Trustees hear contested plans for Humble High complex detention pond as costs and permits change

Trustees received an extended informational presentation on the Humble High School complex detention pond and related site detention needs. The project has been under design and permitting for several years; earlier board approvals and outside contributions were discussed but the design and cost have changed as county flood-control requirements evolved.

Dr. Jason Seibert (director of facilities/project oversight) and Greg Prince of PBK Architects walked the board through the project's history. The original concept (approved by the board in 2021) envisioned a wet detention pond with ornamental features. Estimated costs presented at that time did not include moving large volumes of spoil/holloway material. PBK and the district later received multiple contractor cost estimates: completing the pond as originally drawn ranged from roughly $5.6M to $8.3M depending on spoil handling; an intermediate option with haul discounts was roughly $5.6M; a bare detention-only option was priced near $2.2M.

Seibert said later hydrologic and permitting work revealed Harris County would not or could not accept the earlier "grandfathered" credit for existing on-site detention, forcing the district to design detention to current code for the entire property. That change substantially increased required capacity and complicated options to preserve developable acreage behind the stadiums. In light of higher costs and uncertainty about third-party contributions (city of Humble previously indicated a potential $100,000; Harris County had previously committed about $1,000,000 but the district said it has not yet reengaged the county with the new design), the building/planning committee recommended a dry-bottom detention pond as the most affordable, code‑compliant path forward.

The administration presented a current estimate for a dry-bottom pond of about $2,830,000 (the estimate did not assume outside contributions). Trustees asked detailed questions about scope, prior approvals and whether the committeehad effectively made decisions without full-board votes. Trustee Jason Sitton and others said the timeline and slides suggested the committee had already advanced design and permitting steps. Trustee Lamond Dixon and Trustee Joe Scarfo pressed administration to explain where previously approved funds had gone and whether other bond or project budgets could be reprioritized to add decorative amenities.

Trustees also asked whether Harris County or the city of Humble would continue to contribute funds if the design changes; administration said the city had indicated it would not commit the earlier $100,000 to the reduced-design path and the district had not yet re-presented the new design to Harris County.

No final board vote was taken; administration said permitting submission was imminent and that once bids are received the contract award will be brought to the full board for approval. Trustees debated whether the district should accept a simpler dry detention design that some described as a potential "grassy ditch" or delay work to seek additional funding and an aesthetic feature. Trustee Scarfo asked that the Harris County commissioner be consulted about any change to the project before committing to the new design.

Trustees discussed phasing alternatives and the option of including decorative elements as bid alternates so the board could choose whether to add them based on final cost. PBK indicated a decorative corner feature would be possible as an alternate, but the largest cost driver is earthwork and spoil handling rather than surface amenities.

Several trustees emphasized community expectations: some said the corner is a major entry to Humble and should not be left as an eyesore; others said the current site has been a blight for years and a functional detention design is preferable to indefinite delay. Administration estimated permitting submittal by weekend, possible permit receipt by June and construction start in the fall with completion the following summer, subject to bidding and funding.

The board did not approve construction tonight; trustees directed administration to continue permitting and to return with final bids and a contract for full-board approval.