NJ School Data
← District profile

Washington Twp budget

Washington Twp · 2025-26 User-Friendly Budget
Updated June 2026

Budget

In 2025-26, Washington Twp proposed a $2.2 million General Fund operating budget.

Operating revenue

  • Local sources$1.8 million
  • State sources$229,326
  • Fund balance / other$150,000

Operating spending

  • Instruction and day-to-day operations$2.2 million
  • Buildings, equipment, and other capital costs$18,840

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

Budget front brief

For Washington Twp, the first budget read is a line-movement story: Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; named row Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is +12 pts versus the local peer average.

  • Line movementLargest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Do not overread: The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.Check Line history
  • Who paysLocal sources supply 83% of proposed General Fund operating revenue (the recurring operating fund, not all funds), 20 pts above the Burlington County average. This is not a tax bill.Revenue families
  • What the money buyslargest high-level use is general current expense, >99% of operating budget; named row Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is +12 pts versus the local peer average.Category evidence
  1. What is newsLine movementLargest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Do not overread: The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the...Line history
  2. What is backgroundNominal growthNominal operating budget moved +$105,741 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 moving row in first and latest loaded years. Ask which formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event moved the row.Line history

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 Washington Twp, 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.

-$788,428

What is the budget story to test first?

Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.

  • Which named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?
  • Proof route: Line history.

The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.

Line history
+$153,854

What changed in the latest budget file?

Operating budget moves +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed, +7 pts of proposed operating scale.

  • Largest named row: Total Revenues from Local Sources (+$305,496).

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

Proposal changes
83%

Who pays for the operating budget?

Local sources supply 83% of proposed General Fund operating revenue.

  • That source share is 20 pts above the Burlington County average.

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

Revenue families
Transfers and tuition

Which budget family explains more than the total?

Transfers and tuition: Current scale: 66% of operating-budget scale, $1,458,380.

  • Peer gap: +51 pts versus the Burlington County average.
  • Real movement: -$58,072 across loaded UFB years.
  • Latest proposal movement: +$145,453.

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?

Preschool Education Aid is $143,154, 6% of operating-budget scale.

  • Fund-balance, reserve, and carryover source rows total $150,000.
  • Projected close-year recap balances total $158,911.

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 Burlington County average, and the short solid tick is the peer median.

local peer distribution - dashed avg, solid median tickFunding sourceState revenue share10%rank 32 of 4030% avg25% med0%100%Pupil-cost lineClassroom cost / pupil$0rank 40 of 41$12,080 avg$11,768 med$2,000$50,000

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 general current expense, >99% of operating budget; classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average; named row Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is +12 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 general current expense, >99% of operating budget; classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average; named row Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is +12 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 -$441,989 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Check inflation and denominator evidence
  3. 3Report beyond UFBWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Find the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.Check Line history

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 general current expense, >99% of operating budget; classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average; named row Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is +12 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 83% of operating revenue, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.A locally funded, state-funded, federally supported, or balance-supported budget can have the same per-pupil cost for different reasons.Check revenue families
  • Current decisionSeparate the live proposal from long-run trend. Latest proposal changes operating budget +$153,854; largest named proposal movement is Local sources at +$305,496.The proposal rows are nominal latest-file changes; they should not be mixed with CPI-adjusted long-run movement.Check proposal changes

What changes the interpretation

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

  • Not the story by itselfA simple spending-went-up frame is weak. Operating scale changed -$441,989 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.

  • Line movementWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years? 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.Check Line history
  • 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
  • Pupil-cost lineWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average? Read staffing, benefits, facilities, and program documents for the cost row; standardized pupil-cost categories are summaries, not explanations.Several pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.Check Pupil-cost rows

This thesis is generated from published UFB rows, CPI-adjusted history where available, local/state comparison sets, and the report’s strongest signal scan. It is a reporting order, not a causal model or a replacement for board records, contracts, tax files, staffing context, and audited financials.

Budget reporting notebook

This notebook turns the ranked UFB leads into a document trail: the signal in this report, the outside records to pull, the interviews or checks to run, and the unsupported reading to block before writing from the numbers.

LeadUFB signalRecords to pullInterviews / checksUnsupported read to block
1Line movementWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Line history-$788,428Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 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.
2Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Source rows+12 ptsOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is 13% of the operating-budget scale, +12 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41.
  • Account detail for the named source row.
  • Board packet or resolution tied to the account.
  • Grant, contract, tuition, or transfer document if the row is restricted.
  • Ask who owns the account and what operational event produced the row.
  • Check whether the row is a subtotal, nested row, one-time item, or restricted source.
Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
3Pupil-cost lineWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?Pupil-cost rows$0Classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average.
  • Pupil-cost support schedule behind the standardized row.
  • Staffing roster, benefits rates, facilities, or program budget pages.
  • Contracts or purchased-service detail for the category.
  • Ask which staffing, benefits, facilities, or program records feed the standardized row.
  • Check whether the line is a component, subtotal, or comparison-only measure.
Several pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.
4Funding modelWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?Revenue families83%The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington 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.
5Spending mixWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?Spending categories15%Student transportation share is 15%, 9 pts above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 41.
  • 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.
6Reserves and fund balanceAre balance, reserve, or carryover rows part of this budget year’s story?Reserves$150,000Fund balance and reserve sources total $150,000; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000.
  • Audit fund-balance note and reserve schedules.
  • Budgeted fund-balance or reserve-withdrawal resolutions.
  • Prior-year transfer approvals and closeout context.
  • Ask whether the source is planned, audited, recurring, or a one-time budget bridge.
  • Check legal purpose and transfer authority before treating reserves as available cash.
Fund-balance and reserve rows are planned source or projected-balance context, not audited cash or recurring revenue.

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 Washington Twp 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 83% of proposed General Fund operating revenue.
    Evidence
    $1.8 million; 83% of operating budget; 20 pts above the Burlington County average. After inflation, local sources moved +$788,068 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. State sources are 10% and moved -$441,628 after inflation over the same span.
    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, preschool.
    Evidence
    Transfers and tuition: 66% of operating-budget scale, -$58,072 after inflation, +51 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition). Preschool: 19% of operating-budget scale, +$429,462 after inflation, +6 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Preschool Education Aid.
    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 -$441,989 across loaded UFB years.
    Evidence
    $2.7 million in 2019-20 to $2.2 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, limited support, outside-operating rows.
    Evidence
    Latest proposal moves operating budget +$153,854 (7%) from revised/current to proposed. Top named proposal row: Total Revenues from Local Sources at +$305,496. Fund-balance, reserve, and carryover source rows total $150,000, 7% of operating-budget scale; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000.
    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 Washington Twp, 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 83% of proposed operating revenue, 20 pts above the Burlington County average; state sources supply 10%; recurring local, state, and federal source summaries moved +$346,440 after inflation while operating scale moved -$441,989.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: 66% of operating-budget scale, -$58,072 after inflation, +51 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition); Preschool: 19% of operating-budget scale, +$429,462 after inflation, +6 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Preschool Education Aid; Special education and student supports: 13% of operating-budget scale, +$145,320 after inflation, -5 pts versus Burlington County average, largest row: Total Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related Services.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 +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed; fund-balance, reserve, and carryover source rows total $150,000, 7% of operating-budget scale; largest row is budgeted fund balance at $150,000.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 Washington Twp, 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

$2,218,267; $39,585,816 below the Burlington County average.

FrameDistrictAverageGapRank
Burlington County districtsclosest local comparison frame$2,218,267$41,804,083-$39,585,81640 of 41
All NJ UFB districtsstatewide baseline before narrowing the frame$2,218,267$59,598,751-$57,380,484583 of 595
Mostly locally fundedsame funding model, so revenue dependence is not hidden by one rank$2,218,267$47,843,562-$45,625,295382 of 389
Peer and slice proof

Explain Categories

Fund balance and reserves: 7% of operating scale, 0 pts vs Burlington County average, -$788,428 after inflation.

FamilyLatestPeer gapReal moveProposal
Fund balance and reservesBudgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget7%0 pts-$788K-$136K
Transfers and tuitionTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition)66%+51 pts-$58,072+$145K
Capital, facilities, and debtTotal Capital Outlay2%-10 pts-$9,770-$3,768
PreschoolTotal Preschool Education Aid19%+6 pts+$429K+$14,823
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.$2.7 million to $2.2 million-$441,989
Local operating revenue shareLatest peer gap +20 pts; first gap was -24 pts.83% vs 63% avg+44 pts
State operating revenue shareLatest peer gap -20 pts; first gap was -5 pts.10% vs 30% avg-15 pts
Fund balance / other operating revenue shareLatest peer gap 0 pts; first gap was +30 pts.7% vs 6% avg-29 pts
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+$154K7%
Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue; peer net +4 pts of operating scale across 41 districts+$305K14%
Other Local Governmental Units-UnrestrictedRevenue; peer comparison limited+$230K10%
Total Undistributed ExpendituresAppropriation; peer net +1 pt of operating scale across 41 districts+$170K8%
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 Washington Twp, 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?
    $2.2 million

    $2.2 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: 83%

    Main operating sources: local sources 83% ($1.8 million); state sources 10% ($229,326); fund balance / other sources 7% ($150,000); 20 pts above the Burlington County average.

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

    Revenue families
  3. UsesWhat does the budget buy?
    Transfers and tuition: 66%

    Largest visible source families by operating-budget scale: Transfers and tuition 66%; Preschool 19%; Transportation 15%. Largest visible row: Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition).

    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?
    -$441,989

    real operating-budget scale moved -$441,989 from 2019-20 to 2025-26; top family movement: Fund balance and reserves -$788,428 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?
    +$153,854

    operating budget proposal moved +$153,854 (7%) from revised/current to proposed; largest visible increase: Total Revenues from Local Sources +$305,496; largest visible decrease: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget -$136,068.

    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?
    7% one-time scale

    fund-balance, reserve, and carryover source rows total $150,000, 7% of operating scale; fund balance / other operating sources is near the Burlington County average; rank 20 of 41.

    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 Burlington County average for local peer comparisons where enough rows exist.

Budget answer sheet

This answer sheet gives the basic budget read for Washington Twp 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
+$154Kproposal changeWhat changed in the current proposal?Live proposalThe live proposal changes the operating budget +$153,854 (7%) 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
$2.2 millionoperating budgetIs the district high, low, or typical against a fair benchmark?Fair comparisonThe proposed operating budget is $2.2 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
83%largest sourceWho pays for the operating budget?Who paysLocal sources supplied the largest operating-revenue share, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.Revenue mix is the policy frame behind the cost comparison: a locally funded district, a state-aid district, and a district using fund balance can show the same cost number for different reasons.Check revenue families
+51 ptsvs avgWhere does the operating budget go?What money buysTransfers and tuition is the strongest generated spending/category clue: 51 pts above the Burlington County average, 66% of operating-budget scale, latest proposal movement +$145,453.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
-$441,989real operating changeWhat changed across loaded UFB years after inflation?What changed after inflationAfter inflation, operating-budget scale changed -$441,989 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
$150,000fund/reserve sourcesWhat else can change the budget story?Reserves and side filesFund balance and reserve sources total $150,000.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

Local taxes and local sources is the largest current family outside the broad current-expense total, at 70% of operating-budget scale. Transfers and tuition has the widest local peer gap, +51 pts against the Burlington County average. Fund balance and reserves moved the most after inflation, -$788,428 across loaded UFB years.

