Whenever we challenge an opinion that we think is completely wrong, we always search for full disclosure of who the person is who wrote the opinion and their possible motives for thinking the way they do.
In the case of a "Letter to the Editor" by Oxford resident Mickey Terrone in the Star Democrat dated May 8, 2026, we looked for his full disclosure regarding conflicts of interest that may lead him to his opinions/biases. He gave none.
Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter, Youtube
So, we'll provide it for you.
Mr. Terrone is the husband of former appointed Town Commissioner Susan Delean Botkin. For clarity's sake, it's important to know that Delean-Botkin was never elected to be an Oxford Commissioner, she was appointed in what has to be the biggest "end around" of an election in Oxford's history. Botkin had lost by a huge margin when she ran against Katrina Greer. But, Botkin's supporters were desperate to make sure she was seated on the Commissioners.
Commissioner Brian Wells timed resignation from his seat immediately after Botkin lost, thus allowing the sitting commissioners at the time, Jimmy Jaramillo and Tom Costigan, to appoint Botkin and swear her in before the actual winner of the election (Greer) was sworn in. It was also prior to a critical vote on a referendum that would change the town charter to require special elections to replace commissioners who resign or leave their terms early.
As one Botkin supporter said regarding the possibility of Greer winning the election over Botkin, he and his buddies had a "work around" for getting Botkin in. They just appointed the loser, Botkin.
Oxford Passes Commissioner Replacement Amendment - The Easton Gazette
Oxford Commissioners: The Rubber Stamp Era Has Ended - The Easton Gazette
The second piece of information that everyone should know is that the former Oxford Town Manager, Cheryl Lewis, now works in Botkin's medical practice as "office manager."
These are both facts that Mr. Terrone should have revealed so people would understand the context of his opposition to what the current Oxford Commissioners and Town Manager are facing as they manage a town budget that was driven off the cliff by the former administration.
Town Expenditures: Donations Vs. Audits
With that out of the way, let's tackle some of Mr. Terrone's "facts." The first problem he cites with the budget is that the town eliminated donations to the Oxford Community Center and Museum while using $80,000 to conduct a town financial audit. He seems to think that donating to local non-profits which have extensive reserves is more important than assuring that the town has a mandatory audit of municipal finances. That's strange logic. The town has had yearly audits for over a decade. The difference now is that, unlike before, the town is not using the same auditing firm to do the work every year. Changing auditors is considered a good practice:
Is Your Government Changing Auditors? Don’t Skip These 5 Steps
It's also important to note the current auditor hired by the town did more extensive research and reports than a prior contractor whose reports appeared to be mostly a "cut and paste" of prior year's audits. Could it be that nothing ever changed in those yearly audits? Possibly.
In the article referenced above, the authors state, "Switching auditors is more than a change in paperwork — it’s a strategic move that reflects your values and commitment to sound governance. When done thoughtfully, the transition can bring fresh insights, stronger internal controls, and more effective use of public resources."
And, let's not forget that an auditor hired repeatedly year after year may have a comfort level and relationship with the very people they are auditing. This might mean that problem areas could be minimized in order to keep the contract and protect people.
Terrone wonders if the OCC is "richer than the town." He wonders if the Community Center sent "bills" to the town.
In a way, they did. The town of Oxford was using its maintenance crew to mow and landscape the OCC's property. Not only that, but the non-profit was using town crews to grade the parking lot they use for OCC events. This while part of the stated purpose of the OCC was:
THE FACILITY IS OPERATED TO PROMOTE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES, CONCERTS, AND THEATRICAL ACTIVITIES TO BENEFIT THE GREATER OXFORD, MARYLAND COMMUNITY. PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES RELATED TO CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE HELD AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER ANDALSO TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING AND GROUNDS. (From the OCC mission statement on financial documents.)
If part of their mission is to preserve the building and grounds, then shouldn't their funds , and not town money, cover that?
Secondly, in the articles below, we showed the financial status of both the OCC and the Oxford Museum at the end of 2023 and 2024: (2025 is not yet available)
Here are the latest statements available for the Oxford Community Center:
Oxford Community Center Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
Here is a summary of the OCC's finances:
If the OCC is "richer than the town" it's because Oxford taxpayers have not only provided them with monetary support but in-kind services as well. It's time the OCC paid their own way.
Did we mention the fact that the OCC pays $1 a year rent on the town owned land the building sits on?
