Planning commission reviews Jimmy Camp drainage basin plan; staff to pursue fee schedule with drainage board

El Paso County staff presented the Jimmy Camp Creek drainage basin master planning study to the Planning Commission on Jan. 16, outlining projected increases in runoff under future development and proposing a set of channel stabilization projects and fees to fund long‑term improvements.

Stantec consultant Blair Greiman and county planners described field investigations, hydraulic modeling and alternatives analysis for tributaries that feed Jimmy Camp Creek, including East Fork, Upper Franceville, Strip Mine and Corral tributaries. The study modeled future land‑use scenarios from the county master plan and estimated channel and floodplain responses under increased impervious area.

Staff and the consultant emphasized that while peak flows can be managed at the parcel level under current stormwater standards, total flow volumes through stream channels will rise substantially with development. Greiman said the team compared three approaches — no action, channel stabilization without regional detention and channel stabilization with regional detention — and recommended the channel‑stabilization alternative without broad regional detention. That approach was selected because it provided stabilization benefits at lower construction and long‑term maintenance cost than the detention option, staff said.

The study produced reach‑by‑reach designs and unit‑cost estimates for grade control, channel shaping and erosion protection. County engineering staff noted some culverts and crossings are currently undersized for a 100‑year event and were included in the improvement list. The draft project list and estimated capital costs (presented in the study) will be the basis for a drainage fee calculation intended to recover future construction and maintenance costs from new development.

Jeff Rice, county planning commission staff, said the planning commission’s role is to review the master‑plan element and provide comment; the drainage board will review fee options and funding mechanisms. Rice said the project team will present fee options to the drainage board at an upcoming meeting; staff also noted a handful of subareas are being handled separately because they have already funded or closed improvement obligations (for example, parts of West Fork and Larsons Ranch/Bull Hill Rolling Meadows were discussed as separate considerations).

Commissioners asked about the assumptions behind future imperviousness in the modeled scenarios, the geographic limits of the fee (county areas outside Colorado Springs), cost escalation and how costs would be held in a distinct drainage fee fund rather than the county general fund. Staff said the model used master‑plan land uses and conservative design guidance; unit costs were benchmarked to local flood‑district experience and include contingencies; fees would be collected to a dedicated drainage fund and could be adjusted over time for inflation.

Public outreach and stakeholder engagement for the study was summarized in the staff packet; the plan and supporting technical reports are posted on the county project website. Staff indicated only minor edits to the draft report were expected before the next hearing and that the drainage board conversation on fee options was scheduled as the next formal step.

If the drainage board, county commissioners and Planning Commission endorse the plan and fee approach, the fee schedule would be adopted and collected from new development to fund construction and maintenance of prioritized channel stabilization projects.