Category, trend, and comparison scan

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

  • Local taxes and local sourceslarge now / peer gap / real movementTotal Tax Levy (Revenue line 100/114, $1,558,441)
    Current scale
    70%$1,558,941
    Peer gap
    +7 ptspeer avg 63%
    Real movement
    +$508,068+31 pts
    Live proposal
    +$75,496+3 pts of operating scale
  • Transfers and tuitionlarge now / peer gap / real movementTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition) (Appropriation line 29180, $1,458,380)
    Current scale
    66%$1,458,380
    Peer gap
    +51 ptspeer avg 15%
    Real movement
    -$58,072+9 pts
    Live proposal
    +$145,453+7 pts of operating scale
  • Fund balance and reserveslarge now / real movement / proposal moveBudgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget (Revenue line 580, $150,000)
    Current scale
    7%$150,000
    Peer gap
    0 ptspeer avg 7%
    Real movement
    -$788,428-29 pts
    Live proposal
    -$136,068-6 pts of operating scale
  • Other named rowslarge now / peer gap / real movementOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted (Revenue line 120, $280,000)
    Current scale
    13%$280,000
    Peer gap
    +11 ptspeer avg 2%
    Real movement
    +$280,000+13 pts
    Live proposal
    +$171,257+8 pts of operating scale
  • State aidlarge now / peer gap / real movementTotal State Projects (Appropriation line 88200, $143,154)
    Current scale
    17%$372,480
    Peer gap
    -20 ptspeer avg 36%
    Real movement
    -$298,474-8 pts
    Live proposal
    +$48,110+2 pts of operating scale

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

SignalQuestionEvidenceUse and limit
Largest current familyLocal taxes and local sourcesHow much of the budget story is local levy, tuition, fees, or miscellaneous local revenue?$1,558,941 in latest source-row dollars; 70% of proposed operating-budget scale.Largest visible row: Total Tax Levy (Revenue line 100/114, $1,558,441).Start here for the part of the budget that has the most current scale before reading smaller line movers.Large does not mean unusual, efficient, inefficient, or recurring; the peer gap and source-row basis still have to be checked.Categories Source rows
Widest local peer gapTransfers and tuitionDo charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story?66% locally versus 15% for the Burlington County average; gap +51 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 movementFund balance and reservesIs the district leaning on fund balance, capital reserve, maintenance reserve, or similar one-time sources?-$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26 after CPI-U adjustment to 2025 dollars.Operating-equivalent share changed -29 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 moveOther named rowsWhich remaining named rows deserve a closer district-level look?+$171,257 from revised/current to proposed in the latest UFB file.That equals +8 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Largest named proposal row: Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted (+$230,000 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 Washington Twp, start with this budget question: Which named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years? 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 testLine movement-$788,428Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Check: Line historyCompare againstCompare the same named line across loaded UFB years in real dollars, then verify the formula, grant, contract, transfer, or accounting event behind the movement.What changes the readReaders can identify the moving row that needs a formula, grant, contract, staffing, or accounting explanation.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 writeThe selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.
Fair comparisonFunding model83%The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.Check: Revenue familiesCompare againstCompare operating revenue shares against the Burlington 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 -$441,989 after CPI-U adjustment from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Check: Inflation trendsCompare againstCompare this with the latest-year Burlington County average, the report map, and the trend section before calling growth the story.What changes the readThis separates nominal spending growth from real per-student movement, denominator change, and the latest proposal columns.Report nextFirst and latest budget books and budget presentations. Ask which decisions changed between the first and latest loaded UFB years.Do not writeReal-dollar movement is long-run context; it is separate from the latest proposal-column decision.
Category explanationTransfers and tuition66%Transfers and tuition: $1,458,380 latest source-row dollars, 66% of operating-budget scale; +51 pts versus the Burlington County average; -$58,072 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; +$145,453 latest proposal movement; largest visible row: Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition).Check: Category evidenceCompare againstCompare the same source-family share with the Burlington County average, then check category, peer, trend, proposal, and source-row sections.What changes the readThis is the category/slice evidence that can make a budget story specific; it is not a second total to add to the operating budget.Report nextAppropriation account detail behind the large category. Ask which program, contract, staffing pattern, or pass-through sits inside the category.Do not writeBudget families can be nested, repeated, or contextual, so they are reporting leads rather than an additive budget schedule.
Live proposalOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted+$230,000Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted changes +$230,000 from revised/current to proposed; +10 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 signalReserves and fund balance$150,000Fund balance and reserve sources total $150,000; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000.Check: ReservesCompare againstCompare balance, reserve, and carryover source rows with the operating budget scale; then check audited balances, restrictions, and recurrence.What changes the readCarry this beside the lead so per-pupil, tax, reserve, side-file, or outside-operating context is not left behind.Report nextAudit fund-balance note and reserve schedules. Ask whether the source is planned, audited, recurring, or a one-time budget bridge.Do not writeFund-balance and reserve rows are planned source or projected-balance context, not audited cash or recurring revenue.

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 Washington Twp 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 83% of proposed General Fund operating revenue; 20 pts above the Burlington 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 slicefund balance and reserves moved -$788,428 after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; latest proposal moves fund balance and reserves -$136,068; operating-budget-scale share moved -29 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26. 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. Reserves and balancesReport 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 -$441,989 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.
CheckStudents and servicesclassroom instruction per pupil is $12,080 below the Burlington County average.Classroom instruction per pupil: rank 40 of 41. Students and costsAsk whether per-pupil differences are a denominator, placement, service-load, or cost-row story.Planning rows are not fall enrollment, service quality, compliance evidence, or student-need proof by themselves.
Live decisionProposal timingoperating budget moves +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed; 7% latest-file change; top named proposal row is Total Revenues from Local Sources.+$154K; +$305,496 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.
In playOne-time supportfund-balance, reserve, and carryover source rows total $150,000; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000; projected close-year recap balances total $158,911.7% of operating-budget scale; 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 $2.3 million, $111,342 above the operating budget; largest outside-operating row: special revenue funds at $143,154.largest outside-operating row: special revenue funds at $143,154. 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
Proposal clueLatest operating proposaloperating budget +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed; 7% latest-file change; largest named proposal move: Local sources at +$305,496The proposal clue is the live nominal budget-year decision. It belongs beside the cost position, but it is separate from CPI-adjusted history and audited actual spending.Proposal changes
Funding clueState operating revenue share10%; -14 pts vs NJ average; rank 319 of 574Funding 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 clueLocal operating revenue share83%; +14 pts vs NJ average; rank 248 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 clueAdministrative costs per pupil$0; -$2,270 vs NJ average; rank 566 of 569This comparison clue can show what is distinctive, but the latest UFB row does not publish the normal comparative-cost metric.Costs and students
Peer clueClassroom instruction per pupil$0; -$13,434 vs NJ average; rank 567 of 569This comparison clue can show what is distinctive, but the latest UFB row does not publish the normal comparative-cost metric.Costs and students
Peer clueOperations and maintenance per pupil$0; -$2,879 vs NJ average; rank 566 of 569This comparison clue can show what is distinctive, but the latest UFB row does not publish the normal comparative-cost metric.Costs and students
Peer clueSupport services per pupil$0; -$4,329 vs NJ average; rank 566 of 569This comparison clue can show what is distinctive, but the latest UFB row does not publish the normal comparative-cost metric.Costs and students
Budget-year contextFund balance and reserve sources$150,000 total; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000Balance and reserve source rows can explain a budget year without being recurring operating revenue.Side files

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 Washington Twp, 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 rankClassroom instruction per pupil: $0 (-$12,080 vs Burlington County average; rank 40 of 41); Support services per pupil: $0 (-$4,323 vs Burlington County average; rank 40 of 41); Operations and maintenance per pupil: $0 (-$2,464 vs Burlington County average; rank 40 of 41).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 testTotal Regular Programs-Instruction: 1% of operating scale; -21 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 39 of 41.A named UFB row can make the story concrete. It still may be nested, contextual, or outside the recurring operating basis, so it needs the source-row proof section.Source rows
Generated story lanefund balance and reserves moved -$788,428 after CPI-U from 2019-20 to 2025-26; latest proposal moves fund balance and reserves -$136,068; operating-budget-scale share moved -29 pts from 2019-20 to 2025-26. 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.Reserves and balances
Live decision pointoperating budget +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed; 7% latest-file change.This is a nominal current-proposal decision, not the inflation-adjusted history and not audited actual spending.Proposal changes
Still unresolvedAccount detail for the moving row in first and latest loaded years. Ask which formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event moved the row.UFB can rank and compare the signal, but it still does not prove cause, adequacy, intent, quality, or taxpayer impact. The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.Line history

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

Budget report section

Start with the story

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

What explains this budget

Line movement. Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 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
  1. +12 ptsNamed UFB rowOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is 13% of the operating-budget scale, +12 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41.AskWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Do not overreadNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Check: Source rows
  2. $0Pupil-cost lineClassroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average.AskWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?Do not overreadSeveral pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.Check: Pupil-cost rows
  3. 83%Funding modelThe largest operating revenue source is local sources, 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington 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
  4. 15%Spending mixStudent transportation share is 15%, 9 pts above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 41.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
  5. $150,000Reserves and fund balanceFund balance and reserve sources total $150,000; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000.AskAre balance, reserve, or carryover rows part of this budget year’s story?Do not overreadFund-balance and reserve rows are planned source or projected-balance context, not audited cash or recurring revenue.Check: Reserves

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 Washington Twp is not a single spending-up sentence or a lone rank. Test this question first: Which named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years? Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.

Do not stop at the simple read

After inflation, operating scale changed -$441,989 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The latest UFB proposal column changes the operating budget +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed. Those facts matter, but they should travel with the line movement question instead of becoming the whole story.

Check: Line history

Report this next

Find the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.

  • 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.
ContextUFB signalWhy it changes the readGuardrail
Named UFB rowSource rowsOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is 13% of the operating-budget scale, +12 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41.Readers can see which line is specific enough to request board backup, account detail, or an agenda item.Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
Pupil-cost linePupil-cost rowsClassroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average.Readers can choose which standardized cost category deserves staffing, benefits, facilities, or program follow-up.Several pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.
Funding modelRevenue familiesThe largest operating revenue source is local sources, 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.Readers can separate a budget that is locally funded, state-aid driven, federally supported, or temporarily balanced by reserves before judging the same cost number.Operating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation.

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; The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.

Question-to-reporting path

The first resident question for Washington Twp is Which named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years? 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
Line movementWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 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.
Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is 13% of the operating-budget scale, +12 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41.Contextual UFB revenue or appropriation source row, operating-budget-equivalent scale, and same-row peer scan.Compare the same source row against local peers and then inspect the account detail; the row may be a subtotal, restricted source, pass-through, or one-year item.Check: Source 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.
Pupil-cost lineWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?Classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average.NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows, latest local peer average, and real-dollar history where loaded.Compare the same NJDOE standardized pupil-cost row with the Burlington County average; use it to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the whole budget.Check: Pupil-cost rowsPull or ask
  • Pupil-cost support schedule behind the standardized row.
  • Staffing roster, benefits rates, facilities, or program budget pages.
  • Ask which staffing, benefits, facilities, or program records feed the standardized row.
Do not write yetSeveral pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.
Funding modelWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.Latest General Fund operating revenue summary, operating-budget denominator, and local peer source-share context.Compare operating revenue shares against the Burlington County average; keep state aid, local levy, federal support, and fund balance on their own bases.Check: Revenue 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.

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 +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed. Top named row: Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted +$230,000 (Revenue line 120).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?Transfers and tuition: $1,458,380; 66% of operating-budget scale; +51 pts versus Burlington County average; -$58,072 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; largest row: Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition).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 -$441,989 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.
Students and servicesWhich enrollment, placement, tuition, preschool, transportation, or service-plan assumption changes the per-student read?sent-placement rows 64.Enrollment projection worksheet, fall-enrollment comparison, placement and tuition schedules, transportation contracts, preschool/service-plan notes, and receiving/sending district records.Costs and studentsDo not treat UFB planning rows as fall enrollment, direct student need, compliance, or service quality proof.
Reserves and side filesWhich balance, reserve, one-time, shared-service, unusual, grant, capital, or debt rows belong in the story, and which are outside recurring operating?Fund-balance/reserve sources total $150,000; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000. All-funds net spending is $2.3 million, $111,342 above proposed operating budget. Largest projected balance row: Unrestricted-General Operating Budget at $158,911.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 +$105,741 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.
UFB-ready factThe latest proposal column changed.Proposed operating budget changed +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed in the latest UFB file.Report it as nominal current-proposal movement, then inspect named revenue and appropriation rows.Proposal changesDo not mix this latest-file movement with the CPI-adjusted multi-year trend.
Reportable UFB signalWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Evidence basis: Selected UFB revenue or appropriation row history converted to 2025 dollars.Use this as the first local budget question, then check the linked proof section.Line historyThe selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.
Second-signal checkWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is 13% of the operating-budget scale, +12 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41. Evidence basis: Contextual UFB revenue or appropriation source row, operating-budget-equivalent scale, and same-row peer scan.Carry this beside the lead so the first read is tested against another denominator, file, or comparison frame.Source rowsNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
Needs reportingTurn the line movement signal into a local explanation.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.Find the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.Line historyA named-line movement is a reporting lead, not a complete bridge from first-year to latest-year spending.
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 line movement 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 Washington Twp, the strongest generated read is trend and denominator. 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 readTrend and denominatorTrends and inflationoperating scale changed -$441,989 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.
Strong supporting readWhat money buysCategories and linesgeneral current expense is the largest high-level use at >99% of operating budget; classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average; named row Total Regular Programs-Instruction is -21 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 83% of General Fund operating revenue; that source share is 20 pts above the Burlington County average; fund-balance, reserve, and carryover source rows total $150,000.Why the same cost figure can mean different things in a state-funded, locally funded, federally supported, or balance-supported district.A tax bill, a sustainability finding, or proof that source shares explain spending quality.
Context to carryCurrent proposalProposal changesoperating budget changes +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed; largest named proposal movement is Local sources at +$305,496.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 filesfund-balance, reserve, and carryover source rows total $150,000; projected close-year recap balances total $158,911.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.
Context to carryOutside operating rowsBudget anatomyPreschool Education Aid is $143,154, 6% of operating budget; 4 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.

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.83%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
State operating revenue shareOperating revenue source mix; this is General Fund operating revenue, not all funds.10%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
Line movementWhich named source row moved most after inflation across loaded UFB years?-$788,428Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Line historyBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.Find the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.
Named UFB rowWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?+12 ptsOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is 13% of the operating-budget scale, +12 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41.Source rowsBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.Pull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.
Pupil-cost lineWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?$0Classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average.Pupil-cost rowsBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.Read staffing, benefits, facilities, and program documents for the cost row; standardized pupil-cost categories are summaries, not explanations.Several pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.
Funding modelWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?83%The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.Revenue familiesBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.Read aid notices, budget-hearing materials, and board minutes to separate formula aid, one-time support, reserve use, and local decisions.Operating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation.
Spending mixWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?15%Student transportation share is 15%, 9 pts above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 41.Spending categoriesBurlington 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.
Reserves and fund balanceAre balance, reserve, or carryover rows part of this budget year’s story?$150,000Fund balance and reserve sources total $150,000; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000.ReservesBurlington County average where local peer rows are usable; statewide and slice frames where the local peer set is incomplete.Check audited fund balance, reserve purpose, transfer approvals, and whether the budgeted source is recurring or one-time.Fund-balance and reserve rows are planned source or projected-balance context, not audited cash or recurring revenue.

