Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Earmarks And Project Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord subcommittee warns state holdback could derail $725,000 in earmarked planning and wastewater work
Summary
Town staff and advisory subcommittee members described a funding bottleneck after the state’s Administration and Finance office conditioned release of a $250,000 earmark on spending of a separate $475,000 earmark. Members discussed using town reserves, pausing work orders and contacting legislators to resolve access to the funds.
Town of Concord staff and members of the MCI advisory subcommittee said March 12 that two state legislative earmarks intended to fund planning and wastewater analysis for the former prison site face a delay after the state Office of Administration and Finance conditioned release of the second grant on full expenditure of the first.
“We received word that Concord was gonna get two earmarks,” said Megan, Town staff (project lead). “They have given us 50% of that $475,000, which we have in an account in the town, to be able to use on MCI projects. And the second half of that will be funded on a reimbursement basis.”
The subcommittee’s concern, Megan said, is that the Office of Economic Development (EOED) has told town staff that Administration and Finance (A&F) will “consider unlocking the second earmark only after you have spent the first earmark” — a condition that could prevent use of an additional $250,000 that had been budgeted mainly for wastewater analysis.
Why it matters: The two earmarks together total about $725,000 and were intended to fund a consultant-led planning and visioning process (the agency contract) and a separate wastewater study by Weston & Sampson. Subcommittee members said the town has already procured consultants and begun work on both tracks; but if A&F withholds the second allocation, invoices tied to the wastewater work could go unpaid and the town could be left with partial deliverables.
Mark Howell, subcommittee member, said the group should prepare for the possibility that the state will not release the second earmark and should consider town alternatives. “I had thrown a number out there just because it seemed like something that would get a significant bit of work done,” Howell said, describing a possible town funding backstop of $250,000 for planning and zoning work.
Discussion and options: Staff and members discussed several responses: 1) seek immediate clarification and escalation through the town’s legislative delegation (starting with Representative Simon and possibly Senator Barrett); 2) ask EOED and A&F for flexibility in how the first earmark is allocated so available funds can cover near-term wastewater invoices; 3) use existing town reserves — including a proposed appropriation from free cash or previously committed ARPA funds — to complete the agency deliverable while pausing or limiting new authorizations tied to the $250,000 earmark.
Lee (subcommittee member) recommended caution on approving any additional work beyond the $475,000 that the town already has access to. “I wouldn't authorize work beyond $475,000 until this is straightened out,” Lee said. Other members said they were reluctant to issue stop-work orders unless necessary but acknowledged the risk of spending town resources without assurance the second earmark will be honored.
Procurement and spending status: Staff reported the town had contracted roughly $400,000 of the $475,000 earmark to the primary consultant (referred to in the meeting as the agency) and had not yet obligated the $250,000 earmark intended for wastewater work by Weston & Sampson. Town staff also noted there are additional, modest town-paid staff costs that have not been budgeted into consultant contracts and could be shifted to town funds if needed.
Next steps and escalation: The subcommittee agreed to first brief Representative Simon and ask his advice on navigating EOED and A&F; if necessary, they may involve the other members of the legislative delegation and contact Adam Bakke at the Massachusetts Department of Capital Asset Management (DCAM). The group also discussed preparing invoices and exhibits (for example, outstanding wastewater invoices) to present to state officials to demonstrate that work has already been undertaken and needs payment.
No formal policy vote was taken. The subcommittee requested staff to pursue immediate outreach to the legislative delegation, to EOED and A&F for clarification, and to return with options for using town funding (free cash or ARPA) if the state funds are not made available.
The subcommittee scheduled further coordination after staff’s conversations with Representative Simon and other stakeholders.
