Medford residents will vote on three local ballot questions on Nov. 5, in addition to the five state-wide questions. The first of the three, Question 6, asks voters to approve a debt exclusion for a new fire headquarters that will replace the current one at 120 Main St.
The current fire headquarters was built in the 1960s. The fire and police departments shared the building up until 2019 when the police department moved 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 does not meet code entirely. You have equipment right next to the kitchen with the door that’s right there. You have low morale because the building is 60 years old and needs to be, at least rehabbed, if not built entirely new. I mean, the list goes on and on,” she said.
The question itself does not specify how much the bond will be. However, the estimated figure for the cost of the new headquarters is $30 million.
A debt exclusion is a temporary tax raise to pay off a bond for a capital project approved by voters. Once the payments for that specific project are completed, the tax increase ends.
Medford City Councilor Matt Leming provided further explanation about debt exclusions.
“If they approve a debt exclusion, the city then becomes eligible to essentially take out a loan, and over a period of time, that loan, as well as the accruing interest, would be paid back. The estimate for that, … once the loan is taken out and we have to service the debt, … [is] around $2 million a year for about 30 years,” he said.
Leming also stated that the estimated 30-year period is as such because the city would need to pay the interest that is accrued by the loan. He shared that debt exclusions are usually necessary to fund large-scale projects over a period of time.
“Somerville passed a debt exclusion a few years ago to fund the building of a new high school, so this is a relatively common thing in other communities to fund these sorts of buildings,” Leming said.
Medford’s stringent finances have placed an extra burden on the city government when creating the budget.
“Without that debt exclusion, those $2 million [a year] come out of the city budget from somewhere else, a city budget that is already strained, I would say, past the breaking point,” David Zabner, treasurer of the campaign “Invest in Medford,” told the Daily.
Medford firefighters union opposes Question 6
The Medford Firefighters Local 1032 Union leadership is opposed to Question 6. In a statement to the Daily, Union President Danielle Marcellino explained their opposition to the concept designs released by the mayor’s office.
“The lack of space available (for personnel, apparatus and storage) in this current design speaks to the city’s lack of plan for the future of the city. The building also does not properly address firefighter decon (carcinogen exposure mitigation),” Marcellino wrote. “It has too few showers available for all of the firefighters working to be able to shower off as soon as possible thus reducing the exposure to cancer-causing substances we come in contact with at every fire (large or very small).”
Lungo-Koehn said she recognizes that not everyone will be satisfied with the final design, but that the headquarters planning committee has made adjustments to what the union requested.
“We’ve made multiple adjustments for our union and our firefighters per their requests. Nothing is going to be perfect in anybody’s eyes, but … we’re doing our best to try to build a new state-of-the-art facility for our firefighters. And considering that it’s just concept design and the final design isn’t done yet, I hope that the residents vote ‘yes’ on the question so that we can continue to make changes,” Lungo-Koehn said.
Zabner said that Question 6 is about the bond that will be taken out to fund the new headquarters, not the concept designs.
“We can vote yes on the bond, and the firefighters and the mayor can figure out a design that works for both parties at the end of the day, … ignoring the issues that the firefighters and the mayor seem to have with each other,” Zabner said.
Union claims they were not involved in discussion over changes to concept designs
Marcellino said that the union was looped into the initial planning by Provisional Chief Todd Evans but was later removed from conversations that considered changes.
“The Union would love to see the headquarters committee work with the mayor and be included in the process to ensure that the design of the building meets our needs; We have asked to be included in the process,” Marcellino wrote. “The intention at the time was to have the committee work with the city because we have working knowledge of the current plan and what we would need for the future. Chief Evans convened the committee in the spring to look at the city’s proposed design plan but were still excluded from the conversation to make changes.”
Lungo-Koehn said that union members were involved at the beginning of the creation of the designs.
“I think the current fire chief [Todd Evans], … when we started to get the concept designs, he [was] the one that made sure there was a meeting with [architect] Ted Galante [and that] some of the union members and firefighters did a tour of the building. Ted really listened to what they needed, and I’ve outlined in a press release all the changes we’ve made based on their requests and desires,” she said.
Medford City Councilor George Scarpelli said that more time is needed to reexamine and redo the designs of the new headquarters so it can adequately meet the firefighters’ needs. Until then, Scarpelli said, residents should vote "No" on Question 6.
“As soon as the firefighters find the design that works for them, it’ll run like wildfire through the city, because everybody wants a new fire station,” he said. “They deserve it.”
Lungo-Koehn believes that some firefighters do not support voting against the question.
“People will reach out to me and say: ‘Hey, I spoke to so and so firefighter, and he can’t believe that the union is asking people to vote no. That’s not the sentiment of the department,’” Lungo-Koehn said.
“As Union leadership, we are in place to voice the sentiment of our Union members,” Marcellino wrote in response.