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. 1Line movement

    A moving source row needs the event behind it

    Working nut graf. For Washington Twp, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 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.
  2. 2Named UFB row

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

    Working nut graf. For Washington Twp, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is 13% of the operating-budget scale, +12 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41. The reporting question is: Which named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?

    Why readers careReaders can see which line is specific enough to request board backup, account detail, or an agenda item.Proof in UFBContextual UFB revenue or appropriation source row, operating-budget-equivalent scale, and same-row peer scan. Source rowsReport nextPull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.Do not write yetA large named row can be a subtotal, nested line, restricted source, transfer, or one-year accounting change.
  3. 3Pupil-cost line

    Standardized cost rows can point to a follow-up beat

    Working nut graf. For Washington Twp, the UFB-supported story to test is this: Classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average. The reporting question is: Which NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?

    Why readers careReaders can choose which standardized cost category deserves staffing, benefits, facilities, or program follow-up.Proof in UFBNJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows, latest local peer average, and real-dollar history where loaded. Pupil-cost rowsReport nextRead staffing, benefits, facilities, and program documents for the cost row; standardized pupil-cost categories are summaries, not explanations.Do not write yetPer-pupil cost rows are standardized comparison rows; they are not a complete staffing, contract, or program ledger.
  4. 4Funding model

    Who pays may explain more than how much

    Working nut graf. For Washington Twp, the UFB-supported story to test is this: The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington County average. The reporting question is: Who pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?

    Why readers careReaders can separate a budget that is locally funded, state-aid driven, federally supported, or temporarily balanced by reserves before judging the same cost number.Proof in UFBLatest General Fund operating revenue summary, operating-budget denominator, and local peer source-share context. Revenue familiesReport nextRead aid notices, budget-hearing materials, and board minutes to separate formula aid, one-time support, reserve use, and local decisions.Do not write yetA state-funded, locally funded, or fund-balance-heavy budget can produce the same cost figure for different reasons.

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 factThe latest UFB file shows the proposed operating budget changes +$153,854 from the revised/current column to the proposed column.Latest-year UFB revised/current and proposed operating-budget columns; nominal dollars.This is the live proposal move, not the inflation-adjusted long-run trend or the reason the proposal changed.Proposal changes
UFB-supported factLargest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 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 factOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is 13% of the operating-budget scale, +12 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41.Contextual UFB revenue or appropriation source row, operating-budget-equivalent scale, and same-row peer scan.Named rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Source rows
UFB-supported factClassroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average.NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows, latest local peer average, and real-dollar history where loaded.Several pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.Pupil-cost rows
UFB-supported factThe largest operating revenue source is local sources, 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.Latest General Fund operating revenue summary, operating-budget denominator, and local peer source-share context.Operating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation.Revenue families
UFB-supported factStudent transportation share is 15%, 9 pts above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 41.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
Needs outside reportingFind the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.Board materials, audits, contracts, tax records, staffing context, program records, or interviews outside the UFB files.The selected row is a reporting lead, not a complete explanation of the operating budget change.Line history
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
Unsupported shortcutDo not turn the line movement signal into a claim about waste, adequacy, intent, quality, or cause without the outside reporting step.Not established by UFB rows alone.A named-line movement is a reporting lead, not a complete bridge from first-year to latest-year spending.Line history

Rows are generated from latest-year peer gaps, named UFB rows, planning-enrollment evidence, side files, latest-file proposal columns, and inflation-adjusted trend checks. Safe wording is the strongest UFB-supported sentence before outside reporting, not a finished story.

Comparison movement brief

This table separates the generic spending-up-over-time story from the district-specific comparison story. It asks whether selected cost, funding, tax, category, and service-load measures moved toward or away from the Burlington County average from 2019-20 to 2025-26.

MeasureFirst gapLatest gapRead the movementCheck next
Local operating revenue share2019-20 to 2025-26-24 pts2019-20 vs local peer average+20 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure crossed from below to above the Burlington County average; the gap moved +44 pts.Funding and categories
State operating revenue share2019-20 to 2025-26-5 pts2019-20 vs local peer average-20 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure moved farther below the Burlington County average; the gap moved -15 pts.Funding and categories
Fund balance / other operating revenue share2019-20 to 2025-26+30 pts2019-20 vs local peer average0 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure moved toward the Burlington County average; the gap moved -29 pts.Funding and categories
Employee benefits share2019-20 to 2021-22-16 pts2019-20 vs local peer average-17 pts2021-22 vs local peer averageThe measure moved farther below the Burlington County average; the gap moved -1 pt.Category evidence
Student transportation share2019-20 to 2025-26+12 pts2019-20 vs local peer average+9 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure moved closer to the Burlington County average; the gap moved -3 pts.Category evidence
Operations and maintenance share2019-20 to 2025-26-6 pts2019-20 vs local peer average-8 pts2025-26 vs local peer averageThe measure moved farther below the Burlington County average; the gap moved -2 pts.Category evidence

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 Burlington County average or statewide slices.

Budget basisWhat UFB showsUse it to sayDo not read it as
Recurring operating baseRevenue and use categoriesproposed operating budget $2,218,267; local sources supply 83% of operating revenue; general current expense is >99% of operating usesScale: $2.2 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 changesLocal sources changes +$305,496 from revised/current to proposedScale: 14% 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.
Limited or one-time sourcesReserves and balancesBudgeted fund balance is the largest named row inside $150,000 of fund-balance, reserve, and carryover sourcesScale: 7% of operating budgetUse as a flag that part of the budget basis may rely on prior balance, reserve withdrawals, or restricted carryover.Do not call these recurring revenue, audited cash on hand, or proof of a structural deficit without board and audit records.
Side-file contextSide filesprojected close-year recap balances $158,911; 1 estimated tax-rate rowScale: 7%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 anatomyPreschool Education Aid is the largest outside-operating row, $143,154Scale: 6% 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 Washington Twp 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 +$346,440 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; those summaries equal 93% of the latest proposed operating budget; operating-budget scale moved -$441,989, while source movement outpaced it by $788,428.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 linesTransfers and tuition moved -$58,072 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26; latest scale is 66% of proposed operating budget; 54 pts above the Burlington County average; largest latest source row: Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition).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.
One-time support testReserves and balancesBudgeted fund balance is the largest latest named limited-source row inside $150,000 of fund-balance, reserve, and carryover sources; total limited-source support moved -$788,428 after inflation from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Use this to test whether the operating story depends partly on balance, reserve, or carryover rows rather than recurring operating sources.Pull the audit, reserve schedules, fund-balance policy, appropriation-of-surplus resolution, and board packet before calling this cash stress or a structural deficit.
Peer-frame testPeer evidenceState operating revenue share is 10%, -20 pts vs Burlington County average; Local operating revenue share is 83%, +20 pts vs Burlington County average.Use the peer frame to decide whether the squeeze signal is district-specific, common among local peers, or mainly a funding-model comparison.Pull comparable districts' budget books, staffing/service context, and tax-base records before treating a rank as efficiency, adequacy, or resident impact.
Outside-record gapStory 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 Burlington County average and the statewide slices below.

Budget pathDistrict scaleUse it to readCompare / proveDo not overread
Money inRevenue familiesLocal sources: $1.8 million (83%); State sources: $229,326 (10%); Fund balance / other: $150,000 (7%)Use this as the recurring General Fund operating-revenue basis: who funds the operating budget before all-funds, tax-rate, and reserve rows enter.+20 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 9 of 41Do not call this all-funds revenue or a household tax bill; grants, debt, capital, and tax side files sit on different bases.
Money outCategoriesGeneral current expense: $2.2 million (99%); Capital outlay: $18,840 (<1%)Use this as the high-level operating-use basis before reading nested line rows or standardized pupil-cost rows.+4 pts vs Burlington County average; rank 12 of 41Do not add high-level rows, lower-level detail rows, and pupil-cost rows into one spending decomposition; they overlap.
Live proposal movementProposal changesoperating budget +$153,854; Local sources +$305,496Use this for what the latest UFB file says is changing from revised/current to proposed, in nominal latest-file dollars.+14 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 anatomyPreschool Education Aid: $143,154 (6%); Special Revenue Funds: $143,154 (6%); State projects: $143,154 (6%)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.-1 pt vs Burlington County average; rank 25 of 40Do not fold outside-operating rows into the General Fund operating mix or assume the operating-equivalent share recurs each year.
Context filesSide filesBudgeted fund balance $150,000; one-time source rows $150,000; projected recap balances $158,911Use 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 37Use 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
Spending mix pressureCategories and linesgeneral current expense is the largest high-level use at >99% of operating budget; classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average; named row Total Regular Programs-Instruction is -21 pts versus local peers.Which use categories, cost rows, or named source rows deserve the first follow-up instead of quoting total spending.A complete program budget or an additive accounting bridge; UFB rows can be nested, repeated, or contextual.
Operating funding and tax-burden pressureRevenue familieslocal sources supply 83% of General Fund operating revenue; that source share is 20 pts above the Burlington County average; fund-balance, reserve, and carryover sources total $150,000.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.
Current proposal pressureProposal changesoperating budget changes +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed; largest named proposal movement is Local sources at +$305,496.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.
Inflation and denominator pressureTrends and inflationoperating scale changed -$441,989 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.
Reserve and side-file pressureSide filesfund-balance, reserve, and carryover source rows total $150,000; projected close-year recap balances total $158,911.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 anatomyPreschool Education Aid is $143,154, 6% of operating budget; 4 material outside-operating rows clear the scale threshold.Why all-funds, grants, debt, capital, preschool, or project rows may change the budget-year context.A General Fund operating spending mix, or evidence that outside-operating rows recur on the same basis.

Pressure rows are generated from the latest UFB summary, source rows, local peer comparisons where enough peers have data, and loaded-year trend rows. Money movement is inflation-adjusted only where this table says 2025 dollars or after inflation; proposal rows are nominal latest-file changes.

Budget tension checks

These checks pair signals that are easy to overread alone: current cost position, inflation-adjusted movement, proposal-column changes, tax burden, funding model, category slices, service load, reserves, and outside-operating rows.

Tension to testSignal pairHow it changes the readProof
Current proposal vs loaded-year trendOperating budget changes +$153,854 from revised/current to proposed in the latest UFB file.Operating scale changed -$441,989 in 2025 dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.The latest nominal proposal moves against the loaded-year real trend, so a current budget vote or hearing story should not be written as a simple continuation.
Funding model vs spending sliceState operating revenue share is 10%, 20 pts below the Burlington County average; rank 32 of 40 among Burlington County districts.Classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average; rank 40 of 41 among Burlington County districts.Pair the revenue model with the use category before implying that a high or low spending slice is locally discretionary.
Balance source vs reserve positionfund-balance, reserve, and carryover operating-source rows total $150,000.projected close-year recap balances total $158,911.A balance source can help explain the budget year, but it is not the same as recurring revenue or a full audit of cash position.
Operating story vs outside fundsproposed General Fund operating budget is $2.2 million.Preschool Education Aid is $143,154, 6% of operating scale.Outside-operating rows can change the budget-year context, but they should not be folded into the recurring operating-cost comparison.

Tension checks are generated from the same UFB rows used elsewhere in the report. They are not causal findings. Money trend claims are inflation-adjusted only where labeled as 2025 dollars or after inflation; proposal movement is nominal revised/current-to-proposed movement.

