The September meeting of the Hudson Budget Committee heard from its subcommittee on the exaction fees for the Green Meadow Target project with some members raising concerns on the legality of the money transfer and how it will be used.
“We met with the Town Administrator to get his insight in working through the process of working with the liaisons,” said Committee member, Kevin Walsh. “We forward an email for the Fire Department liaison regarding the safety and training equipment exaction that is our next one on our list of things to explore.”
Exaction money from Target is supposed to go towards buying equipment like a platform truck for the Hudson Fire Department. He was still trying to set up a meeting with the Fire Chief to get more details on the payout. As some money may also end up with the Police Department, Walsh planned to set up a separate meeting with the Police Chief farther down the line. Other payouts include STEM funding for the town.
“Is there some kind of schedule in the agreement as to how these are supposed to be paid? Or is this a lump sum that’s going to be received?” asked Vice-Chair, James Lawrence.
He was told most money will be paid out by the anniversary of the building’s Certificate of Occupancy Approval. The exaction fee is a one-time payment, and it was not always clear how the money would transfer from Target to the town, and a chosen department.
“It would appear to me that pot of money needs to be planned for by both the Fire Department and Police Department,” agreed Chair Bill Cole. “They should have a plan.”
Committee member, Shawn Jasper, has some legal concerns over the overall exaction plan after speaking with the Department of Revenue Administration.
“The auditors should be picking up on the fact that there’s nothing budgeted for these purposes. This is money that has come in and there’s no approval by the town to buy the platform truck,” said Jasper, who contrasted buying tangible equipment with an offsite improvement, a common request for large projects. “This is buying an asset, which is not allowed.”
Despite this concern, auditors for the project have not objected so far. Jasper suggested double-checking to see how the exaction money was being accounted for.
“I care about the legality of things,” said Jasper. “The lawyer tells me, as long as two parties agree, it’s okay, even if it’s wrong.”
Cole expressed his concern over the costs that an unbudgeted piece of equipment might have in the long term.
“Sure, they’re going to pay for it, but who’s going to man it?” he asked. “Who’s going to maintain it, who’s going to replace it for the next 10 to 15 years?”
Walsh also talked to auditors, who suggested creating a second account for the funds, making the money more effortless to track and monitor.
Selectmen liaison, Heidi Jakoby, echoed concerns over the exaction fees, saying they matched public criticism of the Target plan.
“It is important to do it properly and accurately. I agree that this knees to be carefully looked at and forwarded,” she said. “There are just things here that don’t seem right.”
