In a workshop where Deep Branch Park, planned and approved by previous council over three years ago, the same three residents who have been opposed to the park spoke against it moving forward during the public comment portion of the meeting. One was Annette Billings who owns property around the park but does not live near where it would be constructed.
“I keep hearing people need things to do out there, well there are plenty of things they can do. There’s a big open space of land that joins up to those four developments,” Billings said. “They could just sit and look out their windows and watch their kids play in that big open field by the hospital.”
Billings continued, telling council she has offered to buy the land from the city, which was sold to them by Billings’ brother in 2021, but claimed the city “did not want to seem to jump on that.” She also stated that the “word on the street” was that she wanted to develop the property, pointing out she had not done so. She ended her comment with a threat to council.
“I will tell you this, if a park goes in, something stinky is going to come in on my side,” Billings said. “And nobody is going to want to play pickleball or basketball or anything there and the rest of the neighborhood will like it either. That is what you have made me come to.”
Julie Morris, who also does not live near where the park is planned, suggested using the money designated for the park to lower utility bills or hire more behavioral specialists. She did point out that people in the recent POLCO survey requested health and wellness options as one of their top requests, admitting that pickleball would meet that request, but that people also asked for an indoor recreation area. Morris felt bringing a YMCA to Milford would be better than a park.
The one person who spoke in favor of the park who lives in the area where it would be constructed, Tom Chilton, pointed out that it was necessary to think 10 years down the road.
“First, I would absolutely hate to see that property ever sold to anyone other than keeping it,” Chilton said. “Of course, someone wants to buy it considering the property values have gone up significantly in the past three or four years. But if that happens, it will be more housing down the road.”
Parking was another concern expressed and Chilton pointed out that the plan called for 97 parking spaces.
“I have seen probably over 100 people at the golf course and Big Oyster, and they seem to have no problem,” Chilton said. “I doubt you will ever have 97 cars at the park. I have said this a number of times, we really need a picnic area for people, those who live in apartments, those who live in some of those developments. Where do they go to have a picnic? If family comes in from out of town, they need a place with a barbecue, a picnic place and covering to sit under.”
The pickleball and basketball courts were another needed amenity in the area, Chilton said.
“And the homeless. The homeless are never going to walk to that park,” Chilton said. “I work with Code Purple and the fact that people thought the homeless would walk to the park a few weeks ago drove me nuts. Another comment was to use the Little League field for travel ball. That will not happen because the fields are too small.”
When presenting the information council requested at a previous meeting, Parks and Recreation Director Brad Dennehy uncharacteristically showed his frustration as he explained that not building the park could have expensive legal ramifications.
“I have worked for this city under five different city managers, in different roles,” Dennehy said. “My point is that I work for the city manager, but I serve the Mayor and Council, so whatever you guys decide to do, I will gladly do. I am someone who moved to this town, bought a couple houses, raised my kids here. So if you want to build a park, I will build a park. If you don’t, I won’t. But I don’t want to waste anymore of your time or taxpayer money on this if we are not moving forward.”
Dennehy provided many documents to council which outlined the funding the city had received toward the park. Including the grants received to purchase the property for $555,926 in 2021, the city has received $837.500 in funding to cover the cost of the design and construction of Deep Creek Park.
“The Delaware Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund Outdoor Parks and Trails Program, known as ORPT, has language that I think is important for council to hear,” Dennehy said. “It reads “the Grantee, that is the city, agrees that the lands acquired or developed with ORPT Program assistance shall remain in public outdoor recreation or conservation uses in perpetuity and shall not be converted for other uses.”
That clause forbids the city from selling the property to developers or others who may choose to have the land developed in the future and that requirement is in perpetuity. In addition, the city has expended approximately $80,000 in design costs, all approved by council before the park became controversial. Councilwoman Lori Connor asked if the language in the grant, which stated it was to “construct the entryway, parking lot playground and related improvements,” meant that if the city did not do that, the money would have to be paid back. Dennehy respectfully asked to come back to that question.
“We’ve been awarded 24 different grants from ORPT since 1998 in the amount of $2.2 million. We have a history of applying for and getting grants for a total we have invested in $6.38 million in park projects in Milford,” Dennehy said. “To be awarded a grant, you have to have a proclamation from council and an agreement signed by the mayor and the Secretary of DNREC, so this is a binding document. So, this was not Brad Dennehy deciding to build a park. This was at the direction of the mayor and council.”