General Operating Fund Facts
Terrone writes: "I believe the town has 100% of its projected 2026-27 expenses in the bank accounts as of today including the projected dipping into reserve funds for about $150,000 for 2026-2027. This is unusual for communities of Oxford’s size. A crisis would arise if there was 40 to 50% of general operating fund balance going into a new fiscal year. Oxford has $1.2 million in general operating reserves and $5.7 million total reserves."
Mickey, where do you get your numbers? The amount of $5.7 million in reserves appears to exist only in your mind. And, for accuracies sake, the year the previous Town Manager left was when the town took out $140,345 from the town's reserves:
Page 15 of the required Town of Oxford annual audit shows the town has a fund balance at $1,618,527 in the general fund. The same audit on page 18 shows the operating loss of the water and sewer facility if you account for depreciation. By contract with the USDA Rural and by State Law regarding the Stormwater Fund, any cash in “Enterprise” accounts must stay within those accounts. These accounts may not be raided to use for other expenses.
{f0b013d9-c9f1-4ca2-b576-4a6c4d6cf4eb}.xls
Did he include grant funds and loans? Possibly. But that's not how it works.
Water Meter Problem
Mr. Terrone opines about the fact that a "considerable number" of the town's water meters are currently broken. He may want to question both his wife and former town manager Cheryl Lewis as to why this is the case. Terrone claims that the replacement of these meters has "floundered" for three years due to internal questions about which meters work best. He speaks about a grant the town received to replace those meters and whether it still exists. While the receipt of that grant in 2018 is true, the dynamics surrounding water meter replacement is quite different than he portrays it.
The replacement of water meters should have been done in an ongoing manner going back to 2018. Former Town Maintenance staff and Town Commissioners mentioned broken meters in meetings prior to and during that time. In 2018 the grant to do the replacement meters was accepted but it is just being implemented NOW. The project could cost Oxford 10 times what it would have cost if we simply set aside 50k every year since 2018 to replace bad meters as needed.
Why weren't they replaced from 2018 going forward? Why was it left to a Town Manager who has been here a little less than a year and a half to suddenly do these replacements? The grant still exists and has been in place for 8 years. The replacements will be done NOW by town staff to save outrageous fees from subcontractors that were going to charge around $800,000 just for installation.
I don't remember Mr. Terrone being concerned about faulty water meters for all those years. He is now because, as he says, "We need to know what continues to hold up the meter replacements after two years because town billings may be significantly inaccurate for everyone concerned – even as commissioners fret over how to increase billable rates."
However, he missed some important points. First, the meters have been ordered and are here, ready to be installed by town staff to assure accurate billing. From the February 24, 2026 Town Manager's Report at the Town Meeting:
Metering: Commissioners approved the replacement of water meters throughout Town through
the USDA Water Improvement Project. Meters are purchased and an RFP was approved by
USDA for the installation of the water meters and the inspection of all lines on both the private
and public side. The inspection will inventory line material. The inventory is required by the
federal government in response to legislation that requires the Town to report on lead-based materials.
Report of the Town Manager (February 24, 2026) PG# 1
We can't forget that the USDA requires this job to be advertised via a RFP, which was done. Because the bids to do the work were so high the town has decided that replacements will be done by town staff.
But, maybe he should go back and ask his wife and the former town manager why this wasn't done earlier. What held up the installation?
Second, as Commissioners try to alleviate the gap between the cost of the wastewater treatment plant and how to cover it, it has been discovered that only 40% of the water used from the plant was actually billed to customers. Some commercial (and even residential) users were seriously underbilled even though they used sometimes 100,000 to 400,000 gallons of water a quarter. The Commissioners' dilemma is how to bridge that usage/billing gap without placing an unmanageable financial burden on anyone.
Let's talk about the wastewater treatment plant maintenance. Terrone asks: "The urgency of wastewater treatment facilities needs to be addressed. The residents need to know specifically what is the immediate financial need. Is it to drain every bit of the sludge or some of it, and what does that entail? How much will it cost and to what degree/standard does the “draining” require? No specifics have been mentioned. Who has mandated it and when must it be done?"
I wonder where Mickey has been during town meetings. This topic has been discussed multiple times by Town Manager Holly Wahl and the Commissioners. We found information about this needed maintenance in town meeting minutes from 2/24, 3/10, 3/24, 4/14. Here is one example:
Infiltration and Inflow (I&I): Public works staff are monitoring I&I coming to the treatment
plant, which includes stormwater / floodwater inflowing directly to the wastewater system. I&I
can occur through flood and rainwater entering manholes, maintenance / repair issues with
private service laterals (broken laterals running from the house to the main sewer, improper
connections, joint separation), and potentially illegal connections (roof downspouts tied into the
sanitary sewer, yard drains, sump pumps). These spikes of I&I greatly impact plant operations,
significantly increasing costs, staff response time and can lead to permit violations for the Town.
