Council weighs trees and bioswales in detention ponds; staff urged to pursue incentives and city projects first

The College Station City Council discussed whether detention and retention ponds built as part of new development should include more landscaping, trees or water‑quality features such as bioswales and rain gardens.

City Engineer Carol Cotter explained the technical role of these facilities: “The primary function of a detention pond is flood control,” she said, and noted that many ponds are privately owned HOA assets rather than city‑maintained infrastructure. Cotter reviewed existing rules in the Unified Development Ordinance and said plantings are allowed but often omitted because of additional design volume, cost and ongoing maintenance needs.

Council members repeatedly raised aesthetics, canopy and cooling benefits of trees. Councilman Scott Schaeffer said he wanted to “think about putting trees in detention facilities,” noting many cities place trees in similar ponds. Council member Scott Smith, who has public‑works experience, confirmed ponds are working technically but asked staff to consider tree planting where feasible.

Staff explained maintenance and liability concerns: privately owned ponds are commonly mowed to minimize expense and reduce the risk that fallen limbs or debris could block outflows. Assistant Public Works Director Emily Fisher and others noted the city already accepts some privately maintained basins as public infrastructure in limited circumstances, but doing so widely would be “a heavy lift” for city maintenance and risk management.

Council consensus was that staff should pursue three, parallel approaches: (1) allow and encourage trees and water‑quality features on city‑owned projects and incorporate tree‑moving capability where practical; (2) explore incentive programs and design flexibility for commercial and multifamily developments so developers are encouraged to use bioswales, rain gardens and other best management practices; and (3) engage the development community and HOAs to identify low‑cost ways to add trees without compromising hydraulic performance.

Staff said some recent local examples already incorporate enhanced features — the pond behind Scott & White (a bioretention pond) and the retention pond at the Homewood/Aloft area are cited examples — and that building incentives or credit systems for developers is feasible. The council asked staff to return with recommendations on code changes or incentive points for the Unified Development Ordinance and examples of low‑maintenance planting palettes appropriate for the city’s clay soils.

Ending — next steps: City staff will prepare a memo outlining options for city projects, recommended incentives for private commercial and multifamily developments, possible UDO language changes and an estimate of maintenance and staffing impacts. No ordinance change was adopted; council requested public‑works and development staff coordinate outreach to builders and HOAs before any mandatory rule changes are proposed.