Dennehy also explained that if the decision was not to move forward with the park, there would need to be legal advice obtained as the land cannot be used for anything else without written approval from the Delaware General Assembly. This would mean finding a legislator willing to allow the city to convert the use of the land from parkland to something else.
“Now, one of the things I was asked was to determine what this would cost,” Dennehy said. “Like all park’s projects, we break them down in phases. The first would be to put in the entrance and parking lot. It is mostly preparing the land, adding sidewalks and stone trails. We want a restroom out there so we need to tap into the water line, but the bathroom, playground and pavilion would be in phase two. The last phase would add the pickleball and basketball courts.”
The total estimated cost for the entire project, which could take up to five years to complete, and for which Dennehy would still apply for grant funding was $3.4 million. The first phase, which already has around $750,000 in funding would be $1,4 million with phase two costing $513,000 and phase three $973,470.
Connor reiterated her question, asking if just leaving the land as greenspace met the requirements of the ORPT grant. Dennehy stated that it would be a question for the solicitor who was not in attendance. Dennehy pointed out that there were many checks and balances in grant funding so he would have to prove the grant money was spent in the way it was intended.
“Milford has a very good reputation when it comes to how we manage grant funding,” Dennehy said. “If this is not a project you want to see moving forward, let’s not tarnish my name and all your names, more importantly the City of Milford’s name by not fulfilling this project. If you want to move forward, let’s get it done. I know you cannot decide anything tonight, but you can probably feel my frustration a little bit. You guys are elected officials, you are elected by the people because you chose to be there. When my name gets run through the mud as it has been recently, that is not fair to me as an employee.”
Several council members told Dennehy they appreciated what he had done for the city with Connor telling him she understands it feels like they have been beating him up recently. Connor asked if it was typical to seek grant funding without knowing the final cost of a project.
“We did in this case because portions of the grant could be used to purchase the property and use it for some of the development,” Dennehy said. “I think this may be the first time we have used that type of funding to purchase property.”
Councilman Jason James pointed out that the scope of this project had changed a little bit, and he would like to consider some type of indoor recreation.”
“Well Bryan Shupe and Dave Wilson have said “just tell us what you want to do,” so they will not give pushback if we change direction,” Mayor Todd Culotta said.
James pointed out that a verbal conversation is not binding.
“Just because they say things does not mean that will happen,” James said. “This money has been allotted and we have no idea if they will allow us to shift it to, say the Armory, or something else.”
Dennehy said that the next step was an agreement for $25,000 that would have to be ratified on May 27.
“The thing that I am most concerned about is that I do not want to see the city set a precedent by accepting grant monies and then not following through on obligations that could jeopardize the city going forward in other projects that require grant funding,” Councilwoman Nadia Zychal said. “It would tarnish our so far stellar reputation in receiving grants going forward and finishing projects to completion.”
Culotta stated that there was no reason council had to commit to the project because it was approved before now that the price has been established. Zychal pointed out that Culotta had made his feelings clear in the court of public opinion that he was against this project even before he took office as mayor.
“Previous council has already made decisions,” Zychal said. “There has been a tremendous amount of resources, time and effort and money, the work of staff, to put this together in what was a good faith, established project two years ago. If we hand this money back to state agencies, I fear our reputation will be tarnished.”
Zychal is correct regarding the approval of previous council who held multiple public hearings on the park plan, including a change to the Comprehensive Plan that would make the property greenspace in 2021. No one spoke out against the park during those hearings, leading council to vote to move forward with the plans and authorizing Dennehy to seek grant funding.
Councilman Danny Perez, who just took office last week, wondered if there was another area where the city could place a park that would not take five years to construct. Councilman Dan Marabello stated that had Gary Emory, the former Parks and Recreation Director, been given five years to complete projects, the Riverwalk would never have been completed as it took 30 years. He explained to Perez that the job of council was to think long term for projects of this magnitude.
“We purchased Goat Island in 1974 and that was the last portion of the Riverwalk to get completed,” Dennehy said. “Our track record with grants indicates we will continue to be successful to get large portions of the project covered over the next five years.”
Council will make a decision on Deep Creek Park at a regular council meeting in late May.