If Mr. Terrone was at meetings, he certainly could have asked his questions about the plant's maintenance and had them answered. We don't remember him doing that.
This is deferred maintenance that should have been done but was ignored by the previous town manager and public works supervisor. As for "who has mandated it and when must it be done" here is that information:
Across these sections, Maryland law requires wastewater treatment plants to:
- Maintain all treatment works in good working order
- Operate facilities to meet effluent limits and water quality standards
- Maintain certified operators
- Implement pretreatment programs when required
- Conduct routine monitoring and reporting
- Maintain records and allow inspections
- Prevent bypasses except under emergency conditions
- Maintain sludge management in compliance with COMAR 26.04.06 (separate sludge rules)
Here is a link to some of the rules:
26.08.04 | Library of Maryland Regulations
Oxford must comply with those rules as well as Federal Rules.
Federal Law: Requirements for Maintaining Sewage Treatment Plants
Clean Water Act (CWA) – Core Operating Requirements
The Clean Water Act requires all wastewater treatment plants (publicly owned treatment works, or POTWs) to operate under an NPDES permit, which governs:
- Effluent limits (BOD, TSS, nutrients, bacteria)
- Monitoring and sampling frequency
- Reporting (Discharge Monitoring Reports)
- Operation & maintenance (O&M) standards
- Sludge handling and disposal requirements
EPA’s authority for sludge management comes from CWA §405, which requires EPA to set pollutant limits, management practices, and monitoring rules for sewage sludge
Here is a link to some of the Federal laws regarding sludge removal:
eCFR :: 40 CFR Part 503 -- Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge
What are the penalties for violating either State or Federal laws?
Federal:
Notice of Violation (NOV) Requires corrective action.
Administrative Orders Legally binding orders requiring repairs, upgrades, or operational changes.
Civil Penalties EPA routinely seeks penalties for exceeding pollutant limits or failing to maintain treatment systems. Penalties are calculated using national CWA penalty policies.
Federal Lawsuits (DOJ) DOJ prosecutes municipalities for chronic or severe violations, especially when discharges harm waterways or public health. Enforcement actions often require:
- Facility upgrades
- New O&M programs
- Long‑term compliance schedules
- Millions in civil penalties
There can also be criminal prosecution for falsifying reports, intentional bypasses, or knowing violations
State Penalties are similar. From the Maryland Department of Environment:
The majority of the Department’s enforcement and compliance activities involve working with permit holders to correct any minor deficiencies with no formal enforcement action taken or financial penalties assessed. This assistance may be the most efficient method to achieve compliance. If an inspection reveals a significant violation, or if minor violations continue to recur and become a significant problem, then enhanced actions are warranted. Such action may take the form of penalties, corrective orders, the filing of injunctions and, in some cases, criminal sanctions.
MDE Enforcement and Compliance Site
It's strange that again Terrone doesn't know all that considering his wife was an appointed Commissioner and the former town manager works for her.
Oxford's Debt Situation
Terrone claims that the town's debt situation is "not accurate." In other words, he thinks the town and the current Commissioners Bell, Greer and Donovan are lying about it. Again, one look at the Town Manager's Presentation will show you the numbers. But, let's take a look at Oxford's debt specifically:
This information has been shared at multiple town meetings and listening sessions.
Grants
We have said this in previous articles that you cannot run a municipality on grants. First, there are no grants that are general to "operations." The simple reason is that any grant giving entity doesn't want to give money to a town that cannot cover its own basic operations. Second, grants come from specific federal and state agencies, not generic "Santa Claus" agencies who just give money away.
There are always costs associated with grants and these costs can be astronomical depending on the amount of the grant.
Grants are generally an 80%-20% split between the grantor and the grantee, meaning that the entity getting the grant has to cover at least 20% of the cost. Rarely it is a 90%-10% split. Small towns like Oxford don't have the cash on hand to cover those percentages and therefore have to apply for loans to cover it. In fact, most grantors won't give you money unless you successfully apply for and get a loan to cover your obligation.
Makes sense. For example, why would a federal agency give a town a million dollar grant on an 80%-20% split if the town can't even get a loan from a financial institution to cover the town's $200,000 share? Again, we are surprised that Mr. Terrone isn't aware of that fact.