Category story map

Local taxes and local sources is the largest selected source-row family at 70% of operating-budget scale. Transfers and tuition has the widest selected local peer gap, 51 pts above the Burlington County average. Fund balance and reserves moved the most after inflation, -$788,428 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
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 $1,558,941 (70% op. equiv.)+7 pts versus the Burlington County average+$508,068 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$75,496 latest proposal movement; +3 pts of operating scaleTotal Tax Levy (Revenue line 100/114, $1,558,441)Total Tax Levy (+$75,496 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend
Transfers and tuitionlarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movementDo charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story?Latest scale $1,458,380 (66% op. equiv.)+51 pts versus the Burlington County average-$58,072 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$145,453 latest proposal movement; +7 pts of operating scaleTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition) (Appropriation line 29180, $1,458,380)Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition) (+$145,453 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend
Fund balance and reserveslarge current scale / inflation-adjusted movement / latest proposal moveIs the district leaning on fund balance, capital reserve, maintenance reserve, or similar one-time sources?Latest scale $150,000 (7% op. equiv.)0 pts versus the Burlington County average-$788,428 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26-$136,068 latest proposal movement; -6 pts of operating scaleBudgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget (Revenue line 580, $150,000)Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget (-$136,068 latest-file move)Categories Proposal Trend Side files
Other named rowslarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movementWhich remaining named rows deserve a closer district-level look?Latest scale $280,000 (13% op. equiv.)+11 pts versus the Burlington County average+$280,000 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$171,257 latest proposal movement; +8 pts of operating scaleOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted (Revenue line 120, $280,000)Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted (+$230,000 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 $372,480 (17% op. equiv.)-20 pts versus the Burlington County average-$298,474 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$48,110 latest proposal movement; +2 pts of operating scaleTotal State Projects (Appropriation line 88200, $143,154)Extraordinary Aid (+$35,000 latest-file move)Categories Trend
Preschoollarge current scale / local peer gap / inflation-adjusted movementIs preschool aid, carryover, instruction, or support service scale material?Latest scale $429,462 (19% op. equiv.)+6 pts versus the Burlington County average+$429,462 real movement from 2019-20 to 2025-26+$14,823 latest proposal movement; +1 pt of operating scaleTotal Preschool Education Aid (Appropriation line 87100, $143,154)Preschool Education Aid (+$19,200 latest-file move)Categories Trend

Budget families are generated from contextual UFB revenue and appropriation source rows. Latest scale and peer gap use proposed operating budget as a common denominator; real movement is converted to 2025 dollars; proposal movement is nominal revised/current-to-proposed movement in the latest UFB file. Families can be nested, outside-operating, or repeated across files, so this is a reporting map rather than an additive budget schedule.

Proposal versus trend

The latest proposal and the loaded-year category trend do not answer the same question. For Transfers and tuition, the proposal is a counter-move: +$145,453 in nominal latest-file movement versus -$58,072 across loaded years after inflation. Across material family rows, this scan finds 8 continuing trends, 3 counter-moves, and 0 current-only moves.

RelationshipLoaded-year trendCurrent proposalHow to read it
Counter-moveTransfers and tuition-$58,0722019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +9 pts.+$145,453+7 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition) (Appropriation, line 29180, +$145,453)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 trendFund balance and reserves-$788,4282019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved -29 pts.-$136,068-6 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget (Revenue, line 580, -$136,068)The latest proposal points in the same direction as the inflation-adjusted movement across loaded UFB years.Proposal Trend Categories Peers
Continues trendOther named rows+$280,0002019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +13 pts.+$171,257+8 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Other Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted (Revenue, line 120, +$230,000)The latest proposal points in the same direction as the inflation-adjusted movement across loaded UFB years.Proposal Trend Categories Peers
Counter-moveGeneral current expense-$437,1042019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved 0 pts.+$155,738+7 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Total General Current Expense (Appropriation, line 72260, +$155,738)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-moveState aid-$298,4742019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved -8 pts.+$48,110+2 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Extraordinary Aid (Revenue, line 430, +$35,000)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+$508,0682019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars; share moved +31 pts.+$75,496+3 pts of proposed operating-budget scale.Total Tax Levy (Revenue, line 100/114, +$75,496)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. 1Line movement-$788,428Largest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 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
  2. 2Named UFB row+12 ptsOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is 13% of the operating-budget scale, +12 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41.Reader questionWhich named source row is large enough versus peers to deserve follow-up?Do not overreadNamed rows are contextual source-file lines; many are nested, subtotals, or outside-operating signals.Source rows
  3. 3Pupil-cost line$0Classroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average.Reader questionWhich NJDOE standardized per-pupil row is furthest from the local peer average?Do not overreadSeveral pupil-cost rows are components of broader totals, not an additive bridge.Pupil-cost rows
  4. 4Funding model83%The largest operating revenue source is local sources, 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.Reader questionWho pays for the operating budget, and is that funding mix typical for local peers?Do not overreadOperating revenue is General Fund operating revenue, not all-funds revenue or a tax-bill calculation.Revenue families
  5. 5Spending mix15%Student transportation share is 15%, 9 pts above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 41.Reader questionWhich operating-use category makes the district unlike its peers?Do not overreadHigh-level use shares share one denominator, but lower-level UFB rows can overlap and should not be summed.Spending categories
  6. 6Reserves and fund balance$150,000Fund balance and reserve sources total $150,000; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000.Reader questionAre balance, reserve, or carryover rows part of this budget year’s story?Do not overreadFund-balance and reserve rows are planned source or projected-balance context, not audited cash or recurring revenue.Reserves
  7. 7Outside operating budget$111,342All-funds net spending is $2.3 million, $111,342 above the proposed operating budget; largest outside-operating row is special revenue funds at $143,154.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 Washington Twp, the useful budget question is how to read local sources supply 83% of operating revenue and largest use is general current expense at >99%. 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

  • Line movementLargest inflation-adjusted named-line movement: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, -$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Line history
  • Named UFB rowOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted is 13% of the operating-budget scale, +12 pts versus the peer average; local rank 1 of 41.Source rows
  • Pupil-cost lineClassroom instruction per pupil is $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average.Pupil-cost rows
  • Funding modelThe largest operating revenue source is local sources, 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.Revenue families

What still needs reporting

  • Line movementFind the formula, grant, transfer, contract, staffing, or accounting event behind the named row movement.
  • Named UFB rowPull the budget-book narrative, account detail, and board agenda items behind the named row; UFB confirms scale, not the operational reason.
  • Pupil-cost lineRead staffing, benefits, facilities, and program documents for the cost row; standardized pupil-cost categories are summaries, not explanations.
  • Funding modelRead aid notices, budget-hearing materials, and board minutes to separate formula aid, one-time support, reserve use, and local decisions.

Competing readings to keep alive

  • Line movementA named-line movement is a reporting lead, not a complete bridge from first-year to latest-year spending.
  • Named UFB rowA large named row can be a subtotal, nested line, restricted source, transfer, or one-year accounting change.
  • Pupil-cost linePer-pupil cost rows are standardized comparison rows; they are not a complete staffing, contract, or program ledger.
  • Funding modelA state-funded, locally funded, or fund-balance-heavy budget can produce the same cost figure for different reasons.

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 and general-current centered. 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 83% of operating revenue, 20 pts above the Burlington County average; fund-balance/reserve sources equal $150,000Can explainThe same per-pupil cost can mean different things in a locally funded, state-funded, or balance-supported budget. Operating revenue is not all-funds revenue, and UFB tax rows are context rather than a household tax bill.Cannot proveFunding share is not a full taxpayer-burden claim, and balance/reserve sources should not be read as recurring aid.Check: Operating funding and tax-burden basis
What does the operating budget buy differently?largest high-level use is general current expense, >99% of operating budget; strongest peer mix gap is student transportation share at 15%, 9 pts above the Burlington County average; named-row standout: Total Regular Programs-Instruction is -21 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 19%, -12 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 +$153,854; real operating scale changed -$441,989 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?fund-balance/reserve source rows total $150,000; largest is budgeted fund balance; projected close-year recap balances total $158,911Can explainReserve, balance, unusual-item, shared-service, school-resource, tax-rate, and salary rows can explain a budget year, but they are mixed side files and should not be summed into operating spending.Cannot proveSide-file amounts are not audited recurring operating totals and may be explanations, balances, estimates, or staffing snapshots.Check: Side files

This is a generated synthesis of published UFB rows, local peer context, and loaded-year movement. It is a reporting frame, not a causal finding or a claim that unlike denominators can be added together.

Cost gap ledger

This ledger translates the cost comparison into the largest visible gaps against the Burlington County average. Dollar rows are shown per UFB planning student where the source row is not already a per-pupil measure, so a reader can see whether the story is broad operating scale, who pays, a use category, a pupil-cost row, or a service-load denominator.

Budget basisThis districtGap vs averageHow to read itProof
Pupil-cost rowClassroom instruction$0Burlington County average: $12,080-$12,080Rank 40 of 41NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total.Pupil-cost rows
Pupil-cost rowClassroom salaries and benefits$0Burlington County average: $11,078-$11,078Rank 40 of 41NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total.Pupil-cost rows
Pupil-cost rowSupport services$0Burlington County average: $4,323-$4,323Rank 40 of 41NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total.Pupil-cost rows
Pupil-cost rowSupport services salaries and benefits$0Burlington County average: $3,312-$3,312Rank 40 of 41NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total.Pupil-cost rows
Pupil-cost rowOperations and maintenance$0Burlington County average: $2,464-$2,464Rank 40 of 41NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total.Pupil-cost rows
Pupil-cost rowAdministrative costs$0Burlington County average: $1,941-$1,941Rank 40 of 41NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total.Pupil-cost rows
Pupil-cost rowExtracurricular costs$0Burlington County average: $373-$373Rank 40 of 41NJDOE standardized pupil-cost rows are already per-pupil measures. Use them to locate the cost category, not to rebuild the total.Pupil-cost rows

Rows use the Burlington County average with usable latest-year UFB data. The ledger is not an additive decomposition: revenue rows, lower-level appropriation rows, outside-operating rows, and pupil-cost rows answer different questions and must be checked in their proof sections.

UFB source coverage

The latest matched UFB row for 2025-26 exposes 7 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$2.2 million proposed operating budget; 6 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 file19 positive rows; 14 contextual rows in the appendix; largest: Total Revenues from Local Sources at $1.8 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 file21 positive rows; 17 contextual rows in the appendix; largest: Total General Current Expense at $2.2 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 file16 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 file3 planning rows; sent 64.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 $158,911.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 file1 municipal/regional slice; highest rate 1.261.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 file0 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 file0 listed salary rows.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. No dominant frameSource-row-first budget modelLoaded latest-year UFB rows do not cross the generated statewide model thresholds with enough cost context.Use the Burlington County districts peer evidence, category history, and named-line scans to find the more specific explanation.This flags source coverage and thresholds, not the absence of reportable budget issues.

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$2,218,267$59,598,751-$57,380,484583 of 595
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$2,218,267$47,843,562-$45,625,295382 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 583 of 595All NJ UFB districtsProposed operating budget: $2,218,267, $57,380,484 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 382 of 389Mostly locally funded districtsProposed operating budget: $2,218,267, $45,625,295 below the slice average ($47,843,562). Local operating revenue share: 83%, 1 pt below 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, general current expense centered, then keeps cost, funding, use, service, and tax clues in the same row.

Named compWhy similarCost basisFunding and useService/tax clue
Southampton TwpBurlington County · 728 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, general current expense centeredcomparative $20,518; operating/UFB on-roll $22,025mostly locally funded; general current expense centered (local 83%, state 10%)sent placements 1% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 20%
Bernards TwpSomerset County · 4,676 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, general current expense centeredcomparative $22,790; operating/UFB on-roll $25,804mostly locally funded; general current expense centered (local 83%, state 10%)sent placements <1% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 12%
New Milford BoroBergen County · 1,985 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, general current expense centeredcomparative $21,811; operating/UFB on-roll $25,124mostly locally funded; general current expense centered (local 83%, state 10%)sent placements 1% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 16%
Butler BoroMorris County · 1,187 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, general current expense centeredcomparative $21,140; operating/UFB on-roll $25,369mostly locally funded; general current expense centered (local 84%, state 9%)sent placements 4% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 20%
Montgomery TwpSomerset County · 4,388 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, general current expense centeredcomparative $22,203; operating/UFB on-roll $25,229mostly locally funded; general current expense centered (local 84%, state 9%)sent placements <1% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 11%
Hardyston TwpSussex County · 651 UFB on-rollmostly locally funded, general current expense centeredcomparative $21,165; operating/UFB on-roll $21,627mostly locally funded; general current expense centered (local 82%, state 12%)sent placements <1% of UFB on-roll; special-ed planning 16%

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. -$442KOperating scaleAfter inflation, the proposed operating budget changed -$441,989 (-17%) from 2019-20 to 2025-26.Uses proposed operating budget converted to 2025 dollars and UFB planning enrollment, not fall enrollment.
  2. +43 ptsRevenue-source shiftLocal sources moved from 40% to 83% of the proposed operating budget, a real-dollar change of +$788,068.Revenue-source shares use the proposed operating budget as the denominator, so they describe operating structure rather than all-funds revenue.
  3. -$788KLargest named-line decreaseBudgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget fell from $938,428 to $150,000.This is a contextual revenue row. Its operating-budget share changed -29 pts.
  4. +$514KLargest named-line increaseTotal Tax Levy rose from $1,044,577 to $1,558,441.This is a contextual revenue row. Its operating-budget share changed +31 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
$2.2 million
proposed General Fund, 2025-26
Local sources
$1.8 million
83% of operating-budget scale
Top use family
66%
Transfers and tuition
All funds net
$2.3 million
$111,342 outside operating budget
Local tax levy
$1.6 million
70% of 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 83% of the proposed operating budget, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.

  • Operating sources: local sources 83%, state sources 10%, fund balance / other 7%.
  • Tax levy: $1.6 million.
  • Fund balance and reserve sources total $150,000; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000.

Money out

The largest high-level use is general current expense, $2.2 million or >99% of the operating budget.

  • General current expense: $2.2 million (>99%).
  • Capital outlay: $18,840 (<1%).
  • Nested detail row: instruction tuition is $1.5 million (66% of operating budget; peer average 11%).
  • Nested detail row: student transportation is $324,367 (15% of operating budget; peer average 6%).
  • All-funds net spending is $2.3 million, $111,342 above the operating budget.

