Portage County weighs $3 million repair vs. $5–8 million dam removal for Hillspond

Sean, a county project presenter, told the Portage County Board of Commissioners that the Hillspond dam is currently classified as a deficient Class 2 dam by state regulators and that staff have been working on a two‑phase design to address the deficiency and secure an exemption from Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) regulation.

The most immediate option presented was a two‑phase repair that would maintain the lake pool adjacent to county property and complete construction administration and observation. "We're projecting a cost estimate for the remaining tasks approaching $3 million," Sean said, listing construction, professional administration services and a non‑refundable wetland mitigation credit purchase among the costs.

County staff also presented a concept alternative: full dam removal and stream restoration. That option would involve drawing down the lake, dewatering and relocating sediment, constructing an approximately 4,000‑foot stream channel, rebuilding a floodplain and establishing vegetation across a roughly 30‑acre lake footprint. The conceptual cost range for removal and restoration was cited as roughly $5 million to $8 million depending on the level of earthwork and revegetation the county would pursue.

Board members pressed for context about who benefits and how costs could be shared. One commissioner noted that only a small number of houses (about 14) have lakefront access and questioned the equity of placing multi‑million‑dollar burdens on county funds. Staff responded that the county set aside a Hillspond fund originally at $2.5 million and that the current balance is approximately $2.3 million after incurred expenses, leaving a funding gap if the board chooses the repair path.

Permitting and easement constraints figured heavily in the discussion. Sean said the Ohio EPA has issued the 401 portion of the Section 404 permit and the county is waiting on the Army Corps of Engineers' 404 approval. "That triggers the wetland mitigation payment that is due at the end of the month," he said, confirming the mitigation credit invoice is for $128,000 and that the payment is non‑refundable once made. Staff warned that electing not to pay after the permit issues could violate permit terms and would require restarting the 9–12 month permitting process if the county later chose to resume work.

Easements differ by option: the repair/permit route needs one easement from the Testa development, while the dam removal/stream restoration option would require easements from Testa, at least four adjacent residential owners and the city of Ravenna, adding complexity and risk to the removal approach.

Legal and procedural options were discussed. County counsel advised commissioners that, if negotiations fail, the county could pursue an appropriation action (eminent domain) after appropriate appraisal and negotiation. After extended discussion of strategy and exposure, the board moved into an executive session under Ohio Revised Code 121.22(G)(3) to confer with counsel about pending or imminent litigation; the session ended with no formal action taken on the record.

The board directed staff to pause further design and permitting expenses without clearer consensus on easement acquisition and funding strategy. Staff warned the board that continuing to advance design without resolved easements or a funding plan increases the county's financial risk and could result in sunk costs.

Next steps: commissioners signaled they need time to consider whether to proceed with the repair, pursue removal, settle easements through negotiation (or appraisal), or allow regulators to act if the county declines action. The wetland mitigation payment deadline at month‑end and the outstanding easement negotiations were identified as near‑term decisions the board must resolve.