Oxford’s long-running debate over flooding and resilience returned in force as commissioners moved ahead with a proposed $512,511 stormwater project at the Strand, despite residents questioning its cost, design and relationship to the town’s larger effort to address sea-level rise.
The immediate action was relatively narrow. Commissioners approved a letter supporting the town’s application for $300,000 from the Maryland Department of the Environment. Town Manager Holly Wahl said the construction contract itself would return to commissioners for consideration once the state funding is secured. Approximately another $200,000 could come from remaining federal stormwater funds, including ARPA-related money that must be used by the end of the year.
But the public discussion exposed a much larger disagreement over what Oxford should do next.
Oxford resident Bob Burkner challenged the scale of the project, saying residents working with engineers and an asphalt contractor had previously discussed a much simpler approach costing roughly $50,000. He questioned why the town should instead pursue a project costing more than $500,000 and including underground drainage, curbing, a sidewalk and a bioswale.
“We didn’t need a sidewalk. We didn’t want underground drains. We didn’t really want a curb. We didn’t really want a bioswale in the middle of the parking lot,” Burkner said.
Town officials, however, argued that the two proposals were not financially or technically interchangeable.
The state and federal money available for the Strand project comes with engineering, permitting and stormwater-management requirements. Commissioners said those funds could not simply be applied to a less expensive road-repair alternative. Pursuing the citizens’ approach would therefore require Oxford to use its own money for a proposal the town engineer had already concluded would not adequately solve the drainage problem.
Wayne A. Newton, the professional engineer working with the town, told residents that their proposal had been reviewed several times and that he disagreed with it. “I believe what we put forth is in accordance with the code. I believe it’s in accordance with the grant requirements,” Newton said.
Commission President Katrina Greer also emphasized that Oxford does not have the cash available to simply substitute town funding for the grants. Giving up the state and federal money, she said, would mean either finding local money the town does not currently have or postponing the project.
That timing is central to the commissioners’ position. The available ARPA funding expires at the end of the year, leaving Oxford with a choice between trying to complete the engineered project now with outside funding or delaying action while pursuing a much broader response to sea-level rise for which no comparable funding has yet been identified.
Several residents favored the broader approach. Ken Blythe argued that Oxford should be thinking beyond stormwater drainage and addressing tidal flooding and sea-level rise at the same time. Later in the meeting, he characterized the town’s decision as directing resources toward stormwater instead of broader flood protection.
Greer rejected the idea that the present project was intended to solve Oxford’s entire resilience problem.
“It does not address sea level rise comprehensively, but it’s a start,” she said. “Why would we give up five hundred twenty thousand of grant money to do a project that is unproven with our own money that we don’t have?”
In other words, the dispute is not simply over whether Oxford should address sea-level rise. The more immediate question is whether the town should use grant money available now for a fully engineered stormwater project or allow much of that funding to expire while beginning work on a larger and potentially far more expensive resilience strategy that has not yet been designed or funded.
A separate issue surfaced when Easton attorney Ryan D. Showalter spoke on behalf of Robert “Mac” Sommerlatte and Christine Maynard. Showalter told commissioners that, based on his understanding of the MDE funding, the town would be changing the scope of an earlier resilience grant and directing money away from work associated with his clients’ property.
“I just like to make sure the record is consistent and reflects that this is a decision by the commissioners to change the scope of work,” Showalter said.
That assertion was not resolved during the meeting and would require examination of the underlying MDE grant documents and project agreements before determining whether funding has in fact been redirected.
Despite the objections, commissioners unanimously approved the letter supporting the state grant application. The actual construction contract will return for consideration if the MDE funding is secured.