Costs and students

  • Classroom instruction per pupil: $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average.
  • Support services per pupil: $0, $4,323 below the Burlington County average.

What changed

  • Largest named-line increase: Total Revenues from Local Sources, up $788,068 in 2025 dollars.
  • Largest named-line decrease: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, down $788,428 in 2025 dollars.
  • Aggregate operating budget changed -$441,989 in real terms; read that scale check with the UFB on-roll denominator before treating it as the story.
  • Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition): +55 pts versus the local peer average.
  • Total Undistributed Expenditures: +38 pts versus the local peer average.

Side files to check

  • Projected balance: Unrestricted-General Operating Budget at $158,911, -$160,408 versus the prior balance column.

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 $2.3 million, $111,342 above the operating budget.
  • <1% of operating dollars among Burlington County districts.

Who pays for the operating budget?

  • Largest operating source: local sources, 83% of operating revenue, 20 pts above the Burlington County average.
  • Operating-source mix: local sources 83%, state sources 10%, fund balance / other 7%.
  • Estimated tax-rate file lists 1 municipal/regional slice; the highest total school-tax rate shown is 1.261 per $100 of valuation.
  • Fund balance and reserve withdrawals total $150,000; largest is budgeted fund balance at $150,000.

Where does the spending mix differ?

  • Largest high-level use: general current expense, >99% of the operating budget.
  • Student transportation share: 15%, 9 pts above the Burlington County average; local rank 1 of 41.

What student-service load is budgeted?

  • Largest NJDOE pupil-cost gap: classroom instruction per pupil at $0, $12,080 below the Burlington County average.

What changed after inflation?

  • Largest named-line increase: Total Revenues from Local Sources, up $788,068 in 2025 dollars.
  • Largest named-line decrease: Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, down $788,428 in 2025 dollars.
  • Aggregate operating budget changed -$441,989 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 $158,911, -$160,408 versus the prior balance column.

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. +$154KOperating budgetThe proposed operating budget is +$153,854 (7%) versus the revised/current-budget column. The Burlington County average proposal change was 1% of proposed operating-budget scale.
  2. +$305KLargest revenue rowLocal sources changed +$305,496 from revised/current to proposed. Peer average proposal movement for the same row was 4% of operating scale.
  3. +$156KLargest use rowGeneral current expense changed +$155,738 from revised/current to proposed. Peer average proposal movement for the same row was 2% of operating scale.

Revenue proposal changes

UFB rowRevised/currentProposedChangeOp. equiv.Peer avg
Local sourcesUFB line 370$1,533,445$1,838,941+$305,49614%4%
Operating budgetUFB line 720$2,064,413$2,218,267+$153,8547%1%
Budgeted fund balanceUFB line 580$286,068$150,000-$136,068-6%-1%
Total tax levyUFB line 114$1,482,945$1,558,441+$75,4963%3%
State sourcesUFB line 520$186,157$229,326+$43,1692%<1%
Extraordinary aidUFB line 430$50,000$85,000+$35,0002%<1%
Special education aidUFB line 440$42,496$75,718+$33,2221%2%

Use proposal changes

UFB rowRevised/currentProposedChangeOp. equiv.Peer avg
General current expenseUFB line 72260$2,043,689$2,199,427+$155,7387%2%
Instruction tuitionUFB line 29180$1,312,927$1,458,380+$145,4537%>-1%
Student transportationUFB line 52480$346,367$324,367-$22,000>-1%<1%
Regular programs instructionUFB line 3200$46,071$31,812-$14,259>-1%<1%
Preschool Education AidUFB line 87100$138,213$143,154+$4,941<1%2%
Special Revenue FundsUFB line 88760$138,213$143,154+$4,941<1%<1%
Capital outlayUFB line 76400$20,724$18,840-$1,884>-1%>-1%

Cost and student rows

UFB rowRevised/currentProposedChangePeer avg
Sent to other districts, regular5648-898%
Sent to other districts, special education1415+116%
Sent to private school01+17%

Dollar rows are nominal latest-file dollars, not inflation-adjusted trend dollars. "Op. equiv." is the row change as a share of this district’s proposed operating budget; the peer average uses Burlington County districts with usable rows, so it is a scale comparison rather than an additive accounting bridge. Pupil-cost rows use NJDOE-published per-pupil lines, and enrollment rows are UFB planning enrollment, not fall enrollment.

Proposal package

The material named-row proposal scan has a net increase of +$1,022,421. The largest family in the package is Other named rows, with $748,662 of increases and $58,743 of reductions. Reductions in the same scan total $220,450 against $1,242,871 of increases.

Budget familyIncreasesReductionsNet scanPeer netLargest rows
Other named rows5 material named rows$748,66234% of op. scale$58,7433% of op. scale+$689,919+31 pts of op. scale+6 ptsBurlington County averageTotal Revenues from Local Sources (Revenue, line 370, +$305,496)Adjustment for Prior Year Encumbrances (Revenue, line 710, -$58,743)
General current expense1 material named row$155,7387% of op. scale$00% of op. scale+$155,738+7 pts of op. scale+2 ptsBurlington County averageTotal General Current Expense (Appropriation, line 72260, +$155,738)No material reduction in this family.
Transfers and tuition1 material named row$145,4537% of op. scale$00% of op. scale+$145,453+7 pts of op. scale0 ptsBurlington County averageTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition) (Appropriation, line 29180, +$145,453)No material reduction in this family.
Fund balance and reserves1 material named row$00% of op. scale$136,0686% of op. scale-$136,068-6 pts of op. scale-2 ptsBurlington County averageNo material increase in this family.Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget (Revenue, line 580, -$136,068)
Local taxes and local sources1 material named row$75,4963% of op. scale$00% of op. scale+$75,496+3 pts of op. scale+3 ptsBurlington County averageTotal Tax Levy (Revenue, line 100/114, +$75,496)No material reduction in this family.
State aid3 material named rows$68,2223% of op. scale$25,6391% of op. scale+$42,583+2 pts of op. scale+2 ptsBurlington County averageExtraordinary Aid (Revenue, line 430, +$35,000)Categorical Transportation Aid (Revenue, line 420, -$25,639)
Special education and student supports1 material named row$49,3002% of op. scale$00% of op. scale+$49,300+2 pts of op. scale+1 ptBurlington County averageTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related Services (Appropriation, line 40580, +$49,300)No material reduction in this family.

This panel groups material named UFB proposal-row movement between the revised/current and proposed columns. Dollar changes are nominal latest-file dollars. Increases, reductions, and net scan values are a reporting summary of contextual source rows, not a balanced accounting bridge, because UFB rows can be nested, repeated, subtotals, or outside the operating fund. Peer net is the average same-family net movement as a share of proposed operating budget among Burlington County districts with usable rows.

Named-line proposal drivers

This table scans the latest UFB revenue and appropriation files for named rows that changed between the revised/current-budget and proposed-budget columns. It gives the proposal story row names after the standardized summary rows above.

The largest named increase in this all-line scan is Total Revenues from Local Sources, up $305,496 in the revenue file. The largest named reduction is Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget, down $136,068 in the revenue file.

UFB rowRevised/currentProposedChangeOp. equiv.Peer avg
Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 370 | Acct. '$1,533,445$1,838,941+$305,49614%4%n=41
Other Local Governmental Units-UnrestrictedRevenue | Account row | UFB line 120 | Acct. '10-12XX$50,000$280,000+$230,00010%n/a
Total Undistributed ExpendituresUse | Subtotal | UFB line 72140 | Acct. '$1,997,618$2,167,615+$169,9978%1%n=41
Total General Current ExpenseUse | Subtotal | UFB line 72260 | Acct. '$2,043,689$2,199,427+$155,7387%2%n=41
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition)Use | Subtotal | UFB line 29180 | Acct. '11-000-100-XX$1,312,927$1,458,380+$145,4537%>-1%n=39
Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating BudgetRevenue | Account row | UFB line 580 | Acct. '10-303$286,068$150,000-$136,068-6%-1%n=38
Total Tax LevyRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 100/114 | Acct. '10-1210$1,482,945$1,558,441+$75,4963%4%n=38
Adjustment for Prior Year EncumbrancesRevenue | Account row | UFB line 710 | Acct. '$58,743$0-$58,743-3%-2%n=35
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related ServicesUse | Subtotal | UFB line 40580 | Acct. '11-000-216-XX$230,700$280,000+$49,3002%<1%n=39
Total Revenues from State SourcesRevenue | Subtotal | UFB line 520 | Acct. '$186,157$229,326+$43,1692%<1%n=40
Extraordinary AidRevenue | Account row | UFB line 430 | Acct. '10-3131$50,000$85,000+$35,0002%<1%n=21
Categorical Special Education AidRevenue | Account row | UFB line 440 | Acct. '10-3132$42,496$75,718+$33,2221%2%n=40
Categorical Transportation AidRevenue | Account row | UFB line 420 | Acct. '10-3121$83,884$58,245-$25,639-1%<1%n=39

Dollar changes are nominal latest-file dollars. "Op. equiv." is the row change as a share of this district's proposed operating budget. The peer average is the same source row among Burlington County districts with usable changed rows, not a target. Subtotal rows and detail rows can overlap, rows can move because a grant or fund section is being closed out, and these rows are evidence for reporting questions rather than an additive accounting bridge.

Budget report section

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 scaleAdministrative costs per pupil-$1,941 vs avg · rank 40 of 41$0$1,941 avg$0$7,500Classroom instruction per pupil-$12,080 vs avg · rank 40 of 41$0$12,080 avg$2,000$50,000Operations and maintenance pe...-$2,464 vs avg · rank 40 of 41$0$2,464 avg$500$9,500Support services per pupil-$4,323 vs avg · rank 40 of 41$0$4,323 avg$0$21,000Benefits as a share of salaries-34 pts vs avg · rank 40 of 410%34% avg0%100%

Each strip shows one generated budget measure across Burlington County districts. Gray dots are peer districts, the accent dot is this district, and the dashed mark is the Burlington County average. Each row uses its own scale so the reader can see the local distribution behind the rank and gap; higher values are not automatically better or worse.

Named peer context

These markers name the Burlington County districts around this district, so a rank or average can be checked against specific local districts rather than anonymous dots alone.

Administrative costs per pupil

$0Rank 40 of 41; -$1,941 vs Burlington County average.

Next higher value
Bass River Twp $0
Next lower value
No local peer lower
Local range
Burlington Co Spec Serv $6,450 to Washington Twp $0
Burlington County average
$1,941

Classroom instruction per pupil

$0Rank 40 of 41; -$12,080 vs Burlington County average.

Next higher value
Bass River Twp $0
Next lower value
No local peer lower
Local range
Burlington Co Spec Serv $45,365 to Washington Twp $0
Burlington County average
$12,080

Operations and maintenance per pupil

$0Rank 40 of 41; -$2,464 vs Burlington County average.

Next higher value
Bass River Twp $0
Next lower value
No local peer lower
Local range
Burlington Co Spec Serv $8,244 to Washington Twp $0
Burlington County average
$2,464

Support services per pupil

$0Rank 40 of 41; -$4,323 vs Burlington County average.

Next higher value
Bass River Twp $0
Next lower value
No local peer lower
Local range
Burlington Co Spec Serv $18,299 to Washington Twp $0
Burlington County average
$4,323

Benefits as a share of salaries

0%Rank 40 of 41; -34 pts vs Burlington County average.

Next higher value
Bass River Twp 0%
Next lower value
No local peer lower
Local range
Burlington Co Spec Serv 59.22% to Washington Twp 0%
Burlington County average
34%

Each measure keeps its own unit and denominator. "Next higher" and "next lower" mean numerically higher or lower on that measure, not better or worse; links open the named district budget report when available.

