Town short on funding for Port Street infrastructure project

EASTON — The Easton Town Council learned at Tuesday’s meeting that the town is well short of necessary funds to complete an infrastructure project on Port Street, leading to a lengthy back-and-forth between councilmembers and town employees.

Town Engineer Rick Van Emburgh and Mayor Megan Cook presented Ordinance 828 to the council, which would reallocate four separate amounts of fiscal year 2025 carry forward capital funds.

Two of the proposed reallocations involve removing $1.1 million in funding from the second phase of the Port Street project. The project, which leads down to the Tred Avon River, involves digging trenches and putting conduit pipes underground, running them on the side of the road. It’s part of the town’s efforts to revitalize the Port Street waterfront area and the nearby Easton Point Park.

It has an estimated cost of around $3.1 million.

“The money that we have that was carried forward equals $1.1 million,” Van Emburgh said, “so we’re $2 million short of having the money needed to complete that project.”

The ordinance proposes $862,000 to be reallocated to Easton Woodland Park improvements, $50,000 for accessibility upgrades at the Easton Visitor Center and $225,000 for rails-to-trails work.

That $225,000 comes from American Rescue Plan Act funding, which must be obligated by the end of 2024 and used by the end of 2026.

Tuesday’s discussion honed in on the funds proposed to go towards Woodland Park, a 200-acre property off Oxford Road near Cooke’s Hope. Proposed amenities at the park include a 35-space parking lot, walking trails, a restroom facility and reforestation on 10 acres.

“We have 60% drawings completed to do improvements to the road and the small parking lot for that park,” Van Emburgh said. “ … These funds could be used for that project to bring that project to completion. That’s not saying that we wouldn’t ever do the Port Street project, we just don’t have the funds. We’re just kind of stuck in the middle, where we have some funds but not nearly enough funds to do that project.”

Ward 1 Councilmember Maureen Curry asked if the town is abandoning the Port Street project. Cook said it isn’t, adding that the town can start on the Easton Woodlands project while searching for funding for Port Street.

“By reallocating the just over $800,000, we can actually start getting people to this park and utilize the 200 acres of parkland,” Cook said. The town acquired the woodlands property last year using a $5 million state grant.

COUNCIL CRITICISMCouncil President Frank Gunsallus, along with other councilmembers, questioned why the reallocation proposal wasn’t brought up sooner. “When was it determined that there wasn’t enough for the underground project?” he asked.

“As the project grew, we knew that we just couldn’t afford it,” Cook responded.

“I just ask because we spent several months going through the budget process, and it seems like the perfect kind of thing that should have been discussed,” Gunsallus said. The town passed its FY25 budget in June.

“It was probably overlooked at the time,” Cook said.

Ward 4 Councilmember the Rev. Elmer Davis also asked why the council was not made aware of the insufficient funding for the Port Street project until Tuesday. Van Emburgh said carry forward funding is a “piece of the budget (that) needs to get more attention.” He added, “I know we got to do better on the next round.”

Ward 3 Councilmember David Montgomery took issue with the fact that the Woodland Park project was placed above “high priority items” that the town wasn’t able to fund last year.

Cook said moving the money to Woodland Park is “keeping in the spirit of pedestrian access and parkland,” since the original “theory behind the funds was to extend pedestrian access to Easton Point Park.”

“And that’s more important to you than continuing to fix our stormwater management system where it’s failing or acquisitions that we know we’re going to have to make for failing equipment?” Montgomery asked the mayor.

“Not necessarily, but this is the start of the conversation,” Cook answered. “That’s why it’s in the ordinance.”

Montgomery pushed for a “budgetary argument” of why the money was proposed to fund Woodland Park improvements compared to other projects. “No rationale for that?” he asked.

“No rationale then,” Cook said.

Councilmembers pushed for a workshop on the carry forward fund ordinance, which Cook agreed to. They asked for the workshop to include a list of potential projects in addition to the Easton Woodland Park that could use funding, along with a breakdown of American Rescue Plan Act funds that must be obligated by the end of December.

“Please bring your budgetary argument or strategy,” Davis said during the end of the discussion. A workshop is scheduled for Sept. 16 before the Town Council’s next meeting.