After a year of new management in the Town of Oxford Administrative Offices, citizens are beginning to see the differences between practices and policies of the past and present when it comes to transparency with finances, police coverage, leases, and donations to non-profit organizations.
They are seeing the true financial status of their town as well.
This contrast between how the Town of Oxford was run from 2012 to 2025 to how it is run now became clear Tuesday night, February 24, 2026, at the Oxford Commissioners Meeting.
Financial Audit/Processes
The meeting began with a question/answer session by the town's auditor from Wigglesworth, Layton, Moyers & Chance, PC through a virtual connection. Citizens were encouraged to ask questions about the auditor's FY 25 report, which was classified as a "clean" report.
The auditor pointed out that one deficiency is the town being unable to segregate financial duties, the same deficiency that had been noted for the previous 8 years by a different auditor. The deficiency exists because of the small size of the staff available. Whereas in the past this was used as an excuse to let one person write, disseminate, and track all payments and purchases, Town Manager Wahl explained how the process has changed for all town expenditures,
Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter, Youtube
" All of our payments that are coming in are handled by our front desk staff, so we have that process there with that one individual, then we have our accountant, who is a CPA, who reconciles all the payments that are coming in. All department heads review payments, we only have one department head, public works, and then Commissioner Greer is the second signature on all checks. So we have multiple individuals looking at each payment going out." Wahl explained.
We asked, for clarification, how many people see payments for invoices etc. that are going out. Wahl stated, "Three to four" depending on if the payment involved a specific department. She also reminded everyone that all checks and payments are attached to meeting agendas so citizens can review them.
What a difference a year makes. What an even bigger difference three years make.
All financial statements are posted on the town website with meeting minutes, unlike in the past when residents had to request the files at the town office. In fact, when Commissioner Greer asked former town manager Cheryl Lewis to present budget information on a Powerpoint presentation during meetings so citizens could see it, that was never done.
Strange since Lewis supposedly claimed to be an expert in using technology.
The town is now starting to use electronic payments through Shore United Bank, another new practice. This is the preferred method for the State of Maryland when the town pays loans, etc. When asked if those payments would still be reviewed by multiple people, Wahl explained that there will be an "approval path" that can be seen by town staff and commissioners.
Someone in the audience asked if the town is currently set up for more than one person to review electronic payments. Commissioner Greer stated that the town will no longer have just one person making and reviewing payments and that this is being done to prevent mistakes or fraud.
The auditor stated that when you have multiple people reviewing all transactions, not having a segregation of duties as might exist in larger municipalities is not a problem since there are built in safeguards.
These are safeguards that should have been in place since 2012. For some reason, they weren't.
The auditor has full access to the town's files, transactions, etc. according to the town.
Oxford's Current Financial State/FY 27 Budget
The conversation then shifted to the current financial state of the town. In the last Commissioner's meeting, Commission President Greer mentioned that the town currently was approximately $6 million dollars in "debt" due to loans/expenditures for various town infrastructure and stormwater/flooding mitigation projects. The situation is even worse than that. Some of these projects are needed to prevent continuing flooding problems in the town. Also, a stormwater fund must be established which seemed to have been ignored in the past.
Resident Jane McCarthy spoke up, " We were told in the past that we had plenty of money to do anything we wanted. Was there one sudden drop or were we losing that over time?"
McCarthy was probably referring to how the Commissioners and Town Administration spent money in the past and how they presented the financial status of the town to residents.
Since 2012, certain actions /projects have cost the town in actual funds and possible income. Some of these projects came in the form of grants. These grant funds were co-mingled in financial reports with the actual funds the town had on hand. This meant the town could spend grant money on anything they wanted. In fact, there were times when funds from these grants which were designated for certain projects were used for other purposes, such as salaries. Easy to do when no one is paying attention and citizens don't get to see financial reports.
Also, grants may seem like "free money" to the people who get them, but there is always an associated cost that can remain on the books for the grantee for years after the grant is over. Additionally, most grants operate on an 80/20 or 90/10 basis. That means the grantee gets 80 or 90% of the funds but must put up 20 or 10% of the funding as well.
Where Did Some of the Money Go?
Here are just a few of the expenditures that depleted town funds:
- Free Town EV Chargers provided under a grant which has ended. They are now outdated and are being removed. These were costing the town $500-$1000 a month for years after the grant ran out. Now, they are being removed at a one-time cost to the town.
