Evidence review · September 2026
I want the numbers to help us ask better questions—not replace the conversation.
Every budget number eventually connects to something real: a teacher, a classroom, a student service, a bus route, a building, or a tax bill. This page brings the current evidence together so we can see what is changing, what Livingston can influence, and where the public record still does not give us a complete answer.
ANALYSIS
Not every cost is controllable. That does not mean we stop asking questions.
I think the better question is how much influence Livingston has over each major cost, over what time horizon, and how faster-growing commitments affect the resources available elsewhere. Some expenses are essential or legally required. The goal is not to label them “good” or “bad”; it is to understand them early enough to plan responsibly.
Partial local influence
Educator compensation
Salary guides and staffing are shaped by collective bargaining, Board-approved contracts, hiring, retention, placement, and the regional labor market.
Mixed / partial local influence
Health benefits
Plan pricing is externally determined, but the district still makes consequential choices about procurement, plan participation, contribution structures, and long-range benefit strategy.
Limited near-term influence
Outside-district tuition
Placement is driven by individual student needs and legal requirements; tuition is paid to the outside educational provider. Longer-term planning can include appropriate local capacity and lawful reimbursements.
Legally bounded local resource
General Fund levy
The statutory framework begins with 2%, then permits defined adjustments. Livingston still decides how to build a lawful budget within that framework.
FACT CALCULATION
1. Educator pay: follow the guide path, not just one headline percentage.
Livingston's March 2026 budget presentation reported “3.25% salary increases, as per agreements with associations.”The LEA agreement instead publishes a multi-year salary guide with steps and education lanes. For an eligible continuing employee, movement to a different cell can make year-over-year salary progression materially different from the reported budget parameter.
| School year | Guide cell | Published salary | Path change | BLS public-school wage growth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023–24 | BA Step 1 | $55,075 | — | — |
| 2024–25 | BA Step 2 | $56,090 | +1.84% | 4.2% (12 months ended June 2024) |
| 2025–26 | BA Step 3 | $58,568 | +4.42% | 3.6% (12 months ended June 2025) |
| 2026–27 | BA Step 4 | $61,401 | +4.84% | 3.6% (12 months ended June 2026) |
| 2027–28 | BA Step 5 | $63,876 | +4.03% | Not yet available |
CALCULATION Path changes are calculated from the published guide cells. The BLS comparison is the national Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries in state/local elementary and secondary schools; it is a broad wage-growth benchmark, not a Livingston salary target or a regional competitiveness verdict.
These are three different measurements. A continuing employee's guide progression describes one compensation scenario. Aggregate salary expense reflects the entire workforce and mix of positions. Staffing/FTE decisions are a third question and require their own records.
| Scenario | BA lane | MA lane |
|---|---|---|
| Step 1 → Step 2 | +5.01% | +4.39% |
| Step 8 → Step 9 | +8.05% | +7.16% |
| Step 12 → Step 13 | +6.73% | +6.11% |
| Step 15 → Step 16 | +5.40% | +4.96% |
These are contract-guide scenarios, not actual average employee raises. Step advancement is subject to the contract's eligibility and approval rules. The matched continuing-employee roster analysis is still being built, so I am not publishing an “average Livingston teacher raise” until that work is ready.
ANALYSIS
A single percentage does not tell us whether Livingston is competitive for educators. Salary levels, guide progression, benefits, staffing, vacancies, retention, and regional peer contracts all matter. I want the Board to have enough reliable information to make long-range workforce decisions without losing sight of the classroom experience those decisions are meant to support.
Sources: Livingston LEA Agreement 2023–2028; 2026–27 Budget Presentation; BLS June 2024 ECI; BLS June 2025 ECI; BLS June 2026 ECI Table 11.
FACT CALCULATION ANALYSIS
2. Staffing: falling aggregate payroll does not, by itself, prove a headcount reduction.
A calculation from the detailed 2026–27 Budget Book shows current-expense salary appropriations declining from approximately $89.00 million in the 2025–26 revised column to $87.09 million in the 2026–27 appropriation, a 2.16% decline. That arithmetic alone cannot tell us how many people or FTEs changed.
Separate evidence answers the staffing question.
The March 24 tentative-budget minutes state that the tentative 2026–27 budget reduced 40 staffing positions, including 12 through attrition. The April 28 final-budget minutes later report that a better-than-estimated prescription renewal allowed kindergarten aides to be added back.
Total salary appropriations can move because of staffing levels, vacancies, retirements, replacement hires, employee mix, assignment changes, step/lane distribution, or other factors. So the aggregate payroll decline is not mathematical proof of headcount reduction. Here, the Board's own minutes independently document reductions in the tentative budget. The exact final adopted staffing/FTE effect remains under reconciliation because positions were later restored.
Sources: Livingston 2026–27 Budget Book; March 24, 2026 Board minutes; April 28, 2026 Board minutes.
FACT ANALYSIS
3. Health financing changed in stages, and each stage needs to be kept distinct.
The district's April 2026 budget discussion identifies State Health Benefits in 2022–23 and 2023–24, followed by private Horizon plans. Board records identify Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield as the district's provider for the private arrangement before the next transition. Effective July 1, 2026, Livingston joined Metropolitan HIF for medical coverage only.