Local comparison roster

This roster names 41 rows in the local peer set behind averages and ranks for Burlington County districts. 39 have a usable NJDOE comparative-cost value; this district 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
Burlington Co Spec ServPeer district$79,5851 of 39527$43.9 millionMostly locally funded100% local / n/a state
Woodland TwpPeer district$31,1742 of 3982$3.1 millionMostly locally funded79% local / 10% state
Burlington CityPeer district$25,4653 of 391,816$53.9 millionMixed-source34% local / 52% state
Pemberton TwpPeer district$25,0194 of 394,328$112.5 millionMostly state-funded24% local / 65% state
Maple Shade TwpPeer district$24,5335 of 392,254$59.0 millionMixed-source50% local / 49% state
Beverly CityPeer district$23,7296 of 39343$10.6 millionMostly state-funded28% local / 68% state
Mount Holly TwpPeer district$23,2037 of 391,115$29.7 millionMixed-source32% local / 56% state
Lenape RegionalPeer district$22,6308 of 396,336$178.4 millionMostly locally funded80% local / 12% state
Edgewater Park TwpPeer district$22,6009 of 391,048$34.3 millionMixed-source35% local / 53% state
Willingboro TwpPeer district$22,37210 of 394,115$108.0 millionMixed-source36% local / 55% state
Riverside TwpPeer district$22,28011 of 391,620$43.8 millionMostly state-funded24% local / 65% state
North Hanover TwpPeer district$22,25312 of 391,511$34.7 millionMixed-source12% local / 62% state
RivertonPeer district$21,79213 of 39267$7.0 millionMostly locally funded90% local / 6% state
Hainesport TwpPeer district$21,73614 of 39523$12.0 millionMostly locally funded87% local / 7% state
Shamong TwpPeer district$21,66815 of 39640$15.8 millionMostly locally funded74% local / 14% state
Medford Lakes BoroPeer district$21,06516 of 39447$10.0 millionMostly locally funded74% local / 14% state
Moorestown TwpPeer district$20,89017 of 394,008$92.9 millionMostly locally funded84% local / 9% state
Chesterfield TwpPeer district$20,73118 of 39692$14.2 millionMostly locally funded73% local / 23% state
Northern Burlington RegPeer district$20,53519 of 392,078$52.1 millionMixed-source46% local / 48% state
Southampton TwpPeer district$20,51820 of 39728$16.0 millionMostly locally funded83% local / 10% state
Delran TwpPeer district$20,41121 of 392,823$66.0 millionMixed-source53% local / 46% state
Burlington TwpPeer district$20,37522 of 393,506$79.3 millionMixed-source61% local / 38% state
Bordentown RegionalPeer district$20,28923 of 392,101$49.1 millionMostly locally funded77% local / 18% state
New Hanover TwpPeer district$20,23024 of 39258$6.2 millionMixed-source34% local / 48% state
Palmyra BoroPeer district$20,21325 of 391,035$23.9 millionMixed-source56% local / 36% state
Lumberton TwpPeer district$20,17426 of 391,326$27.7 millionMostly locally funded76% local / 16% state
Florence TwpPeer district$19,98227 of 391,721$37.9 millionMixed-source61% local / 36% state
Cinnaminson TwpPeer district$19,46228 of 393,138$68.1 millionMixed-source59% local / 32% state
Mansfield TwpPeer district$19,40129 of 39687$15.1 millionMostly locally funded83% local / 8% state
Delanco TwpPeer district$18,68630 of 39370$10.9 millionMostly locally funded69% local / 20% state
Mount Laurel TwpPeer district$18,50931 of 394,336$89.6 millionMostly locally funded85% local / 11% state
WestamptonPeer district$18,49832 of 39991$19.2 millionMostly locally funded69% local / 28% state
Burlington Co VocationalPeer district$18,36333 of 392,239$42.6 millionMixed-source58% local / 42% state
Rancocas Valley RegionalPeer district$18,28134 of 391,930$49.2 millionMixed-source58% local / 39% state
Evesham TwpPeer district$18,06335 of 394,710$100.2 millionMostly locally funded91% local / 9% state
Tabernacle TwpPeer district$17,50436 of 39781$12.9 millionMostly locally funded79% local / 19% state
Eastampton TwpPeer district$16,85937 of 39650$11.1 millionMixed-source55% local / 40% state
Medford TwpPeer district$16,77938 of 393,643$64.4 millionMostly locally funded88% local / 8% state
Springfield TwpPeer district$15,83939 of 39280$4.8 millionMostly locally funded79% local / 16% state
Bass River TwpPeer districtn/an/an/a$1.7 millionMixed-source64% local / 15% state
Washington TwpThis districtn/an/an/a$2.2 millionMostly locally funded83% local / 10% state

This is the local comparison universe used elsewhere in this report when the Burlington County average is available. Comparative cost is NJDOE's published per-pupil line, not operating budget divided by enrollment. UFB on-roll is the planning-enrollment denominator, and operating budget is proposed General Fund operating scale; the funding-model column uses proposed General Fund operating revenue shares, not all-funds revenue.

Current operating mix versus peers

These stacked bars put the latest operating-budget composition beside the Burlington County average before the report moves into row-level trends. They answer a narrower question than the cost trend: whether this district funds or uses its operating budget differently from local peers.

Operating revenue sources

Local sources: 83% here versus 63% for the county avg, a +20 pts gap.

Operating revenue sources0%50%100%This districtcounty avg83%10%63%30%
Local sourcesState sourcesFederal sourcesFund balance / other

General Fund operating revenue sources, not all-funds revenue or tax bills. Peer bar is the unweighted average among 41 local peer rows with usable latest-year mix data.

High-level operating uses

General current expense: 99% here versus 95% for the county avg, a +4 pts gap.

High-level operating uses0%50%100%This districtcounty avg99%95%
General current expenseSchool-based budgetingCapital outlay

High-level General Fund appropriation rows; lower-level rows can be nested. Peer bar is the unweighted average among 41 local peer rows with usable latest-year mix data.

All shares use the latest proposed General Fund operating budget as the denominator. The comparison is a local peer benchmark, not a target, adequacy finding, accounting bridge, or proof that any category is discretionary.

Position over time

this district vs local peer average over loaded UFB yearsLocal operating revenue sharelatest gap +20 pts · gap moved +44 pts30%95%83%63% avgState operating revenue sharelatest gap -20 pts · gap moved -15 pts5%35%30% avg10%Fund balance / other operating...latest gap 0 pts · gap moved -29 pts0%60%7%6% avgEmployee benefits sharelatest gap -17 pts · gap moved -1 pt0%25%17% avg0%Student transportation sharelatest gap +9 pts · gap moved -3 pts0%30%15%6% avg201920202021202220242025
MeasureFirst peer gapLatest peer gapGap movement
Local operating revenue share2019-20: -24 pts2025-26: +20 pts+44 pts
State operating revenue share2019-20: -5 pts2025-26: -20 pts-15 pts
Fund balance / other operating revenue share2019-20: +30 pts2025-26: 0 pts-29 pts
Employee benefits share2019-20: -16 pts2021-22: -17 pts-1 pt
Student transportation share2019-20: +12 pts2025-26: +9 pts-3 pts

Each row tracks this district against the Burlington County average for a selected UFB measure. Money measures are converted to 2025 dollars; percentage measures keep their stated UFB denominators. Rows use independent zoomed axes, so compare the labeled gaps and the table rather than comparing vertical distance across different measures.

Current operating revenue mix

share of operating budget funding 83%0%50%100%
Local sourcesState sourcesFund balance / other

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%General current expense>99%Capital outlay<1%bar this district · tick county avg

Budget family context matrix

Largest current family signal: General current expense, $2,199,427 or 99% of operating-budget scale. Largest real movement: Fund balance and reserves, -$788,428 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Widest peer gap: Transfers and tuition, 51 pts above the Burlington County average.

Family and source rowLatest scalePeer gapReal movement
Local taxes and local sources2 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Tax LevyRevenue line 100/114 · $1,558,44170%$1,558,941+7 ptspeer avg 63%+$508,068+31 pts op. shift
Transfers and tuition1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition)Appropriation line 29180 · $1,458,38066%$1,458,380+51 ptspeer avg 15%-$58,072+9 pts op. shift
General current expense1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal General Current ExpenseAppropriation line 72260 · $2,199,42799%$2,199,427+4 ptspeer avg 95%-$437,1040 pts op. shift
Fund balance and reserves1 latest rowsLargest latest rowBudgeted Fund Balance-Operating BudgetRevenue line 580 · $150,0007%$150,0000 ptspeer avg 7%-$788,428-29 pts op. shift
Preschool4 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Preschool Education AidAppropriation line 87100 · $143,15419%$429,462+6 ptspeer avg 13%+$429,462+19 pts op. shift
State aid5 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal State ProjectsAppropriation line 88200 · $143,15417%$372,480-20 ptspeer avg 36%-$298,474-8 pts op. shift
Other named rows1 latest rowsLargest latest rowOther Local Governmental Units-UnrestrictedRevenue line 120 · $280,00013%$280,000+11 ptspeer avg 2%+$280,000+13 pts op. shift
Special revenue funds2 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Special Revenue FundsAppropriation line 88760 · $143,15413%$286,308-2 ptspeer avg 15%+$286,308+13 pts op. shift
Special education and student supports2 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related ServicesAppropriation line 40580 · $280,00013%$286,233-5 ptspeer avg 18%+$145,320+8 pts op. shift
Transportation1 latest rowsLargest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Student Transportation ServicesAppropriation line 52480 · $324,36715%$324,367+9 ptspeer avg 6%-$124,880-2 pts op. shift

This matrix ranks the highest-signal UFB families for this district. Latest scale is 2025-26 source-row dollars divided by proposed operating budget; peer gap uses the same denominator against the Burlington County average; real movement compares 2019-20 with 2025-26 in 2025 dollars. Bars are scaled separately within each metric column. Families are contextual, nested source-row groups, not an additive accounting schedule.

Named family peer context

This names the local districts nearest this district on selected source-family shares, so category claims can be checked against specific peers rather than only the Burlington County average.

Family and source rowThis districtNamed local checksLocal range
Transfers and tuitionDo charter/Renaissance transfers, tuition, or purchased placements change the budget story?Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition)Appropriation line 29180; $1,458,38066%$1,458,380; rank 3 of 41+51 pts vs Burlington County average (15%)Next higherBass River Twp 81%Next lowerDelanco Twp 30%Burlington Co Spec Serv 87% to Chesterfield Twp <1%Transfer and tuition rows often identify the districts where money leaves the district-run setting.
Local taxes and local sourcesHow much of the budget story is local levy, tuition, fees, or miscellaneous local revenue?Total Tax LevyRevenue line 100/114; $1,558,44170%$1,558,941; rank 21 of 41+7 pts vs Burlington County average (63%)Next higherWestampton 74%Next lowerFlorence Twp 66%Evesham Twp 91% to North Hanover Twp 12%Mostly revenue-file rows. Tax levy is merged across label variants where the source changed names.
State aidWhich aid lines explain dependence on state funding or first-to-latest movement?Total State ProjectsAppropriation line 88200; $143,15417%$372,480; rank 30 of 41-20 pts vs Burlington County average (36%)Next higherHainesport Twp 18%Next lowerSpringfield Twp 16%North Hanover Twp 101% to Burlington Co Spec Serv 0%Includes aid rows other than preschool-specific rows, which are separated because they often move as a program block.
Instruction programsWhich classroom or instructional program rows define the core spending structure?Total Regular Programs-InstructionAppropriation line 3200; $31,8121%$31,812; rank 40 of 41-27 pts vs Burlington County average (28%)Next higherBurlington Co Spec Serv 2%Next lowerBass River Twp 0%Burlington Co Vocational 40% to Bass River Twp 0%Instruction rows can be nested inside broader General Fund current-expense totals.
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; $2,199,42799%$2,199,427; rank 12 of 41+4 pts vs Burlington County average (95%)Next higherHainesport Twp 99%Next lowerDelran Twp 99%Bass River Twp 100% to Burlington City 42%General current expense is a high-level operating row; lower-level rows inside it can overlap and should not be added back to it.

Shares use 2025-26 source-family dollars divided by each district’s proposed operating budget. "Next higher" and "next lower" are numerically higher or lower on that same share, not better or worse. Families are contextual, nested UFB source-row groups, so read named peers as reporting checks rather than an additive accounting schedule.

Category history and peer scale

Instruction tuition sits 55 pts above the Burlington County average. General current expense changed -$437,104 in real dollars from 2019-20 to 2025-26.

Budget categoryLayerLatest amountLatest op. equiv.Peer avgShare changeReal $ change
General current expenseHigh-level operating use$2,199,42799%95%0 pts-$437,104
School-based budgetingHigh-level operating use$00%3%0 pts$0
Capital outlayHigh-level operating use$18,840<1%2%0 pts-$4,885
Core instruction rowsNested cost row$31,8121%33%+1 pt+$31,812
Student supports and servicesNested cost row$286,23313%9%+8 pts+$145,320
Instruction tuitionNested cost row$1,458,38066%11%+9 pts-$58,072
Administration and central servicesNested cost row$94,1354%6%-11 pts-$304,819
Operations and maintenanceNested cost row$4,500<1%9%-2 pts-$63,501
Student transportationNested cost row$324,36715%6%-2 pts-$124,880
Employee benefitsNested cost row$00%17%-2 pts-$62,964
Special Revenue FundsOutside-operating scale$143,1546%7%+6 pts+$143,154
Debt Service FundsOutside-operating scale$00%3%0 pts$0

Rows mix high-level operating uses, nested lower-level cost rows, and outside-operating scale rows, so do not add them. Latest op. equiv., peer avg, and share change use proposed operating budget as the denominator. Real-dollar change is from 2019-20 to 2025-26 in 2025 dollars. Peer avg is the Burlington County average where at least six local peer districts have usable UFB rows.

Budget family lens

Largest family-level source-row signal: General current expense, $2,199,427 or 99% of operating-budget scale. Largest first-to-latest real movement: Fund balance and reserves, -$788,428 in 2025 dollars. Widest local peer gap: Transfers and tuition, 51 pts above the Burlington County average on the same operating-scale basis.

