Medford Ballot Question 6 proposes a debt exclusion to fund a new fire headquarters

Medford residents will vote on three local ballot questions in addition to the questions on Nov. 5 five nationwide questions. The first of the three questions, question 6, is asking voters to approve a debt exclusion for a new fire headquarters that will replace the current one at 120 Main St.

Today’s fire department headquarters was built in the 1960s. The fire department and police shared the building until the police department was created in 2019 Move to a new, separate headquarters built at 100 Main St.

Medford Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn explained the need for a new fire station.

“You have a station [without] proper ventilation, [that] probably doesn’t quite match the code. You have the appliances right next to the kitchen and the door is right there. They are in a bad mood because the building is 60 years old and needs to at least be renovated or even completely rebuilt. I mean, the list goes on and on,” she said.

The question itself does not specify how much the deposit will be. However, the estimated cost of the new headquarters is $30 million.

A debt exclusion is a temporary tax increase to pay off a bond for a voter-approved capital project. Once payments for each project are completed, the tax increases ends.

Medford City Councilman Matt Leming provided further clarification on debt exclusions.

“If they approve a debt exclusion, the city would be authorized to essentially take out a loan, and over a period of time, that loan and accrued interest would be repaid. The cost estimate for this… once the loan has been taken out and we have to service the debt… [is] about $2 million per year for about 30 years” he said.

Leming also stated that the The estimated period of 30 years is because the city would have to pay the interest on the loan. He shared that debt exclusions are usually necessary to finance large projects over a longer period of time.

“Somerville passed a debt waiver a few years ago to finance the construction of a new high school, so this is a relatively common measure in other communities to finance these types of buildings,” Leming said.

Medford’s sThe tight finances placed an additional burden on the city administration when preparing the budget.

“Without that debt exclusion, that $2 million [a year] come from the city budget from somewhere else, a city budget that is already, I would say, stretched beyond its breaking point“,” David Zabner, treasurer of the Invest in Medford campaign, told the daily.

The Medford firefighters union opposes Question 6

Medford Firefighters Local 1032 Union leadership opposes Question 6. In a statement to the Daily: Union President Danielle Marcellino expressed their opposition to the draft concepts published by the mayor’s office.

“The lack of available space (for staff, equipment and storage) in this current design demonstrates that the city has no plan for the city’s future. The building also does not properly address firefighter decontamination (reducing carcinogen exposure),” Marcellino wrote. “There are not enough showers available for all firefighters to shower as quickly as possible, thereby reducing the exposure to carcinogenic substances we come into contact with during any fire (large or very small).”.”

Lungo-Koehn said she understands that not everyone will be happy with the final design, but that the headquarters planning committee has made adjustments to meet the union’s needs.

“We have made several adjustments for our union and our firefighters based on their requests. Nothing will be perfect in anyone’s eyes, but…we are doing our best to build a new, state-of-the-art facility for our firefighters. “And considering it’s just a conceptual design and the final design isn’t ready yet, I hope residents vote yes on this question so we can continue to make changes,” Lungo-Koehn said.

Zabner said Question 6 is about the bond that will be raised to finance the new headquarters, not the conceptual designs.

“We can vote yes on the bond, and the firefighters and the mayor can end up coming up with a bill that works for both parties … while ignoring the problems that the firefighters and the mayor seem to have with each other.”“,” Zabner said.

The union claims it was not involved in discussing changes to draft concepts

Marcellino said the union was included in the original planning Interim Chief Todd Evans but was later removed from conversations where changes were being considered.

“The Union would like to see the Headquarters Committee work with the Mayor and be involved in the process to ensure the design of the building meets our needs. We asked to be included in the process,” Marcellino wrote. “The intent at the time was to have the committee work with the city as we have a working knowledge of the current plan and what we would need moving forward. Chief Evans convened the committee in the spring to review the city’s proposed draft plan, but was still excluded from the discussion to make changes.”

Lungo-Koehn said union members were involved early in the creation of the designs.

“I believe the current fire chief [Todd Evans]…when we started getting the concept designs, he [was] the one who made sure there was a meeting with [architect] Ted Galant [and that] Some union members and firefighters toured the building. Ted really listened to what they needed and I outlined in a press release all the changes we made based on what they wanted and wanted” she said.

Medford City Councilman George Scarpelli said more time is needed to re-examine and revise the designs of the new headquarters so that it adequately meets the needs of firefighters. Until then, Scarpelli said residents should vote “no” on Question 6.

“Once the firefighters find the design that suits them, it will spread like wildfire through the city because everyone wants a new fire station,” he said. “You deserve it.”

Lungo-Koehn believes some firefighters don’t support voting against the question.

“People will come to me and say, ‘Hey, I’ve talked to a firefighter or two and he can’t believe the union is asking people to vote no.’ That’s not the department’s opinion,” Lungo-Koehn said.

“As union leadership, we have the ability to express the feelings of our union members,” Marcellino wrote in response.