintendentSelected listed administrative base salaries.
Post-employment benefits$62,2592$47,259 · Corinne Steinmet · SuperintendentDistrict-reported post-employment benefit field.
Allowances$27,85512$10,125 · Corinne Steinmet · SuperintendentDistrict-reported allowance field.
Bonuses$5,0001$5,000 · Corinne Steinmet · SuperintendentDistrict-reported bonus field.

Work and leave-day fields

FieldMedianRangeRows
Work days200186 to 20015
Vacation days250 to 2515
Sick days150 to 1515
Personal days00 to 315

Payout, buyback, and comment text

Field groupCountDistinct termsCommon text examples
Personal-day payout151None (15 rows)
Sick-day payout153None (13 rows); Maximum Permitted; Maximum Upon Retirement
Vacation-day payout152None (14 rows); Maximum 44 days at per diem rate

Highest listed base-salary rows

Listed employeeRoleBase salaryFTE/shared
Corinne SteinmetSuperintendent$191,2131
Heidi GaraBusiness Administrator: Board Secretary$157,3001 / shared
Dennis SchilerCoordinator/Director/Manager/Supervisor: School Services$135,5681
Edwin AshtonCoordinator/Director/Manager/Supervisor: Facility Director$129,6021
Scott CahillCoordinator/Director/Manager/Supervisor: Transportation$109,6751
Dennis BalodisCoordinator/Director/Manager/Supervisor: Financial Advisory$108,2751
Christina GreavesCoordinator/Director/Manager/Supervisor: Human Resources$101,0381
Jonathan PhillipsCoordinator/Director/Manager/Supervisor: Technology$100,9401

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 15 listed rows.

Budget report section

Source rows

Which visible UFB revenue and appropriation rows support the report?

UFB source-file ledger

These are the exact NJDOE User-Friendly Budget CSV files behind this report. Links open the statewide source files for 2025-26, while the row counts show how much of each file matched this district in the local warehouse.

FileLatest source fileRows from this districtUse and limit
Revenue file2019-20 to 2025-26 (7 files)rev26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV14 positive rowsNamed 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 CSV22 positive rowsHigh-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.
Recap / balance file2019-20 to 2025-26 (7 files)recap26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV14 balance rowsProjected 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 CSV13 arrangementsDistrict-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 CSV15 listed salary rowsSelected 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 rowFileAmountOperating equiv.
Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue$1,550,000100%
Unrestricted Miscellaneous RevenuesRevenue$1,535,00099%
Total Adult Education-LocalAppropriation$1,100,00071%
Total Special SchoolsAppropriation$1,100,00071%
Total Special Revenue FundsAppropriation$970,00063%
Total Grants and EntitlementsRevenue$970,00063%
Total Adult Education-Local-Support ServicesAppropriation$785,56251%
OtherAppropriation$545,43735%
Total Other State ProjectsAppropriation$545,43735%
Total State ProjectsAppropriation$545,43735%
Other Restricted EntitlementsRevenue$545,43735%
Total Revenues from State SourcesRevenue$545,43735%
Total General Current ExpenseAppropriation$450,00029%
Total Undistributed ExpendituresAppropriation$450,00029%
Adult EducationAppropriation$424,56327%
Total Federal ProjectsAppropriation$424,56327%

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 rowAmountOperating equiv.
Total expenditures net of transfers$2,870,000185%
General Fund grand total$1,550,000100%
General current expense$450,00029%
Special Revenue Funds$970,00063%
State projects$545,43735%
Federal projects$424,56327%
Debt Service Funds$350,00023%
Special schools$1,100,00071%

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 lineAmountOp. sharePeer avg
Employee benefits$172,24011%19%
Central services$131,3258%2%
Operations and maintenance$71,5305%10%
General administration$39,9053%2%
Administrative information technology$35,0002%<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 rowAmountOp. sharePeer avg
Unrestricted miscellaneous revenue$1,535,000>99%4%

These are selected source rows from operating, special-revenue, debt-service, and reserve sections. They are not additive because several are subtotals or belong to different funds.

Current UFB line appendix

Revenue file · 10 contextual rows

LineAccountUFB rowAmountOp. equiv.
26010-1910Rents and Royalties$15,000<1%
30010-1XXXUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues$1,535,00099%
370n/aTotal Revenues from Local Sources$1,550,000100%
76520-32XXOther Restricted Entitlements$545,43735%
770n/aTotal Revenues from State Sources$545,43735%
81520-4440Adult Basic Education$424,56327%
830n/aTotal Revenues from Federal Sources$424,56327%
840n/aTotal Grants and Entitlements$970,00063%
84540-5200Transfers from Other Funds$350,00023%
935n/aTotal Repayment of Debt$350,00023%

Appropriation file · 18 contextual rows

LineAccountUFB rowAmountOp. equiv.
4530011-000-230-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Support Services-General Administration$39,9053%
4720011-000-251-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Central Services$131,3258%
4762011-000-252-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Administrative Informationtechnology$35,0002%
5112011-000-26X-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services$71,5305%
7126011-XXX-XXX-2XTotal Personal Services-Employee Benefits$172,24011%
72140n/aTotal Undistributed Expenditures$450,00029%
72260n/aTotal General Current Expense$450,00029%
8018013-602-100-XXTotal Adult Education-Local-Instruction$314,43820%
8032013-602-200-XXTotal Adult Education-Local-Support Services$785,56251%
8034013-602-X00-XXTotal Adult Education-Local$1,100,00071%
8308013-XXX-XXX-XXTotal Special Schools$1,100,00071%
8814020-XXX-XXX-XXOther$545,43735%
88180n/aTotal Other State Projects$545,43735%
8820020-XXX-XXX-XXTotal State Projects$545,43735%
8866020-XXX-XXX-XXAdult Education$424,56327%
8874020-XXX-XXX-XXTotal Federal Projects$424,56327%
88760n/aTotal Special Revenue Funds$970,00063%
89980n/aTotal Debt Service Funds$350,00023%

This appendix lists all 28 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 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 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-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 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 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 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 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 Hunterdon 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 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. Hunterdon County budget brief → · Compare all district budgets → · How this budget data works →