Please vote “no” on a new Burlington high school and “no” on the debt exclusion

10/15/2025

Please vote “no” on a new Burlington high school and “no” on the debt exclusion

Burlington does not need a new high school at this time on top of a new Fox Hill elementary school, a new Pine Glen elementary school, and a new Shawsheen Tech high school with a swimming pool. Nothing could be more wasteful than spending millions tearing down buildings and hauling them away versus spending money selectively for key improvements and additions.

Further, in recent years significant investments have been made in the high school, including new gym floors, a new stage in the auditorium, a new music room, and an elevator. Hopefully, these investments could be preserved in a new school building without being damaged during construction.

The recklessness of these spending plans has accelerated and makes no sense when considering the ages of schools in other towns and the fact that Burlington’s high school enrollment is less than half of what it was when the school was completed in 1973 and continues to decline with Burlington’s declining population (see Burlington’s recent annual reports).

Burlington’s high school is 52 years old, but this is not old for a high school, as can be seen in the comparison below of high schools in North Shore towns.

Town, Year Completed, Age (years):

Burlington 1973 52, Andover 1968 57, Concord–Carlisle 1958 67, Reading 1927 98, Stoneham 1958 67, Lexington 1978 47, Bedford 1955 70, Billerica 1956 69, Wilmington 1997 28, Woburn 2006 19, Phillips Academy – Andover 1924 101, median age = 67 years old.

One of the most troubling aspects of Burlington’s capital “budgeting” process is that rarely if ever are alternatives considered. Note the emphasis on expensive demolition and new construction in all of Burlington’s recent proposals, without consideration given to other options, such as upgrades, repairs, and additions.

The ages of the schools above indicate that other towns have been emphasizing upgrades and additions to existing buildings rather than demolition and new construction. But when asked about such alternatives, the pat answer is that it would be more expensive not to pursue demolition and new construction, apparently without any serious thought or detailed analysis.

Typical responses include vague arguments that building code upgrades would not be economical. But how can building code upgrades exceed the cost of new architectural plans, demolition, and removal of much of the old building? If this were true, the most venerable schools listed above would not be so old.

Below is a list of planned capital expenditures. Note that the estimated average household property tax increase appears likely to be over 20%. One could argue that the commercial tax base could share more of this burden, but most of this is for new schools, likely to get some push back by our commercial tax base. Burlington’s residents and taxpayers deserve better.

Fox Hill School $70 million (after State reimbursement of $30 million)

Police Station 46 million

Pine Glen School ???

New High School 340 million

New Shawsheen Tech School ???

Unfunded Pension and OPEB Liability 91 million (net of $9 million trust fund balance)

TOTAL $547 million @ 4.4% APR for a AAA-rated muni bond

10,056 = # of households

Annual burden per household $3,630.71 = $36.5 million increase in annual cash outflow /

10,056 households

Formula = PMT(rate, nper, pv, fv, type) = $36,510,398 = PMT(0.044,25,547000000,0)

$7,153.44 annual household property taxes now

25.4% increase in annual property taxes per household = $3,631 x .5 / $7,153