City staff presented proposed changes to the city’s drainage ordinance and engaged council members, developers and residents in a wide-ranging discussion about inlet spacing, detention/retention ponds, subdivision definitions and long‑term maintenance obligations.

Staff described draft amendments to section 3144 that would treat residential developments differently than commercial ones for temporary inlet inundation: commercial developments would continue to be limited to half a travel lane of inundation for inlet spacing calculations, while residential developments would be allowed the full travel lane. Staff said the draft would remove references that treat curb‑to‑curb roadway storage as part of a development’s detention storage calculations. “I’m recommending taking it out,” the staff presenter said, adding that engineers typically model storage in ponds rather than using roadway storage volumes.

The draft also includes a waiver that would not require detention for developments disturbing three‑quarters of an acre or less, provided runoff does not create a single‑point discharge without city‑engineer approval. Council members sought and received clarification that “development” in the ordinance refers to the area of land disturbed or altered — not a small house pad — and that ordinary single‑family home construction usually falls below the three‑quarters‑acre threshold.

A broader conversation followed about how the city distinguishes a subdivision from a division of property. Staff and council members discussed whether a property owner splitting a 100‑acre parcel into a few large lots for family members should be treated the same as a commercial subdivision that creates many lots with new roads. Staff noted practical difficulties in codifying intent and suggested possible administrative controls such as counting new electric meters as a proxy for conversion to full subdivision development.

Several residents and a homeowner‑association representative raised concerns about long‑term maintenance of detention ponds. A Woodland Trail HOA representative said mowing and tree‑maintenance costs for two ponds surged this year, with vendor quotes moving from roughly $8,100 per year to bids in the $14,000–$15,000 range; he said ponds represented roughly 90% of the HOA’s mowing area and that rising costs and tree‑removal liabilities threaten small HOAs.

Council members and staff discussed options: requiring developers to provide clearer ownership and maintenance responsibilities, requiring homeowner associations at time of platting, collecting an upfront maintenance fee from developers, or allowing the city to accept ponds at construction in exchange for a developer contribution. Staff said many detention parcels are placed in LLCs managed by HOAs and that when HOAs become defunct the city sometimes becomes responsible through adjudication.

Staff said they will continue to refine the ordinance language, consult Desire Line (engineering review firm) for drafting help, and prepare recommendations for council action at a future meeting. The item remained in the discussion stage; no ordinance was adopted at the meeting.