Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Earmarks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves $450,000 in state earmarks; speed‑hump funding draws debate
Summary
The council voted to accept a $450,000 state budget earmark on May 5 and approved individual allocations for boilers, cameras, dog park, temporary speed humps and the MEDC shuttle; the $75,000 for temporary speed humps drew the most controversy and passed 8‑1 after councilors discussed alternatives and DPW assurances.
The Marlborough City Council on May 5 voted to accept $450,000 in fiscal 2025 state earmark funding and to allocate the money across five local projects. Councilors approved individual votes for each allocation after committee recommendation.
How the money will be used: the council approved $25,000 for a boiler (to be applied to work at the Walker Building), $30,000 for security cameras at public housing, $35,000 for the dog park, $75,000 for temporary speed humps/traffic calming and $200,000 for the MEDC shuttle. The council approved the boiler, cameras, dog park and MEDC shuttle unanimously (9–0); the speed‑hump allocation passed 8–1.
Debate on speed humps: the $75,000 earmark prompted sustained discussion. Councilor Roby said he opposed speed humps as a traffic‑calming approach and preferred other measures; he noted he would normally vote against but would support taking the state's money. “I hate speed humps, speed bumps, temporary or otherwise,” Roby said and urged caution on installing physical humps. Councilor Bridal also opposed the speed‑hump approach and cited articles arguing municipalities are moving away from speed humps as a solution. Councilor Doucette and others said speed humps can be effective in certain locations and supported using the funds for targeted calming.
DPW assurance and likely uses: the council heard from members who said the DPW commissioner indicated much of the funding could be used for signage and radar speed feedback signs rather than permanent humps; the funds would be used carefully and traffic calming would be a last resort. Councilor Navan said he would accept the funds rather than return them to the state, noting the city’s need for traffic‑calming tools and the expense and time required for other measures.
Other allocations: councilors discussed other earmarks briefly. Councilor Roby expressed discomfort that the $25,000 boiler earmark would be used for the Walker Building rather than City Hall but accepted the state language. The $200,000 MEDC shuttle and $30,000 public‑housing camera allocations passed without debate; the $35,000 dog‑park allocation was clarified as covering work already partly completed.
Outcome and next steps: the council approved each earmark separately. The MEDC shuttle, cameras, dog park and boiler allocations passed unanimously; the speed‑hump allocation passed 8–1. The council and DPW will determine the specific traffic‑calming projects and equipment to be funded.