Local taxes and local sources

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

Latest scale$1,558,94170% op. equiv.; 2 latest rowsPeer avg63%+7 pts vs peersReal movement+$508,068+31 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Tax LevyRevenue line 100/114 · '10-1210 · $1,558,441

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

Transfers and tuition

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

Latest scale$1,458,38066% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg15%+51 pts vs peersReal movement-$58,072+9 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition)Appropriation line 29180 · '11-000-100-XX · $1,458,380

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

General current expense

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

Latest scale$2,199,42799% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg95%+4 pts vs peersReal movement-$437,1040 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal General Current ExpenseAppropriation line 72260 · ' · $2,199,427

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

Fund balance and reserves

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

Latest scale$150,0007% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg7%0 pts vs peersReal movement-$788,428-29 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowBudgeted Fund Balance-Operating BudgetRevenue line 580 · '10-303 · $150,000

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

Preschool

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

Latest scale$429,46219% op. equiv.; 4 latest rowsPeer avg13%+6 pts vs peersReal movement+$429,462+19 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Preschool Education AidAppropriation line 87100 · '20-218-XXX-XX · $143,154

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

State aid

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

Latest scale$372,48017% op. equiv.; 5 latest rowsPeer avg36%-20 pts vs peersReal movement-$298,474-8 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal State ProjectsAppropriation line 88200 · '20-XXX-XXX-XX · $143,154

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

Other named rows

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

Latest scale$280,00013% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg2%+11 pts vs peersReal movement+$280,000+13 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowOther Local Governmental Units-UnrestrictedRevenue line 120 · '10-12XX · $280,000

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$286,30813% op. equiv.; 2 latest rowsPeer avg15%-2 pts vs peersReal movement+$286,308+13 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Special Revenue FundsAppropriation line 88760 · ' · $143,154

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

Special education and student supports

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

Latest scale$286,23313% op. equiv.; 2 latest rowsPeer avg18%-5 pts vs peersReal movement+$145,320+8 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related ServicesAppropriation line 40580 · '11-000-216-XX · $280,000

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

Transportation

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

Latest scale$324,36715% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg6%+9 pts vs peersReal movement-$124,880-2 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Student Transportation ServicesAppropriation line 52480 · '11-000-270-XX · $324,367

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

Administration and central services

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

Latest scale$94,1354% op. equiv.; 3 latest rowsPeer avg6%-2 pts vs peersReal movement-$304,819-11 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Central ServicesAppropriation line 47200 · '11-000-251-XX · $63,662

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

Instruction programs

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

Latest scale$31,8121% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg28%-27 pts vs peersReal movement+$31,812+1 pt op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Regular Programs-InstructionAppropriation line 3200 · '11-1XX-100-XX · $31,812

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

Employee benefits

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

Latest scale$00% op. equiv.; 0 latest rowsPeer avg17%-17 pts vs peersReal movement-$62,964-2 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowNo positive latest-year row.

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$4,500<1% op. equiv.; 1 latest rowsPeer avg9%-8 pts vs peersReal movement-$63,501-2 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant ServicesAppropriation line 51120 · '11-000-26X-XX · $4,500

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

Capital, facilities, and debt

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

Latest scale$37,6802% op. equiv.; 2 latest rowsPeer avg11%-10 pts vs peersReal movement-$9,7700 pts op. shift
Largest latest rowTotal Capital OutlayAppropriation line 76400 · ' · $18,840

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

Federal grants

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

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

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

School-based budgeting

Do school-level allocations show up as a material budgeting model or comparison slice?

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

School-based budgeting rows are allocation signals; they can overlap with lower-level program and staffing rows.

This groups contextual UFB revenue and appropriation rows into the same reader-facing families used by the statewide budget explorer. Latest scale uses 2025-26 proposed source-row dollars divided by proposed operating budget; real movement compares 2019-20 with 2025-26 in 2025 dollars. Peer avg is the Burlington County average where at least six local peer districts have usable UFB rows. Families are reporting lenses over nested source rows, not additive accounting schedules.

Budget lines that moved

UFB rowType2019-202025-26Real changeOp. share change
Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue$1,050,873$1,838,941+$788,068+43 pts
Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating BudgetRevenue$938,428$150,000-$788,428-29 pts
Total Tax LevyRevenue$1,044,577$1,558,441+$513,864+31 pts
Total Revenues from State SourcesRevenue$670,954$229,326-$441,628-15 pts
Other Local Governmental Units-UnrestrictedRevenue$0$280,000+$280,000+13 pts
Adjustment AidRevenue$303,631$0-$303,631-11 pts
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related ServicesAppropriation$2,393$280,000+$277,607+13 pts
Total Undistributed ExpendituresAppropriation$2,636,531$2,167,615-$468,916-1 pt
Total General Current ExpenseAppropriation$2,636,531$2,199,427-$437,1040 pts
Equalization AidRevenue$183,191$0-$183,191-7 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$59,953$35,149 above the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: $24,804; rank 2 of 41.Proposed operating budget divided by NJDOE fall enrollment on the district profile. The local average is aggregate-weighted so tiny fall denominators do not dominate; this does not replace NJDOE’s cost metric.

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 99% 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$2.2 million (99% of operating)4 pts above the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: 95%; rank 12 of 41.The broad district-run operating base. Lower-level instructional, support, benefits, operations, and administrative rows can sit inside or beside this accounting path.
School-based budgetingno positive latest row3 pts below the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: 3%; rank 3 of 41.A published school-resource allocation path, where present. It is not an added cost on top of the same operating budget without reading the source rows.
Charter / Renaissance transfersno positive latest rownear the Burlington County average; Burlington County average: <1%; rank 27 of 41.Operating dollars routed to charter or Renaissance rows. Read beside resident enrollment, district-run enrollment, and charter/Renaissance context before making a classroom-spending claim.
Sent placements64Local peer comparison unavailable for this planning-enrollment row.A count path for students budgeted outside the district-run on-roll setting. Follow the tuition, transportation, special-services, and placement rows; do not add this count to dollars.

This panel is a reporting map for Burlington County districts comparisons: dollar paths use proposed General Fund operating-budget scale, while service paths use UFB planning-enrollment rows. It does not claim that these rows add to one total.

Fall enrollment and student need

This section keeps the student denominator beside the budget rows: UFB planning enrollment, fall enrollment, per-student scale checks, and latest fall-enrollment need rows for the same local peer frame.

  1. $59,953Fall-student scaleOperating budget per fall-enrolled student is $35,149 above the Burlington County average. Local rank is 2 of 41.
  2. 19%Student needThe free/reduced-price lunch share is 19% of fall enrollment, -12 pts versus the Burlington County average. Local rank is 28 of 42.

Denominator context

MeasureThis districtLocal contextRead as
Fall enrollment37<1% of peer fall enrollmentNJDOE fall enrollment count used on the district profile.
Operating budget per fall-enrolled student$59,953$24,804$35,149 above the Burlington County average

Student-need context

Fall rowCountShareLocal avg / rankGap
Free/reduced-price lunch719%31% · rank 28 of 42-12 pts
Multilingual learners00%4% · rank 39 of 41-4 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. 0%Benefit loadNJDOE reports benefits at 0% of salaries, 34 pts below the Burlington County average.

Salary and benefits rows can overlap with broader NJDOE pupil-cost totals and nested UFB appropriation rows. Administrative salary rows are selected UFB-listed roles with district-reported FTE/shared-service fields; they are not full payroll and should not be added to pupil-cost salary rows. Peer averages use Burlington County districts with usable latest-year UFB rows.

Budget enrollment and placements

UFB enrollment rowCountShare of on-roll
Sent to private school1n/a
Sent to other districts, regular48n/a
Sent to other districts, special education15n/a

These are UFB budget-enrollment planning rows, not the fall enrollment counts used elsewhere on the profile.

Budget report section

Comparison matrix

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

Tax basis reconciliation

The UFB summary tax levy and the esttax total-school levy are close on this file ($1,558,441 versus $1,558,441). The esttax file has one districtwide tax-rate slice. Those bases are kept separate below before any local-burden comparison.

  1. $1.6 millionSummary operating levyUsed for UFB levy per planning student and levy share of operating budget.
  2. $1.6 millionesttax total-school levymatches summary levy
  3. $94.8 millionTaxable assessed valueLocal assessed valuation denominator; date: Oct. 1, 2024.
  4. $123.6 millionEqualized valueState equalized valuation for cross-municipality comparison; date: Oct. 1, 2024.
BasisValueRateDenominator / dateReader use
UFB summary operating tax levy$1,558,441n/an/aProfile-facing UFB summary row; this is the basis for levy-per-student comparisons.
esttax General Fund levy$1,558,4411.644 per $100Taxable assessed value; Oct. 1, 2024.Taxable assessed-value rate basis; matches summary levy.
esttax total-school levy$1,558,4411.644 per $100Taxable assessed value; Oct. 1, 2024.Taxable assessed-value rate basis; matches summary levy.
Equalized total-school levy$1,558,4411.261 per $100Equalized value; Oct. 1, 2024.Equalized-value rate basis for cross-municipality comparison.
Taxable assessed value$94.8 millionn/aOct. 1, 2024Assessed valuation denominator for source tax-rate rows.
Equalized value$123.6 millionn/aOct. 1, 2024Equalized valuation denominator used to compare tax bases across municipalities.

This panel reconciles the UFB summary tax levy with the esttax side-file levy, rate, and valuation bases. Rates are estimates per $100 of valuation. Taxable assessed value is the local assessed-value denominator; equalized value is the state-adjusted valuation used for cross-municipality comparison. Valuation dates travel with the source rows. The table is local-burden context for reporting, not tax-bill advice or audited property-tax data.

Tax effort and tax base

Higher estimated school-tax rate. The estimated school-tax rate was 1.261 per $100, +0.1835 versus the Burlington County average.

  1. High rateTax-context signalGenerated from UFB tax levy, planning enrollment, and estimated tax-rate side rows.
  2. 1.261Estimated rate+0.1835 versus Burlington County average; equalized value weighted.
Tax effort versus local peersDots compare this district with the Burlington County average for tax levy per UFB on-roll, estimated tax rate, and equalized value per UFB on-roll where available.this district versus Burlington County averageEstimated school-tax rate1.2611.0775This districtBurlington County average
MeasureThis districtBurlington County averageGapLocal rankBasis
Tax levy / operating budget70%58%+12 pts18 of 41UFB summary tax levy divided by proposed operating budget.
Estimated school-tax rate1.2611.0775+0.183514 of 39UFB esttax side-file rows; equalized value weighted.
Municipal rate spread00.0127-0.01276 of 41Highest minus lowest plausible estimated rate across municipal/regional slices.

Estimated tax-rate slices

SliceDisplayed rateEqualized rateTotal levyEqualized value
Washington Twp1.2611.261$1.6 million$123.6 million

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
Administrative costs per pupil$0$1,941-$1,94140 of 41
Classroom instruction per pupil$0$12,080-$12,08040 of 41
Operations and maintenance per pupil$0$2,464-$2,46440 of 41
Support services per pupil$0$4,323-$4,32340 of 41
Benefits as a share of salaries0%34%-34 pts40 of 41
State operating revenue share10%30%-20 pts32 of 40
Local operating revenue share83%63%+20 pts9 of 41
Tax levy as operating-budget equivalent70%58%+12 pts18 of 41

Peer averages and ranks compare against Burlington County districts with usable values for the same 2025-26 UFB measure. Rank is ordered from highest value to lowest value; higher is not automatically better or worse.

UFB lines unlike local peers

Largest line-item differences: Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition) is 66%, +55 pts versus the peer average; Total Regular Programs-Instruction is 1%, -21 pts versus the peer average.

UFB rowFileAmountOp. equiv.Peer avgGapRank
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition)Appropriation$1,458,38066%11%+55 pts2 of 41
Total Undistributed ExpendituresAppropriation$2,167,61598%60%+38 pts2 of 41
Total Regular Programs-InstructionAppropriation$31,8121%22%-21 pts39 of 41
Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue$1,838,94183%63%+20 pts9 of 41
Equalization AidRevenue$00%20%-20 pts29 of 41
Total Revenues from State SourcesRevenue$229,32610%30%-19 pts32 of 41
Total Personal Services-Employee BenefitsAppropriation$00%17%-17 pts40 of 41
Other Local Governmental Units-UnrestrictedRevenue$280,00013%<1%+12 pts1 of 41
Total Tax LevyRevenue$1,558,44170%58%+12 pts18 of 41
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related ServicesAppropriation$280,00013%2%+10 pts1 of 41
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Student Transportation ServicesAppropriation$324,36715%6%+9 pts1 of 41
Total Special Education-InstructionAppropriation$00%9%-9 pts40 of 41

This scans contextual revenue and appropriation rows against Burlington County districts with usable 2025-26 UFB data. The operating-equivalent columns use each district’s proposed operating budget as a scale reference; peer-common rows missing from this district are treated as $0 so absences can surface. Rows remain nested and non-additive.

