Findlay council approves design contracts for downtown riverfront park and pedestrian bridge amid public safety and timing disputes

Findlay City Council on July 15 voted to authorize design work for a proposed downtown riverfront recreation park and a pedestrian bridge, approving two ordinances that appropriate roughly $4 million for park design and $1.5 million for bridge design despite public calls to pause the spending until a November ballot initiative is decided.

The approvals formalize contracts the city will use to proceed with preliminary design and engineering. Council adopted Ordinance 2025-76 (park design) and Ordinance 2025-077 (pedestrian bridge). The bridge ordinance passed with two council members recorded as opposing (Councilmember Niemeyer and Councilmember Frishee); the park ordinance passed with the same two recorded nays. Council President Pro Tem Grant Russell presided over the meeting in the council president’s absence.

Why it matters: the parcels targeted for the park include land with a legacy of industrial use. Speakers and several council members raised questions about environmental contamination, remediation standards and legal liability. The city is pursuing cleanup under Ohio’s Voluntary Action Program with an Ohio EPA–certified consultant (CEC). Opponents urged that the council delay spending until the public votes and until cleanup levels and procurement practices are clarified; supporters said remediation will follow established, risk‑based standards and that the project could catalyze downtown investment.

Council action and votes - Ordinance 2025-76 (design and engineering for downtown recreation area; project 31913700): adopted. Recorded opposition: Councilmember Niemeyer and Councilmember Frishee. Supporters argued design funds are required to pursue grants and private donations. - Ordinance 2025-077 (design and engineering for pedestrian bridge; project 31913700): adopted. Recorded opposition: Councilmember Niemeyer and Councilmember Frishee.

Discussion and technical context City officials and the city’s chosen environmental consultant are pursuing remediation under the Ohio EPA Voluntary Action Program (VAP). That approach uses risk‑based cleanup standards tailored to the proposed future use of a site; the city’s consultant, CEC, was described in public comment as an Ohio EPA–certified remedial firm. In public comment, Jeffrey Fort—an attorney and former environmental practitioner—said, “I think the path taken by the city thus far with its consultant CEC is reasonable and in compliance with the law.” He added that cleanup standards are risk‑based and that very low exposure levels are typically considered when determining appropriate remedies.

Opponents emphasized perceived gaps in transparency and procurement. Public speakers said the pedestrian bridge designer, Rosales Partners, already lists a completed Blanchard River bridge project on its website; speakers called that practice misleading and urged a pause and an investigation. Melissa Humphreys told council: “Either the work was done prior to approval, raising serious questions about procurement and transparency, or the company is misrepresenting its relationship with the city of Findlay.” Petitioners reported gathering signatures to place the park approval on the November ballot; one speaker said the group had about 1,365 signatures.

Public testimony captured a range of views. Supporters framed the park and bridge as economic development tools likely to spur private investment, encourage downtown vitality and help recruit talent. Eric Proctor, a Findlay resident and hospital executive, described benefits he saw from a similar park in Winston‑Salem and said a signature waterfront park could “help to recruit and retain talent.” Opponents voiced health and safety concerns that included references to hexavalent chromium (chromium‑6) in older industrial soils and asked the council to seek a higher cleanup standard or delay design spending until remediation and procurement issues were fully resolved.

Officials’ responses and next steps Mayor and staff representatives said the design funds are necessary to finalize plans that will be used to pursue state infrastructure grants and private fundraising; staff noted that subsequent steps—including final permitting, planning commission review and construction contracts—would require additional council action. City Law Director Rob Feiner (role cited in committee discussion) and the city auditor discussed financial reporting and procurement process options; Law Director Feiner told the council that owning and controlling the property gives the city authority to determine future use and remediation actions.

The council’s votes authorize the city to move forward with design and engineering work. They do not authorize construction funding, nor do they change the remediation process; those matters require later approvals. Supporters said moving into the design phase is needed to “shop” grant and donor prospects; opponents asked the council to “hit pause” until public questions and the initiative petition are resolved.

Provenance: Transcript excerpts documenting the topic begin with developer presentation and project discussion (transcript ~2737–2793) and end with the ordinances’ votes and related public comment wrap‑up (transcript ~6294–6311).

Ending: With council approval of the design contracts, the city will enter a phase of detailed design, grant applications and further environmental work. The park and bridge projects will return to council for any construction appropriations, and petitioners seeking a public vote say they plan to pursue placement of the matter on the November ballot, which could influence the project’s eventual scope and schedule.