Terrone goes on to complain that other groups are getting loans while Oxford is not.
For the record, the State of Maryland has budgeted and approved 2027 grants to Talbot County totaling over $42 million. This includes $20 million for our new Medical Center, $12.5 million for Easton’s Enhanced Nutrient Removal Wastewater (MDE), $2.1 million by MDE for Trappe’s Wastewater Treatment Plant Enhanced Nutrient Removal Upgrades (MDE), $2.5 million for Easton Crossing Development (DHCD & MISC), $1.75 million for Easton Middle School (IAC) and nine more grants totaling $3.4 million to capital improvement projects in Talbot County. Nothing for Oxford. Was any grant request submitted?
Let's run down these grants and show why how they would not apply to Oxford:
- Medical Center Grant - Hospital- Plans For New Regional Medical Center in Easton Advance With Governor’s Budget Announcement | UM Shore Regional Health
- Easton Crossing Development Grant - Housing and Community Development - news.maryland.gov/dhcd/2025/01/06/maryland-department-of-housing-and-community-development-announces-1-75-million-in-community-investment-tax-credit-awards/?utm_source=copilot.com
- Easton Middle School - While this is listed, we cannot find any evidence of the Easton Middle School getting and IAC grants. Even if it existed, it would be under "education."
- Here is a list of the other $3.4 million in grants given to Talbot County:
- Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum – St. Michaels
- Amount: $750,000 Purpose: Facility improvements and campus upgrades Program: Legislative Bond Initiative (LBI)
- Waterfowl Festival Building – Easton
- Amount: $500,000 Purpose: Restoration and capital improvements Program: LBI
- Easton Armory Renovation – Easton
- Amount: $500,000 Purpose: Renovation of historic armory for community use Program: MISC
- Tilghman Volunteer Fire Company – Tilghman Island
- Amount: $300,000 Purpose: Facility upgrades and equipment Program: LBI
- St. Michaels Community Center – St. Michaels
- Amount: $250,000 Purpose: Renovation and expansion Program: LBI
- Phillips Wharf Environmental Center – Wittman
- Amount: $250,000 Purpose: Marine science and education facility improvements Program: LBI
- Trappe Volunteer Fire Company – Trappe
- Amount: $250,000 Purpose: Capital improvements and equipment Program: LBI
- Cordova Volunteer Fire Company – Cordova
- Amount: $300,000 Purpose: Facility and equipment upgrades Program: LBI
- Easton Family YMCA – Easton
- Amount: $300,000 Purpose: Capital improvements to community recreation facilities Program: LBI
We don't recall Oxford needing anything listed in these grants. Seems like this citation by Terrone is, as one Oxford resident likes to say, "comparing apples and oranges."
The two grants listed by MDE are explained here:
The Easton Grant is one that has been ongoing to Easton as a BONUS since they have maintained their wastewater treatment levels as some of the highest in the state. They get this grant every year. Why doesn't Oxford get this grant? Well, remember, maintenance on the Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant has been deferred for many years so we likely don't get a "bonus" from MDE. Easton has been getting this grant since 2007.
Easton Utilities Wastewater Facility Receives Additional Funding – Easton Utilities
The Trappe Grant is to modernize their facilities which haven't been upgraded for approximately 27 years. Here is a link to the story about their initial grant in 1997. Parris Glendenning was the Governor then:
Town of Trappe Wastewater Treatment Plant Receives Additional State Assistance
In a recent budget work session, Town Manager Holly Wahl answered the question about grant applications. She stated that the town has applied for grants, such as the NOAA grant they recently received, but there are not grants to fund any town's operating costs and that grants in general are not as available.
And residents of Oxford should also remember that when the former Town Manager went looking for a "grant" to do something, we got the awful Strand "restoration." A grant that found a non-existent problem. And now we are stuck with the result. All grants are not created equal.
Where Has He Been?
The closing paragraph of Mr. Terrone's unfounded claims are the most easily responded to.
I doubt Oxford has any financial situation that equates to a very serious issue for 2026-27.
This is delusion created by over a decade of the town downplaying and ignoring its financial problems. While it probably made many residents feel good about the financial status of the town, it was a house of cards created by either sloppy bookkeeping, corruption, or all of the above. One resident said it best at one of the meetings, "We were told we had enough money to do whatever we wanted." She was speaking of the illusion the former town management promoted during meetings.
