Residents urge Arapahoe County to reject full 16-foot concrete design for Jackass Gulch Trail

Residents and trail users urged the Arapahoe County Board of Commissioners on May 27 to resist a proposal to build a 16‑foot wide concrete trail through Jackass Gulch and to preserve or add a crusher‑fines (soft) surface for walkers, runners and people with joint or mobility limitations.

The most direct appeals came during the board’s public‑comment period. James Locust, a South Park resident, told commissioners, “I am here to discuss, the Jackass Gulch Trail, the pavement issue. It's my understanding, that the pavement will be 16 feet across, and I would prefer, 8 feet.” Locust also asked that, if the trail is paved, “half the trail soft, the other half paved, if at all possible.”

Littleton resident Mark Flink said a city grant application that secured county open‑space funds misrepresented community support and maintenance responsibilities. “In essence, Arapahoe County has granted more than a half million dollars in open space funds so that Littleton can pave Jackass Gulch for South Suburban,” Flink said, and he urged the county not to approve a grant extension if the city continues the all‑concrete design. Flink said the two‑year grant period expires in September and argued the county should withhold or deny an extension.

Steve Lowry, a District 1 resident and professional engineer, raised process concerns and said Littleton did not conduct promised public engagement at a 90% design stage. “The city never did this promised public engagement,” Lowry said, adding that public polling and interviews his group conducted showed opposition to the all‑concrete option. Lowry and other speakers proposed a dual‑surface solution or adding a detached 4‑ or 5‑foot crusher‑fines pathway alongside the paved route to preserve access for people who prefer or require softer surfaces.

Don Burns, calling into the meeting, asked the county to withhold funding to allow Littleton more time to revise the Spur Trail segment. Burns said city staff had not adequately assessed recreation demand and that a dual‑trail design could meet mobility goals without sacrificing the project’s highway‑safety objectives.

Supporters of preserving crusher fines noted existing nearby trails that use a dual‑surface model, and speakers warned of reputational risk to county funders if the design proceeds without broader local buy‑in. County staff indicated they were listening and would follow up on public comments.

No formal county action on the Jackass Gulch design or on Littleton’s grant application was recorded during the meeting; the topic was raised during public comment only.

Arapahoe County staff and the City of Littleton are listed in public materials as project partners; speakers asked the county to seek clarifying design documents, the promised 90% designs referenced in Littleton’s grant materials, and explicit maintenance commitments before extending or reimbursing grant funds.