Budget comparison matrix

MeasureThis districtBurlington County averageLocal rankNJ avgNJ rank
Local operating revenue share83%63%9 of 4169%248 of 595
State operating revenue share10%30%32 of 4025%319 of 574
Fund balance / other operating revenue share7%6%20 of 417%248 of 595
Operations and maintenance share<1%9%41 of 419%586 of 587
Student transportation share15%6%1 of 416%15 of 592
Special Revenue Funds equivalent6%8%25 of 407%268 of 585
Classroom instruction per pupil$0$12,08040 of 41$13,434567 of 569
Support services per pupil$0$4,32340 of 41$4,329566 of 569
Operations and maintenance per pupil$0$2,46440 of 41$2,879566 of 569
Administrative costs per pupil$0$1,94140 of 41$2,270566 of 569

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$1.8 million83%
State sources$229,32610%
Fund balance / other$150,0007%

Operating uses

RowAmountOp. share
General current expense$2.2 million>99%
Capital outlay$18,840<1%

All-funds and outside-operating rows

RowAmountOp. equiv.
Preschool Education Aid$143,1546%
Special Revenue Funds$143,1546%
State projects$143,1546%
All-funds net above operating$111,3425%
Facilities acquisition and construction$18,840<1%

This anatomy starts with the proposed operating budget as the common denominator. The outside-operating column uses the same denominator only as a scale reference; those rows can include grants, debt service, capital, and nested fund sections. The dynamic tables below scan 19 positive revenue rows and 21 positive appropriation rows; 19 changed revenue rows and 19 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
2019-20tax-file levy $847,404; rate 0.9182Unrestricted--General Operating Budget $250,000; reserve/fund-balance sources $745,2124 shared-service rowsnone reported
2020-21tax-file levy $829,505; rate 0.8024Unrestricted--General Operating Budget $250,000; reserve/fund-balance sources $762,1004 shared-service rowsnone reported
2021-22tax-file levy $829,505; rate 0.7526Unrestricted--General Operating Budget $250,000; reserve/fund-balance sources $684,2974 shared-service rowsnone reported
2022-23tax-file levy $837,800; rate 0.7161Unrestricted-General Operating Budget $250,000; reserve/fund-balance sources $980,0543 shared-service rowsnone reported
2024-25tax-file levy $1.5 million; rate 1.063Unrestricted-General Operating Budget $17,264; reserve/fund-balance sources $286,0683 shared-service rowsnone reported
2025-26levy $1.6 million; rate 1.261Unrestricted-General Operating Budget $158,911; reserve/fund-balance sources $150,000none reportednone reported

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 $158,911, 7% of operating-budget scale. After inflation, total projected balance changed -$155,908 from 2019-20 to 2025-26. Largest latest category: Unrestricted operating balance, $158,911. Largest real movement: Unrestricted operating balance, -$155,908.

Unrestricted operating balance

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

Latest projected$158,9117% op. equiv.; 1 rowsPeer avg3%+4 pts vs peersReal movement-$155,908-5 pts op. shift
Largest latest recap rowUnrestricted-General Operating Budget$158,911

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 avg8%-8 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.

Impact aid reserve

Where do federal impact-aid reserve balances matter?

Latest projected$00% op. equiv.; 0 rowsPeer avg4%-4 pts vs peersReal movement$00 pts op. shift
Largest latest recap rowNo positive latest-year recap row.

Impact-aid reserve rows are restricted and may be sparse.

Maintenance reserve

How much facilities maintenance cushion appears outside current spending lines?

Latest projected$00% op. equiv.; 0 rowsPeer avg2%-2 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 avg<1%-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 Burlington County average where at least six local peer districts have usable recap rows.

Taxes, reserves, and balances

Tax-rate estimate

MeasureValue
General Fund levy$1,558,441
General Fund school-tax rate1.644
Total school levy$1,558,441
Total school-tax rate1.644
Equalized total school-tax rate1.261
Estimated taxable valuation$94.8 million

Balances projected at year-end

Recap categoryProjectedVs prior audited
Unrestricted-General Operating Budget$158,911-$160,408

Reserve and fund-balance sources

Revenue rowAmount
Budgeted fund balance$150,000

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.

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 (6 files)rev26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV19 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 (6 files)approp26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV21 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.
Pupil-cost file2024-25 to 2025-26 (2 files)pupcst26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV16 published rowsNJDOE standardized per-pupil cost rows used for classroom, support, operations, administration, and benefits comparisons.These are published NJDOE rows; the report does not recompute them from appropriations or enrollment.
Budget-enrollment file2019-20 to 2025-26 (6 files)enroll26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV3 planning rowsUFB on-roll, special-education on-roll, sent/received placements, contract preschool, and denominator context.Planning enrollment is not the same as fall enrollment and should not be added to dollar rows.
Recap / balance file2019-20 to 2025-26 (6 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.
Estimated tax file2019-20 to 2025-26 (6 files)esttax26.csv2025-26 NJDOE UFB statewide CSV1 sliceEstimated school-tax rates, levy slices, taxable values, equalized values, and municipal/regional spread context.Estimated tax rows are UFB context, not tax-bill advice or audited property-tax data.

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 General Current ExpenseAppropriation$2,199,42799%
Total Undistributed ExpendituresAppropriation$2,167,61598%
Total Revenues from Local SourcesRevenue$1,838,94183%
Total Tax LevyRevenue$1,558,44170%
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition)Appropriation$1,458,38066%
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Student Transportation ServicesAppropriation$324,36715%
Total Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related ServicesAppropriation$280,00013%
Other Local Governmental Units-UnrestrictedRevenue$280,00013%
Total Revenues from State SourcesRevenue$229,32610%
Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating BudgetRevenue$150,0007%
Total Preschool Education AidAppropriation$143,1546%
Total Preschool Education Aid InstructionAppropriation$143,1546%
Total Special Revenue FundsAppropriation$143,1546%
Total State ProjectsAppropriation$143,1546%
Total Grants and EntitlementsRevenue$143,1546%
Preschool Education AidRevenue$111,3425%

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$2,329,609105%
General Fund grand total$2,218,267100%
General current expense$2,199,42799%
Special Revenue Funds$143,1546%
State projects$143,1546%
Preschool Education Aid$143,1546%
Capital outlay$18,840<1%
Facilities acquisition and construction$18,840<1%

Rows mix all-funds totals, General Fund rows, transfers, capital, special-revenue, and debt-service lines. The operating-equivalent column is a scale reference, not a claim that these rows add to the operating budget.

Selected operating cost lines

UFB lineAmountOp. sharePeer avg
Instruction tuition$1,458,38066%11%
Student transportation$324,36715%6%
Speech, OT, PT and related services$280,00013%2%
Central services$63,6623%2%
Regular programs instruction$31,8121%22%
General administration$20,473<1%2%
Administrative information technology$10,000<1%<1%
Child study teams$6,233<1%3%
Operations and maintenance$4,500<1%9%

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
Total tax levy$1,558,44170%58%
Budgeted fund balance$150,0007%5%
Preschool Education Aid$111,3425%5%
Extraordinary aid$85,0004%<1%
Special education aid$75,7183%6%
Transportation aid$58,2453%2%
Security aid$10,363<1%<1%
Unrestricted miscellaneous revenue$500<1%<1%

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

Current UFB line appendix

Revenue file · 14 contextual rows

LineAccountUFB rowAmountOp. equiv.
100/11410-1210Total Tax Levy$1,558,44170%
12010-12XXOther Local Governmental Units-Unrestricted$280,00013%
30010-1XXXUnrestricted Miscellaneous Revenues$500<1%
370n/aTotal Revenues from Local Sources$1,838,94183%
42010-3121Categorical Transportation Aid$58,2453%
43010-3131Extraordinary Aid$85,0004%
44010-3132Categorical Special Education Aid$75,7183%
47010-3177Categorical Security Aid$10,363<1%
520n/aTotal Revenues from State Sources (520)$229,32610%
58010-303Budgeted Fund Balance-Operating Budget$150,0007%
76020-3218Preschool Education Aid$111,3425%
770n/aTotal Revenues from State Sources (770)$111,3425%
83620-5200Transfers from Operating Budget-Pre-Kindergartenindergartenindergartenindergartenindergartenindergar$31,8121%
840n/aTotal Grants and Entitlements$143,1546%

Appropriation file · 17 contextual rows

LineAccountUFB rowAmountOp. equiv.
320011-1XX-100-XXTotal Regular Programs-Instruction$31,8121%
2918011-000-100-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Instruction (Tuition)$1,458,38066%
4058011-000-216-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Speech, OT, PT and Related Services$280,00013%
4220011-000-219-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Child Study Teams$6,233<1%
4530011-000-230-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Support Services-General Administration$20,473<1%
4720011-000-251-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Central Services$63,6623%
4762011-000-252-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Administrative Informationtechnology$10,000<1%
5112011-000-26X-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services$4,500<1%
5248011-000-270-XXTotal Undistributed Expenditures-Student Transportation Services$324,36715%
72140n/aTotal Undistributed Expenditures$2,167,61598%
72260n/aTotal General Current Expense$2,199,42799%
7626012-000-400-XXTotal Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services$18,840<1%
76400n/aTotal Capital Outlay$18,840<1%
8512020-218-100-XXTotal Preschool Education Aid Instruction$143,1546%
8710020-218-XXX-XXTotal Preschool Education Aid$143,1546%
8820020-XXX-XXX-XXTotal State Projects$143,1546%
88760n/aTotal Special Revenue Funds$143,1546%

This appendix lists all 31 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 budget tension checks pair current cost position, inflation-adjusted movement, proposal movement, tax burden, funding model, category slices, service load, reserves, and outside-operating rows so a reader can see which simple budget reads need a second signal. The category story map pulls current source-row scale, local peer gaps, inflation-adjusted movement, and latest proposal movement into one first-read map before the detailed category, trend, and proposal tables. The proposal-versus-trend bridge checks whether latest proposal-column movement continues, counters, or sits apart from loaded-year inflation-adjusted category movement. The budget reporting lead sheet turns the strongest generated signals into a ranked reporting agenda with evidence, reader questions, caveats, and links to the proof sections. The budget reporting notebook now appears directly after the thesis, translating the ranked UFB leads into outside records, interview checks, proof links, and unsupported readings to block before the longer report path opens. The editorial frame separates what UFB can establish from what still requires board documents, tax records, contracts, staffing context, or other outside reporting before causal claims are made. The budget model synthesis connects cost position, funding model, spending structure, service load, live proposal movement, inflation-adjusted trend, and side-file context into one reporting frame before the detailed evidence sections. The cost gap ledger translates the comparison into per-UFB-on-roll dollar gaps for operating scale, funding sources, use categories, pupil-cost rows, and service-load denominators before the detailed evidence sections. The cost-position clues panel now appears in the first-read path, naming the concrete UFB measures, funding and tax signals, named rows, proposal movement, denominator checks, and budget-year context that can explain or complicate the district’s comparative-cost position without claiming causality. The cost-position judgment panel now follows the clue scan in the first-read path, deciding whether the visible UFB signals line up with the published comparative-cost position, complicate it, or leave the explanation to outside reporting. The UFB source-coverage panel inventories the latest matched summary, revenue, appropriation, pupil-cost, planning-enrollment, tax, balance, unusual-item, shared-service, school-resource, and salary source families before the report routes them into evidence sections. The UFB source-file ledger links the exact latest NJDOE CSV files behind the district report and names the row count, use, and limit for each loaded budget file. The statewide budget-model panel names the broader comparison frames this district belongs to before the report moves into local peer evidence and source rows. The statewide slice-comparison panel opens with a relative-cost ladder across local peers, all NJ UFB districts, and matching latest-year groups for funding model, UFB on-roll scale, comparative-cost band, and generated category signals. The named similar-budget-model comps panel turns statewide slice logic into concrete district examples by naming districts with nearby latest-year UFB funding, scale, use, service-load, tax, and cost profiles. The change-driver panel summarizes first-to-latest UFB movement across real operating scale, planning-enrollment denominator shifts, peer-position changes, source shares, use shares, and named line rows. The 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 spending-category bars use high-level General Fund appropriation rows as shares of the proposed operating budget; the neutral tick is the average among Burlington County districts with usable category data. The stacked trend bars show category shares of each loaded UFB year’s proposed operating budget, so they foreground structure rather than nominal dollar growth. The budget turning-points table compares adjacent loaded UFB years so annual real-dollar, peer-gap, payer-mix, source-family, named-row, and service-load movements surface before the longer trend evidence. The largest-lines table is selected from the positive line rows in the latest UFB revenue and appropriation files, excluding only outer totals. The current UFB line appendix lists every contextual positive latest-year revenue and appropriation row, keeping source-file line numbers and accounts visible. The peer-line table compares contextual UFB revenue and appropriation rows against the local peer set so unusually large, small, or absent named rows surface before the full line appendix. The main-funds table keeps all-funds, General Fund, transfer, special-revenue, capital, and debt-service rows visible without treating them as one additive mix. The selected cost table uses lower-level UFB appropriation rows for reader context; those rows are nested inside broader categories and are not additive. The trend-driver table compares contextual UFB rows from the first loaded budget year to the latest year in 2025 dollars; share changes use the operating budget as a scale reference. The selected revenue table pulls named aid, levy, reserve, and grant lines from the UFB revenue file; some rows are subtotals or come from non-operating funds. The enrollment/placement table uses UFB budget-enrollment planning rows, which can differ from fall enrollment. The stacked bar shows proposed General Fund operating revenue sources; grants, debt service, and transfers can make all-funds totals differ. Source: NJDOE User-Friendly Budgets, 2025-26; BLS CPI-U.

Budget report built from NJDOE User-Friendly Budget files loaded in the local warehouse, 2019-20 through 2025-26. Burlington County budget brief → · Compare all district budgets → · How this budget data works →