UPDATE: This article has been updated to include a statement from Marlborough Mayor Arthur Vigeant. This article had additionally been updated with information on Vigeant’s spending plan and a letter from Vigeant to the City Council that was shared with the Community Advocate on Wednesday.
MARLBOROUGH – The Marlborough City Council voted on Monday to rescind a vote from late last year to accept the city’s package of ARPA money totaling close to $12 million.
The initial approval had given Mayor Arthur Vigeant broad ability to spend the allocation.
This new decision was then made following a request by Council Vice President Kathleen Robey and Councilor Samantha Perlman. It passed 7-2 with two councilors absent, taking back that earlier approval and triggering a new process to direct the funds.
In a letter to the City Council written on Dec. 16, Vigeant wrote that the funds could only be used for four broad purposes. He said that it was his office’s intent to “to use the large majority of these funds for investment in water and sewer projects.”
The federal Department of the Treasury later issued new guidelines, however, saying that the first $10 million of these funds could be used for “general government services.”
Following that change, a list of proposed capital projects from Vigeant included less than $3 million for the initially discussed category of water and sewer projects, according to City Council President Michael Ossing.
The rest of the money would be spent on other projects and efforts under Vigeant’s plan.
“We were told one thing in December,” Ossing said. “We get the package in March that is not what we were told.”
“As councilors, you should be upset about that,” he continued, addressing his colleagues.
Vigeant said in a statement after Monday’s meeting that he was “disappointed to say the least” about the council’s eventual ARPA decision.
He explained that he had “put a hold on all capital projects without signed contracts pending the review of where they are in the process.”
“We have substantial street and infrastructure projects in the City that need to move forward, but because I can’t rely on the definitive vote of the Council, I’m moving cautiously,” Vigeant wrote.
Capital Improvement Plan detailed proposed ARPA spending
Vigeant filed his proposed ARPA allocations in recent weeks, detailing individual ARPA allocations within his Capital Improvement Plan.
Those included:
-
- $1,543,500 – Fire Truck Ladder #1
- $42,594 – Duty Issued Firearms, Shotguns and Holsters for the Police Department
- $33,000 – Vehicle for City Hall
- $3,000,000 – City Hall
- $1,750,000 – Pump station
- $125,000 – Parking garage for the Department of Public Works
- $1,600,000 – Sewer treatment plant
- $957,406 – Rehab or replace Sligo Hill Water Tank
- $2,000,000 – Lake Williams Walking Trail
- $150,000 – Dog park
- $500,000 – Deck hockey
Councilors share their thoughts
City Councilors then weighed in on Monday prior to their vote, arguing for and against action to rescind the council’s initial approval.
“I think it is important that the council have another opportunity given how transformational this…money is for the city of Marlborough,” Perlman said, noting her support for a vote to rescind.
Councilor Laura Wagner, meanwhile, said she would not support rescinding the acceptance, saying that she was concerned about the dynamic of several recent decisions by the council.
Wagner said that City Council members do not have expertise to determine how the funds should be prioritized between departments.
Wagner also said that some orders, like a planned fire truck purchase, need to be ordered with a two-year lead time.
Wagner continued, saying some proposed funding allocations under Vigeant’s plan, like for the completion of a walking trail around Lake Williams and the creation of a dog park, would be quality-of-life improvements for residents.
“I respectfully suggest that what we do is re-center the people in this community,” Wagner said.
Ossing said, however, that he did not believe that the city’s department heads were all in agreement in supporting the mayor’s proposed allocations.
Mayor wrote letter reacting to proposal
Vigeant’s office released a letter to the Community Advocate on Wednesday by Vigeant to the City Council, dated prior to this week’s City Council meeting.
“I’m not sure why there is a proposal being put forth to rescind something that was already approved unless you had no idea what you were accepting at the time,” Vigeant wrote in that letter.
“If that’s not the case, then what is the motivation here?” he asked.
Vigeant said in the letter that he reaches out to each councilor every year and offers to meet and discuss specific projects regarding the city’s Capital Improvement Project list.
This year, Vigeant wrote, less than half of the councilors opted to meet with him.
Vigeant wrote that he took all of the discussions he did have with councilors into consideration as he developed the capital project list, saying that every councilor he met with had projects on the list.
Vigeant wrote that “the proper action” in this context would have been to accept and place Robey and Perlman’s proposed order on file, arguing that rescinding the council’s ARPA funding vote could “set a precedent for Councilors Robey and Perlman to halt what’s already in progression.”
“Since I can’t rely on definitive votes by the Council, the necessary projects that directly improve the lives of our residents, will not be getting done,” Vigeant also wrote near the end of this letter.
Robey noted Vigeant’s letter on Monday, describing it as “interesting.”
She added that she did not think anybody in the City Council would disagree with Vigeant’s allocations if they concerned the four things that he initially said he planned to use this ARPA money for.
“When the rules changed and he got to spend it on, in his opinion, anything he wanted to, that’s where I have a problem, and hopefully the rest of this council does,” Robey said.
Vote to rescind follows recent clashes between City Council, Mayor
This is the latest in a series of contentious exchanges between the City Council and the Mayor.
The majority of these recent disagreements have focused on Marlborough’s proposed West Side fire station and a series of moves to purchase land for its eventual construction.
Vigeant most recently vetoed an order by the council as part of this.
That veto is pending before the council, though Ossing noted in comments to the Community Advocate last week that the council can possibly overturn it as soon as May 9.
RELATED CONTENT
Marlborough mayor vetoes proposed fire station land purchase order
Marlborough City Council approves fire station purchase as disagreement with mayor continues
Marlborough Mayor, City Council members clash over fire station funding question
