Burlington Public Schools — MA
1. Snapshot
Suburb-Large K-12, 3,510 students across 6 schools just off Route 128 in Middlesex County. SAIPE poverty 4.7% (very low). Demographics 58% White / 18% Asian / 11% Hispanic / 8% Black. Per-pupil expenditure $28,023 (FY2020) — squarely in the affluent-MA-suburb band. The asked-for project is a single high school addition + renovation that would have replaced 1970s mechanical systems at end-of-life. Debt exclusion is temporary (the levy reverts after the bond is paid) — the structure least painful to voters in MA, and they still said no 2-to-1.
2. Why this was a hard sell — community context (ACS)
| Metric | Burlington | National median (typical) |
|---|---|---|
| Median household income | $133,936 | ~$75K |
| Median home value | $659,400 | ~$340K |
| Bachelor’s+ | 58.2% | — |
| Owner-occupied | 73.5% | — |
| Gini index | 0.428 | — |
This is not a tax-base problem — Burlington is one of the wealthier districts in the country, and the demographics could absorb the ask. The Lex Observer coverage notes the project would have added “over $1,100 annually” on top of existing tax increases for a new police station and an in-progress elementary school project. A “NO New Taxes Committee” formed specifically around stacked tax burden, not the high school’s merits. That’s the signature of override fatigue, not affordability — voters were saying “too much at once,” not “we can’t pay.” The 68.5% No is severe enough that the next campaign has to do real work to rebuild trust, not just shave the price.
3. Peer comparison
Top peers identified via MCP (default weights + plantOps emphasis):
| Peer district | State | Enrollment | Per-pupil | Plant ops/pp | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yorktown Central SD | NY | 3,499 | $28,921 | $1,938 | Westchester suburb, similar profile |
| Montville Township SD | NJ | 3,545 | $28,858 | $1,864 | Same-size NJ suburb |
| Wilton SD (revealed from “Peer District 4D258BBF”) | CT | 3,782 | $27,533 | $1,909 | Fairfield County peer, 145 mi |
| Brookhaven-Comsewogue | NY | 3,494 | $27,855 | $1,936 | Long Island peer |
| Westborough | MA | 3,831 | $28,761 | $1,936 | Same-state peer, 26 mi |
| Medford, Danvers, Norwood (MA) | MA | 3,238–4,170 | $24K–$28K | $1,800–$1,950 | Inner-belt MA peers |
| 0 redacted “Peer District” entries in top-5 | (Wilton already revealed) |
4. The gap story (what the data would have shown voters)
Unlike most districts on this list, Burlington’s data story is not “we’re under-resourced — fix it with this bond.” It’s the opposite: Burlington is well-funded across the board, and the high school is genuinely the weak link in an otherwise strong portfolio. The numbers support that:
- Plant operations spending: $1,934 / pupil vs national median $1,324 — 46% above national median. The peer group (Yorktown, Westborough, Wilton, Montville, Brookhaven) is tightly clustered $1,864–$1,938. Burlington is operationally on-pace with peers; the bond ask is a capital problem, not an operations one.
- Capital construction outlay (FY2020): $0. Zero. In a peer group where the average district had at least some annual capital flow. That’s the line item that backs the bond: the high school’s HVAC/plumbing is end-of-life precisely because the district has had no rolling capital program.
- 14 nurse FTEs across 6 schools — highest in the peer group (peer median 8). Counselor ratio 188:1 — best-in-class. The pitch isn’t “we’re starving”; it’s “we’re protecting the program, the building is the gap.”
- Chronic absenteeism 10.5% — above peer median (8.2%), with elementary schools at 12-14%. Worth pairing with the building-condition argument if building HVAC/IAQ is suspect.
- Per-pupil instruction $16,029 — middle of the peer set ($12K-$18K range). Burlington’s instruction spending isn’t the standout; what is exceptional is the absolute absence of capital outlay.
The data argues for a narrower ask — replace the HVAC, the mechanical systems specifically called out in the 2023 feasibility study — instead of a single $333M omnibus that voters can read as wishlist creep on top of two other in-progress projects.
5. Bond history (Ballotpedia + news)
Per Ballotpedia and Lex Observer: - Nov 2025: $333M Prop 2½ debt exclusion, 31.5% Yes / 68.5% No. - District officials said publicly they “will now need to regroup to work on a plan that is more likely to be accepted by voters.” - Burlington has also recently approved a new police station and an elementary school project — both already raising taxes. The high school was the third ask in a tax-stacking sequence.
No second bond on the calendar yet. That’s the right call — they need at least one tax cycle of breathing room.
6. What voters / opposition actually said
The campaign opposition consolidated around tax-stacking, not the project’s merits. The “NO New Taxes Committee” framed the case as the cumulative $1,100+ annual hit on top of existing increases. There were no quoted voter testimonials in coverage — no “this isn’t needed,” no “the school is fine.” That’s important: the no campaign won on aggregate tax burden, not on a substantive argument about the high school. A campaign that addresses that framing head-on (sequenced asks, sunset clauses, smaller scope) has a clear path to a different outcome.
7. What we could have told them
- “Our high school has $0 in annual capital outlay against a peer-median that funds rolling building improvements. The mechanical systems are end-of-life because we never funded ongoing replacement.” Reframes the bond as catch-up, not aspiration.
- “We spend $1,934/student on plant operations — above the national median and tightly in line with Yorktown, Westborough, and Wilton. The operational side is healthy; this is a capital ask, not a management problem.” Defuses the “throw more money at it” critique.
- Split the project into two questions: the mechanical replacement ($150-200M) and the addition/renovation ($100-150M). Lets voters say yes to the urgent and no to the rest. The 31.5% Yes base is real; you’d plausibly clear 60% on a focused systems-replacement question.
- Sequence the ask against the police-station and elementary-school timelines. Publish a single tax-impact chart showing all three projects with sunset dates. The opposition committee’s whole argument collapses if the district shows the cumulative curve coming back down.
- “Burlington has 14 school nurses — peer median is 8. Counselor ratio 188:1 — best in our peer group. Spending on kids is leading. Spending on the building they sit in is at zero.” Two-part narrative — strongest version of the bond story Burlington has.
8. FMX outreach hook
Burlington is a narrative opportunity, not a “you’re under-resourced” opportunity. Their plant ops spend is healthy; what they don’t have is a defensible per-building condition story to back the high school ask. Lead with Bob Cunha (Director of Operations) — the operations side is where the bond evidence lives, and Cunha is the person who would have to defend specific HVAC/roof/envelope failures to a skeptical electorate. Opener: “Westborough — 26 miles from you, similar profile — has its facilities condition data centralized in one platform. When their next bond goes out, every line item will be tied to a documented work order history and a condition score. Burlington has the funding capacity for the project; what the No campaign attacked was tax-stacking, not the high school. A per-room condition dashboard reframes the next ask as ‘fix specific failures’ rather than ‘big new bond,’ and you can have that inside 90 days.” Nichole Coscia (Business Manager) is the budget-conversation owner; Conti is too political to lead with on a vendor pitch this soon after a 2:1 loss.