It was an illusion easily maintained since there was never an in-depth reporting of profit/loss presented to commissioners and citizens. Audit reports until the last year or so were available to taxpayers only upon request and a visit to the town office. Any other information such as salaries and specific expenditures and contracts were only available via public information act requests.
Sadly, some of the people the town elected participated, willingly or unwillingly, in this charade. I believe the phrases "voodoo economics" or "smoke and mirrors" would apply best.
Terrone continues:
I believe the removal of funding our town police force (in cooperation with the County Sheriff) and cultural organizations is wholly unnecessary and should be reinstated in the budget. Some questions need to be addressed publicly in an upcoming meeting. If a serious situation is perceived by the commissioners, then a discussion of the specific goals of belt tightening be clarified for the taxpayers.
I guess the ongoing schedule of budget and listening sessions were not enough to show the problems for the town and possible solutions. Either that or the facts fell on the deaf ears of those who know better but don't want to admit it. These sessions provided a great deal of clarity for those who attended.
Here are some of the sessions already completed and in the future:
Once a highly paid town employee said this regarding the people of Oxford, " I can tell these people anything and they will believe me." Was she right?
Not for most of us.
Terrone continues:
What is the goal for general operating fund balance? What is the plan for gradual rate increases in rates for water/sewer and/or property taxes? The public should get a detailed review of the specific goals and explanations of the water/sewer management tasks, costs and time frames.
Again, unless he has been living under a rock, how could he not know the answers to these questions? For one, the goal is to get the town's budget BALANCED as is required in the Town Charter and State Law:
Maryland’s Balanced‑Budget Requirement for Municipalities
The controlling statute: Local Government Article § 5‑205
Maryland’s Local Government Article requires every municipality to adopt an annual budget by ordinance and—critically—prohibits appropriations from exceeding available revenues.
The question of the purpose was answered in less than thirty seconds. As for the gradual increases, these are issues being debated publicly now.
And finally, his closing which is the most unfounded point of all:
We should absolutely not act to implement any substantive changes in our traditional town activities without a comprehensive review of these critical questions.
These Commissioners and Town Manager have been doing the most extensive comprehensive budget reviews we have ever had. They have been transparent and open to listening to people, even when some of the people suggest "out of the box" solutions that are either ridiculous or a violation of the town charter. They have listened to people who have lived here for decades or even just a few years with the same consideration and respect. They have been open to hearing from businesses and organizations in the town with respect to their needs as well.
Will they have to raise taxes? Possibly. Will the solutions to Oxford's real financial problems be easy? No. But the first part of solving a problem is acknowledging there IS a problem and then finding a way to solve it while considering impact on the residents of the town, in particular those who are long term residents and/or elderly and on limited income. We now have leadership willing to tackle these difficult issues.
The solution won't be easy for the Commissioners and the Town Manager. But, on the way out of a recent meeting, one person expressed their admiration for these Commissioners and the Town Manager for their willingness to give citizens the information and work the problems out in public. " I am very impressed," he said.
Oxford isn't Mayberry as much as we would like it to be. We can't go back to the Oxford of 50 years ago (or more). What we can do is make it the best version of Oxford now and in the future. And that means tightening our expenses, prioritizing town services carefully and honestly, and being realistic. I'm not sure which "traditional town activities" Terrone mentions will have to be changed or not implemented.
We still held Oxford Day. We will still have July 4th Fireworks. We will still have the lit Dock Christmas Trees in December. We will all still be good neighbors to each other.
If he is referring to having a four officer town police department, we haven't had that for a while. Even when Chief Maxwell was "retired" in 2023, we only had two officers because the town wouldn't give permission for him to hire a third officer.
It might have been too expensive then and it certainly is now.
It's not a dilemma just for Oxford. Other small towns across the Eastern Shore and the rest of Maryland are facing the same issues, problems, and solutions.
For some reason, Mr. Terrone doesn't know or want to address that. Does he KNOW most of what he said is incorrect? Is he pretending he wants to cover his ears and not hear the facts? Or does he want to create a truly false picture for political purposes?
Link to Mr. Terrone's Letter to the Editor:
stardem.com https://www.stardem.com/opinion/columns/opinion-oxfords-budget-issues-require-comprehensive-review/article_24778324-0824-4959-84a6-d4ddecba6bef.html
Disclosure: The author of this article has been a resident of Oxford since 1975 and whose husband was raised here. Her children were raised here. She loves Oxford and wants the problems of the past dealt with logically, fairly, and in the best interest of the town and its citizens. She has reported on the events in Oxford since 2020.
