Littleton staff present $300 million capital plan, flag $158 million in unfunded needs

City staff presented a draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) covering 2025–2027 that lists roughly 175 projects and about $300 million in currently funded work, while identifying approximately $158 million in unfunded needs.

The presentation, led by city staffer Shane, explained the CIP groups horizontal infrastructure (roads, bridges), vertical infrastructure (buildings) and IT work and showed anticipated revenue sources including a locally approved 3a sales tax, building-use taxes, impact fees and grants. Shane said the city is funding about two-thirds of the plan and that the remainder represents projects the city will continue to pursue funding for.

Why it matters: the plan frames which projects the city can reasonably deliver in the next 3 years, where it will issue debt and where it must seek grants or developer contributions. The list of unfunded projects includes routine maintenance such as pavement management plus larger items such as facility replacements and downtown projects.

Most-important facts - Staff said the draft CIP includes about 175 projects and roughly $300,000,000 of identified funding, with about $158,000,000 of additional unmet needs. - Funding sources listed: the city's 3a sales tax, building-use tax, impact fees, sewer and stormwater enterprise funds, grants (Shane said about $35,000,000 in grants were identified), the conservation trust, open-space funds and internal service funds for fleet and IT. - Development projected in coming years was cited as roughly 3,000 new residential units and about 300,000 square feet of new commercial space; staff said new development is expected to generate additional sales and building-use tax revenue. - Noted projects and allocations: intersection and corridor work (Broadway & Mineral; Broadway & Littleton; Bowles & Platt Canyon; County Line Road widening and a County Line shared-use path), Gallup Park design, Mineral Station East/West, the Slaughterhouse Gulch trail connection, and stormwater repair and Runyon bridge work. - Staff said some projects are being funded with developer fees and impact-fee in-lieu payments; for example, fees tied to a Mineral Place/Costco development were discussed as contributing to intersection improvements and were described in the meeting as, approximately, the mid-six-figure to low-seven-figure range for specific intersections (staff described some developer contributions of roughly $600,000 and project costs "a little over a million" for certain intersections). - Debt: staff said the city plans to issue about $5,000,000 in debt to fund the Santa Fe/Mineral project, to be repaid from project sources and debt service lines in the CIP.

Implementation and risk Staff highlighted several implementation risks and constraints: federal grants are often reimbursed rather than paid up front, which creates cash-flow risk; federal funding routes can add time and extra review (NEPA, Buy America, historic-preservation reviews) and thus sometimes increase project costs or delay delivery; and state-level funding and regional partners (CDOT) have slowed or reprioritized in some cases.

On procurement and construction cost control, staff described limited ability to privately negotiate lower prices before procurement because procurement rules and, for federally funded work, federal procurement regulations constrain pre-bid negotiation. The city said it has previously rejected bids it considered too high and re-scoped projects to achieve acceptable pricing. Staff also explained the city uses CDOT quarterly cost data and similarly scoped recent bids to validate reasonableness of contractor pricing.

Maintenance and innovation Board members pressed staff on pavement management. Staff said the level of funding needed to sustain an optimal pavement-management program was on the order of $20,000,000 per year, while the city expects to spend roughly $8,000,000 in the current year. Staff described techniques used to stretch dollars, including hot-in-place recycling and using stone-matrix asphalt in some corridors; those methods reduce new-material needs and can lengthen pavement life, they said.

Schedule and specific project timing Staff said some projects are already contracted or have committed funding; they estimated about 80% of the grant-revenue lines cited are "locked in." For certain stormwater and trail items staff identified later start dates (for example, a Runyon-area bridge funded from the storm fund was described as likely in 2026). In response to resident questions about a bridge at Runyon, staff said FEMA documents arrived recently and quoted an October/November start window with a 9-to-12-month construction duration for that bridge.

Public transparency and next steps Staff said the city is rolling out a citywide project dashboard (using Smartsheets) and a "cone zone" construction page with links to project pages, QR codes and on-site signage to make project budgets, timelines and funding sources more visible to residents. Staff encouraged review of project detail sheets in the CIP; each listed project in the draft includes a description, project manager and identified revenue sources.

Discussion points and follow-up directions Discussion at the meeting focused on prioritization rules for what projects get funded or advanced, the balance between leveraging grants vs. the extra time and cost that federal funding can impose, debt-financing options for large unfunded projects, and how to present funding trade-offs to residents so voters and property owners better understand deferred maintenance consequences. Staff said they are rethinking strategies for corridor studies and grant-dependent work given state and federal uncertainties.

Ending Staff did not present a final adoption vote at this meeting; the presentation was described as the draft CIP and staff encouraged continued public review and engagement while the city refines funding and scheduling for listed projects.