- The Mews Project has taken money from the town's coffers when it could have been a source of income. In March 2021, the town entered into a lease with the Rich Leggett, the owner of the Highland Creamery, to rent the Mews for $1,000 a month until 2050. That's 29 years at $12,000 a year which equals $348,000 back to the taxpayers. The problem is that the town bought the MEWS building for $500,000 and stabilized it for an additional $300,000, for a total cost of $800,000 from Oxford taxpayers who will only get $12,000 a year income from the rental until 2050 when the town will get $120 dollars a year. Not a great return on investment. Despite the fact that the ice cream parlor is an attraction for visitors to the town, this is also another expense that hurt town reserves and continues to do so as the town doesn't earn fair market value on the property. Nothing against Mr. Leggett, he made a very good business deal, and his ice cream is excellent! The excuse at the time of the deal was that no one else wanted to buy the Mews. Sources tell us that is not true.
- The Wastewater Treatment Plant has been a drain on the town budget. What was originally a $9 million dollar grant project ballooned to an $18.2 million dollar grant project by the time it was completed. It's an 18-million-dollar state of the art plant spread over 600 water/sewer hookups. That is $30,333 per hook up! No wonder it’s so expensive. Meanwhile, critical maintenance and updating of the plant were not regularly completed until 2025. This deferred maintenance made costs skyrocket. For example, the sludge the plant creates was supposed to be removed on a regular basis. It wasn't. Now that must be done at a higher cost than if the town had been removing the sludge regularly. Additionally, the plant is oversized and overengineered for such a small town as Oxford.
- Water Meter Replacement on some properties could cost around $400,000-$450,000. This is being financed under the USDA Rural Water Grant which requires a bond by the town of $2,572,000.
- Undercharging Businesses for Water/Sewer: Even worse, it's been discovered that some of the businesses in town have not been charged properly for water/sewer, thus paying less than they should. The town conservatively estimates that this has cost the town about $40,000 a year in lost revenue; revenue that supports maintenance on the Water Treatment plant and infrastructure.
- Inconsistent Collection of Fees: As we reported in an interview with Town Manager Holly Wahl, previous management was inconsistent regarding who they charged and how much they charged for permits, causing permits and assessment fees for projects to be hit or miss. Charging these fees might have depended on who wanted the permit and their relationship with town management. This meant the town probably lost thousands of dollars of income every year. These fees didn't just apply to citizens of the town, but also to utility and other businesses who required support from town staff to complete projects. That has been changed. Now there is a published list of fees and a checklist of permits/approvals that must be completed before projects can be completed.
- Ongoing donations of town funds to non-profits which totaled over $35,000 a year. Some of these non-profits have millions in the bank. Because they call these funds their "rainy day fund" they think this entitles them to donations from TAXPAYER funds. Some of these non-profits also get rental deals on town land such as the $1 dollar a year charged to the Oxford Community Center. (Strangely, the OCC still charges the town around $700 to hold meetings in their building. It may not seem like a lot of money, but it adds up over time.) Several town properties are being "leased" for well below market value and then those organizations demand donations of taxpayer funds.
- Expensive contract with a Uniform Company which the town cannot cancel without incurring a $28,000 fee. This contract was entered into by the previous administration.
- Cost of renovations at the post office. Even though some of this is covered by insurance, it isn't all covered. The Post Office building had previously not been covered by insurance due to either negligence or mistake by former town leaders. Thankfully, the new town manager was able to acquire insurance.
Since the record keeping in the town office was so casual from 2012 to 2023, it is difficult to track where other money went. Other projects such as the controversial Strand Beach project also had a negative impact on town funds and will for a very long time. *
Faulty Financial Organization/Reporting
One of the biggest problems that kept people from realizing Oxford's true financial status was the format of financial organization and reporting. Financial records were not prepared using accepted practices for municipalities. The town didn't produce a profit/loss statement until 2024, after the former town manager retired. General and Enterprise funds, which should always have been separated in the ledger, were not. The separation helps a town know that they have money on hand to provide required services and that the cost of services doesn't out pace funding available. This was not done.
From the current Town Manager's Presentation:
It also helps the town keep a Stormwater Management fund, which they are required to do.
Maryland requires towns, cities, and counties to establish stormwater management programs—and, in practice, stormwater management funds—through a combination of state statutes and regulations. The legal requirements come from state law (Environment Article, Title 4) and state regulations (COMAR 26.17.02), which together mandate that local jurisdictions create, operate, and finance stormwater programs consistent with state standards.
Maryland Environment Article, Title 4, Subtitle 2 — Stormwater Management Act of 1982
COMAR 26.17.02 — Maryland Stormwater Management Regulations
§ 151.067 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND.
What this means is the state requires towns maintain a stormwater management plan, and that plan requires specific funding. We also note how stormwater management is supposed to be funded. It is not a self-supporting fund but must be taken from property taxes and SET ASIDE. This set aside never happened until 2025. The required funding "set aside" cuts down on discretionary funds the town has.