Chapter 44 contribution mechanic
Salary-based employee contributions
NJEHP and GSHP use Chapter 44 schedules tied to a percentage of base salary. That employee contribution mechanic is different from the underlying premium or total plan cost.
Chapter 78 contribution mechanic
Premium-based employee contributions
NJ DIRECT 10 and NJ DIRECT 15 use the applicable Chapter 78 premium-based contribution schedule. Employee cost therefore changes with the relevant premium and contribution rules.
The NJDOE Chapter 44 reports supplied through OPRA show that Livingston's projected districtwide gross medical/prescription plan cost, employee contributions, and net district cost all changed between the Actual-2025 and Projected-2026 reports. Those totals are useful evidence of cost pressure, but they do not by themselves prove what caused it. Plan pricing, enrollment, coverage tier, plan migration, salary, claims experience, and the later Metro transition can all matter.
ANALYSIS
Saying health costs are simply “outside the Board's control” gives up too much. Livingston cannot set carrier prices, claims experience, provider-market costs, or state contribution rules. But the Board still makes meaningful choices about procurement, plan participation, bargaining strategy, and long-range benefit planning. Those choices deserve the same careful attention as the prices we cannot control.
Sources: April 28, 2026 Board minutes; Metropolitan HIF Resolution 22-26 / May 2026 materials; P.L. 2020, c.44. The plan-level Chapter 44 Actual/Projected reports are OPRA records preserved in the project research set.
FACT ANALYSIS
4. Outside-district tuition is a student-service obligation first, and a budget pressure second.
Federal special-education law requires a free appropriate public education and emphasizes education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to the individual child. Outside placement is therefore not a discretionary “vendor spend” that can simply be eliminated when a student's IEP and needs require services outside the district.
Livingston's 2026–27 budget reports $10.09 million across the three outside-district special-education tuition accounts, up from $8.66 million in the 2025–26 revised appropriation. The full Budget & Levy page preserves the multi-year trend, the exact underlying table, the ordinary 2% comparison, and the FY2025 source-status discrepancy rather than smoothing those differences away.
ANALYSIS
These costs represent services for students, not just a budget line. My question is how Livingston can forecast them more accurately, pursue lawful support and reimbursement, and evaluate local capacity where it is educationally appropriate—while making sure individual students continue to receive the services they need. The current evidence still does not tell us how much of the trend comes from student count, placement mix, provider price, or transportation.
Sources: Livingston 2026–27 Budget Book; U.S. Department of Education IDEA overview.
FACT ANALYSIS
5. The law starts at 2%. Livingston’s actual budget already shows why context matters.
NJDOE states that New Jersey's school levy cap is not a hard 2% cap. It begins with a 2% increase over the prior General Fund levy and then permits defined adjustments, including qualifying health-care costs, enrollment, certain pension/responsibility changes, and banked cap.
Enrollment adjustment: $0 · Banked-cap use: $0
ANALYSIS
Fiscal responsibility matters, but “2%” by itself does not tell the whole story. I want us to understand how recurring commitments, outside prices, and the adjustments available under state law affect our ability to sustain educators, programs, and services over time.
Sources: NJDOE budget Q&A; Livingston 2026–27 Budget Book; April 28, 2026 final-budget minutes.
ANALYSIS
These costs interact.
I’m putting these pressures side by side because a school budget is not a collection of isolated line items. They affect one another, but they do not all have the same cause or the same degree of local control.
Educator compensation
Salary level, guide progression, benefits, and labor-market competitiveness.
Staffing & FTE
Positions, attrition, vacancies, assignment mix, and the student services those roles support.
Health benefits
External pricing plus plan choice, contribution mechanics, procurement, and enrollment mix.
Outside-district tuition
Legally required student services with externally set provider costs and placement-specific needs.
Transportation & utilities
Operating costs that can move differently from salaries or tuition and still consume current-expense capacity.
Facilities
Maintenance, capital needs, project lead times, reserves, and long-range capacity planning.
Levy framework
An ordinary 2% starting point plus statutory adjustments, with local budgeting choices inside the legal framework.
Student opportunities
The outcome to protect: strong instruction, programs, supports, and learning conditions over time.
I do not think the answer is to point at one category and say it should automatically be cut to pay for another. The better approach is to model recurring commitments together, early enough that the community can understand the tradeoffs and the district has time to make thoughtful choices instead of preventable last-minute ones.
ANALYSIS
Questions I want the community to be able to see clearly
Invest in excellent educators
Use contract, roster, peer-district, vacancy, retention, and benefit data together rather than treating one settlement percentage as the whole labor market.
Separate price pressure from local choice
Residents should be able to see which costs are negotiated locally, externally priced, formula-driven, legally required, or influenced only over a longer horizon.
Protect student opportunities
When recurring costs grow faster than ordinary revenue capacity, show the tradeoffs early enough to plan deliberately rather than react late.
Show the source
Every consequential number should be traceable to an official record, with proposed, revised, budgeted, and audited statuses kept distinct.