The town’s Select Board had refused to grant the entertainment license that soccer’s governing body, FIFA, needs to stage the World Cup in Foxborough.

The statement, bearing the logos of Boston’s World Cup host committee, Kraft Sports & Entertainment, and the town, said they had reached an “understanding collectively” to “finalize the details” necessary for the town to approve an entertainment license.

The agreement said Foxborough “will not incur any cost or financial burden related to the FIFA World Cup, with Boston Soccer 2026 providing advance funding for security-related capital expenditures and the full extent of deployment that public safety officials have determined is needed to execute the event with Kraft Sports + Entertainment’s backing.”

The town had set a March 17 deadline for the local organizing committee, Boston Soccer 26, FIFA, or the Kraft Group that owns the stadium to front the funds or the Select Board would not issue the necessary entertainment license.

The nearly $8 million was supposed to be delivered as part of a federal grant that was included in last year’s One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act. Massachusetts was allocated $46 million in funding for security needs, with the money originally scheduled to be released by the Department of Homeland Security in late January.

But the money has yet to be disbursed to any of the 11 US cities that are hosting games. (The full tournament, running from mid-June to mid-July, will play in 16 cities in the US, Canada, and Mexico.)

The dispute underscored what business leaders around Greater Boston said was deeper dysfunction and looming financial troubles within the Boston organizing committee, which is now scrambling to pull off the event in less than three months.

Boston Soccer 26 — dominated by allies of Patriots owner Robert Kraft — appears well short of the $170 million goal it said it needed to stage a World Cup that could draw 2 million visitors to Greater Boston. Exactly how short remains a mystery.

But the dispute with Foxborough pushed the local committee to make a rare public disclosure last week: that it had only $2 million in the bank, but anticipates depositing another $30 million soon.

That’s a fraction of what was envisioned by the organizers two years ago, spawning concerns about what the World Cup will actually look like at kickoff on June 13.

Meanwhile, in Foxborough over the last several weeks, a series of increasingly contentious meetings highlighted a David and Goliath dynamic between the five members of the town’s Select Board and a host committee working closely with FIFA, the global soccer organization that projects the quadrennial tournament to to generate $11 billion in revenues.

At the last meeting on March 3, two lawyers representing the host committee conveyed a proposal that, in part, guaranteed the Kraft Group would backstop all costs.

Board members made no effort to hide their disbelief and dismay the host committee lawyers did not arrive with essentially a check for security costs that a town with a population of some 18,000 was not equipped to fund.

“I don’t really think you’re hearing us,” said Select Board chair Bill Yukna.

Select Board member Mark Elfman was more direct.

“I find it hard to believe — I’m sorry — that you don’t know after all the discussions that have gone on over the last couple of months exactly what we want,” he said.

Foxborough Police Chief Michael Grace also dismissed the proposal, calling it a “failed strategy.”

Over the weekend, the Kraft Group issued a terse response to what it saw as the select board’s intransigence: “We are deeply disappointed that the town has seemingly reached a conclusion unilaterally without the platform of a public hearing, which is already scheduled for March 17, and would like to understand what the town requires at this stage to get to ‘yes.’ ”

Then, by Wednesday, all the parties got to “yes.”

“We look forward to moving forward together positively,” the statement concluded, “in our shared goals of providing the highest level of public safety for this historic event and delivering a global experience for our region, which will infuse the Commonwealth and Foxborough with an influx of new visitors and associated economic impact.”

The parties also singled out Massachusetts state Senator Paul Feeney, US Congressman Jake Auchincloss, Governor Maura Healey, and Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll for helping to bring about the security plan.

Michael Silverman can be reached at michael.silverman@globe.com.

PITTSBURGH — The head priest and dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in downtown Pittsburgh is facing charges after being accused of stealing more than $1,000 in baseball cards from a Walmart.

The Very Rev. Aidan Smith was arrested Feb. 27 by police just after leaving the Walmart in Economy Borough, just outside Pittsburgh, with 27 packs of baseball cards concealed under his clothing and in a cardboard box, according to court records.

Smith, 42, was charged with receiving stolen property and retail theft.

Police responded to a call from Walmart security, who said Smith was in the store again after having stolen from it in previous days. Police said Walmart security video shows Smith also taking baseball cards each of the four previous days and leaving without paying.

Walmart valued the stolen baseball cards at $1,099.99, police said.

In a message last week to the cathedral’s members, the Right Rev. Ketlen Solak, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, said diocese officials will investigate the situation and follow the church canons that lay out the process for handling clergy misconduct.

“I have spoken with Aidan and assured him of our prayers for him in this difficult time. Please pray for Aidan, for Melanie and their children, for the entire cathedral congregation as we grieve this news, and for everyone involved in this hard situation,” Solak wrote.

Smith had been on administrative leave since late January, Solak’s message said. The diocese did not explain why. Smith’s defense lawyer declined comment.

Hundreds of people signed up to speak out about two controversial bills dealing with vaccines in Connecticut.

Opponents are concerned that the bills will lead to government overreach, while supporters say the bills simply ensure that people who want to get vaccinated still have access.

“I don’t want to be told what to do. It’s my body, my choice,” said Joe Murphy of Meriden.

From people gathered outside the state Legislative Office Building in Hartford to those inside, many voiced their opposition to proposals related to vaccines.

“We just want transparency in government. We want them to listen to what we’re here to say,” said Katerina Bouzakis of Wolcott.

Hundreds of people signed up to speak about the vaccine legislation. Democrats say the plans help make sure people can get the vaccines they want.

“It was very clear from the conversation that we’re having a lot of people who are here have misinformation about what the bill does,” said Sen. Saud Anwar (D–South Windsor).

Under these two bills, state recommendations for immunization would be based on a broader group of experts, not just a CDC advisory group that was overhauled by the Trump Administration and has recently been making changes to vaccines.

Lawmakers say the state proposals would help with insurance coverage, and any updates would still have to go through a regulatory process.

“Passing this law will allow us to maintain our current access and purchasing power,” said Dr. Manisha Juthani, Public Health Commissioner. “I want to be very clear that this bill in no way institutes any new vaccine mandates for children or adults.”

Opponents also worry about how the bills might impact a fight to restore religious exemptions for school vaccinations. And they also pushed back on the decision to cut off the hearing.

“Democracy does not end at 12:15 a.m. this morning. It continues on,” said Sen. Heather Somers (R – Groton).  “I think that this is an absolute gross overreach of the majority party that doesn’t want your voices to be heard.”

Republicans say they will continue to listen to comments even after the official hearing ends.

Democrats argue that, compared to other places in the country, 14 hours is a long time for a public hearing on this issue, and that previously, when it came up here, about 40% of the speakers were from out of state.