Residents urge Littleton to preserve 'soft' trail surface on Mineral Avenue spur, oppose all-concrete plan

Several Littleton residents told the City Council during the March 18 public-comment period that they oppose the city's plan to replace a crusher-fines “soft” trail that parallels the north side of Mineral Avenue with an all-concrete 16-foot-wide path.

Ned Stern, who said he lives on West Briarwood Avenue, told council members the group he represents had spoken with more than 100 trail users and that users prefer either keeping the crusher-fines surface or installing a dual-surface arrangement with parallel crusher-fines and concrete lanes. “Why does the city wanna do this? ... Why would the city decide to destroy 1 of Littleton's premier soft trails by replacing it with a 16 foot wide swath of concrete that will cost upwards of $725,000?” Stern said.

Other speakers reiterated concerns about lack of notice and the adequacy of public outreach. Mary Ann Combs, who described herself as a resident in Council Member Peters’ district, said she did not believe grant timing should drive the decision: “If the city is worried about losing grant money, find some other way to spend it and spend it in a way that actually provides a benefit to the community or fulfills a need,” Combs said. Several speakers called for a change order or pause while alternatives such as a dual-surface trail or moving concrete to other priority sidewalks are explored.

City staff responded during the meeting noting the trail segment is part of a larger safety project at Mineral and Jackass Hill Road and that federal and state grant partners contributed most of the funding for the overall project; staff said not completing the design could jeopardize a funding ratio that includes roughly five dollars of outside funding for each city dollar. Deputy City Manager Kathleen Osher said the trail segment’s cost is a smaller part of the larger safety improvements and acknowledged local outreach could have been stronger during design.

Speakers raised additional local impacts, including access and continuity with the Mary Carter Greenway and High Line Canal connections, and suggested alternatives used elsewhere in the region. Several residents provided petition and survey figures (cited by speakers as a community preference for crusher fines or dual-surface designs) and asked council to direct staff to seek a change order or to prepare alternate designs for council consideration.

Council did not take formal action on the trail during the March 18 meeting; staff said the project design was several years old and that the city is working to capitalize on grant funding to improve safety.