Members of an advisory board to the city manager voted to encourage staff to advance preliminary design and pursue grant funding for a Lions Park shoreline restoration after reviewing a high-level study from SmithGroup. The presentation described three conceptual options for the Sandusky Bay shoreline at Lions Park, with estimated costs ranging from about $600,000 for minimal beach nourishment to about $2.2 million for a multi-phased design that includes offshore “mini-islands,” wetlands and a pedestrian walkway.

The study, delivered to the board by city staff and SmithGroup consultants, evaluated historical structures and prior reports and identified erosion, trapped sediment and local stormwater outfalls as primary drivers of poor water quality and shoreline instability. “This is just a high-level outlook,” the presenter told the board, emphasizing that further design, community engagement and permitting would be required before any project moved to construction.

Why it matters: the concepts combine public-access improvements with ecological habitat creation aimed at reducing turbidity and improving water quality. The study notes prior technical work — including a 1933 rock breakwater, a 2006 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach study, a 2017 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Sandusky Bay initiative and a 2024 Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative report — and points to potential grant sources tied to habitat or resilience goals.

Study options and trade-offs: Option 1 is a minimal intervention — cleanup, removal of sharp shell material and placement of coarser sand to match existing grain size; estimated cost approximately $600,000 and limited slope or access changes. Option 2 adds engineered regrading, armor stone at the breakwater, and a constructed wetland to treat stormwater; estimated cost approximately $1.1–$1.2 million and greater long-term stability. Option 3 combines Option 2 with offshore archipelago features and a pedestrian walkway, creates kayakable channels and fish-spawning habitat, and was estimated at roughly $2.2 million. The presenter said Option 3 could be the most fundable because it creates habitat that aligns with many grant programs.

On maintenance and longevity, board members pressed for clarity. “What would be the anticipated amount of material that would have to be brought in annually or on some recurrent basis?” asked board member Mr. Miller. The presenter replied that the team is designing toward either a 25- or 50-year timeline and that a 25-year approach using coarser grain would likely require relatively little replenishment within that timeframe: “we would be creating a sustainable 25 year solution that wouldn't need much replenishment at all within that time frame.” The presenter also cautioned that extreme storm events or a string of winters without ice could increase repair needs.

Environmental context and public input: consultants observed trapped sediment behind an old 1933 breakwater, accumulation of debris and seasonal fish die-offs in the micro‑habitat; the study recommends addressing stormwater outfalls (including added wetland treatment) and redesigning breakwater geometry to improve flow. SmithGroup identified species- and habitat-creation opportunities that would strengthen grant applications, including fish spawning for species such as white bass and walleye. The city plans to publish a community survey this week to gather public preferences among the three conceptual options and to collect baseline usage observations.

Funding and next steps: staff said the city has applied to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) for a preliminary-design grant titled “Preliminary Design of Coastal Resilience in Nearshore Ecological Habitat, Lions Park, Ohio,” and that NFWF award decisions are typically announced in October (timelines can shift). If awarded, the grant would fund a next-phase preliminary design and permitting-level work. Staff cautioned that other funding sources and potential match requirements vary by grant program and would be explored as the project advances.

Board action: after discussion, a board member moved to “encourage staff to move along with this process, and recommend to the administration that we're in full support of this process.” Dr. Siemens seconded the motion, and the board approved it by voice vote. The motion asked staff to proceed with community outreach and further design work rather than committing the city to a specific option at this time.

Additional considerations: presenters noted questions that would be addressed during more detailed design phases, including potential material sourcing (whether local dredge material could be used), how the existing breakwater and nearby structures affect littoral drift, stormwater management, and public‑space accessibility (current slope and need for steps or regrading). The study team flagged that prior dredging projects and the scale of available dredge material would affect whether dredge disposal or reuse is a feasible source for beach nourishment. Staff also noted the project could be phased (for example, building offshore islands first to reduce wave energy before major beach work).

Board members and residents urged that future materials include tactile examples of proposed beach material sizes so the public can better understand how the beach would feel underfoot. Staff said they will provide further design detail, sampling and public-facing materials in subsequent phases.