In the past, grants and loans were lumped together with income in the town's finances which created an illusion of wealth that was deceptive. Expenses of the town were sometimes deducted from these accounts even if they had no connection to the grants. These reports were never presented in writing so citizens could see what was happening. Financials were never handed out nor were they posted online in minutes from town meetings.
Imagine posting a loan on your home as "income" and then spending the money as if it is income. That wouldn't work out very well. You would end up bankrupt and homeless very quickly.
The former administration created an illusion of an Oxford with a strong financial standing when that was not reality. The Commissioners who were supposed to monitor finances abdicated their responsibility. Now, the current Commissioners and Administrator have to deal with reality.
As Commissioner Katrina Greer says often in meetings, we have to be good stewards of taxpayers' money.
We've heard some citizens complaining that nothing is being done about stormwater and flooding management. While the Commissioners are currently working on building up the stormwater management fund, they were left holding the empty bag from the previous town manager and Commissioners. Hard to do anything without money. That's why only necessities need to be funded. This may be hard to accept for some in town who now want to blame financial hardship on recently hired and elected officials.
Police Coverage
Another topic of discussion has been Oxford's police coverage. In 2023, the longtime police chief Pat Maxwell was forced into retirement. An NDA currently in place with the town and with Chief Maxwell keeps us from finding out more information about that situation.
Since then, the Oxford Police Department has had a series of missteps, beginning with the hiring of Eric Kelner, whose relaxed form of policing didn't sit well with town residents. After he stepped down, the town appointed Chris Phillips as chief, thinking he would do a better job since he had been in the town longer. Unfortunately, that didn't work out either as Phillips was fired "with cause."
The town then turned to Joe Gamble and the Talbot County Sheriff's Office for help. While many in town would like to keep a town police department, the numbers behind that decision are revealing. The town currently has an MOU with the Sheriff's office for the coverage until the end of June.
When we consider that Oxford had only two full time officers for most of 2025, the truth is alarming. Even if 1 Chief and 1 Officer were patrolling the town full time, the town would only have 19% coverage by law enforcement. With officers as employees, even without LEOPS retirement, the cost would be $205.60 per hour of coverage. With LEOPS the cost would be $255.90.
Now that the town has contracted the Talbot County Sheriff's Office for two deputies to work with the current Oxford officer, the coverage will be 45%. The town will pay $75.00 per hour for coverage.
Quite a savings. This is something the town desperately needs.
Oxford Community Center Donations
The OCC, in their presentation, stated that 87% of the use of their facility is "free use" meaning they don't charge. 15% of their events are paid, ticketed events. The lease of the OCC states that the activities must be for public use and that any sub-let/sub-lease must be approved by the Town Commissioners. This was part of the conditions, supposedly, for a lease of the property the building sits on to be at the cost of $1 a year. This lease was signed in 1980.
The Oxford Community Center again came in front of the Town Commissioners to ask for a donation of TAXPAYER FUNDS. At one point, the OCC was getting $15,000 a year. (That's a lot of money over time, especially when the town needs to put it toward flood management.)
We have always been taught that if you want someone to donate to your cause, you should be nice to them. Oxford taxpayers already provide the OCC with a $1 dollar a year lease, maintenance to their property, and a historical track record of providing large donations. A truly appreciative partner with the Town would recognize that any donor (Town or individual) is not automatically committed to a regular donation. The Town’s financial circumstances have made it clear that we cannot afford to donate. The OCC Board should respect the Town’s position if they want to be a true partner.
As most of us know, when financial reality hits, it's hard to adjust and also hard not to blame the people who are left to clean up the messes of the fiscal irresponsibility of the administration and commissioners of the past.
The bottom line is that transparency is the new way of doing business in Oxford, and sometimes that shows the citizens that they may have been fed a costly illusion for years.
Let's face it, Oxford isn't the only government entity operating on a fiscal illusion.
FY27 Budget Work Session #1 - Presentation
Stream Video - Town Hall Streams
Other Related Stories
Auditor Reiterates Weakness And Conflicts In Oxford Financial Procedures - The Easton Gazette
Town Of Oxford Ignores Seven Years Of Financial Auditor's Concerns - The Easton Gazette
Does Oxford Need To Do A Forensic Audit? - The Easton Gazette
Fear of Transparency: House Of Cards Collapsing In Oxford - The Easton Gazette
Missing Document Suddenly Found In Oxford : Updated 9/29/23 - The Easton Gazette
*The Easton Gazette has done extensive reporting on the Strand Beach "Restoration" Project. We'll be recapping some of that in the coming weeks. If you wish to read articles now, just search "Oxford Strand" in the search bar.
