Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Debt Cap Charter Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council studies changing charter debt cap; staff recommends tying review to Charter Review Committee
Summary
City staff presented research on Littleton's charter debt-cap limit and recommended referring the matter to the Charter Review Committee before placing a ballot question to change the cap; council members were split on timing for a possible measure.
City staff presented research to Littleton City Council on June 10 about whether to propose a charter amendment that would change the city's debt-cap formula and potentially increase capacity for general-obligation debt.
Kathleen Osher, who led the staff research, told the council staff compared Littleton's limit'currently expressed in the charter as 3.7% of assessed value'to approaches in peer cities and to state statutory practice. "We looked at that debt cap in comparison. Our finance staff did a pretty comprehensive research on communities across the front range," Osher said, and found many peers use actual (market) value rather than assessed value when setting limits. Staff proposed language that would more closely match state practice by using a percentage of actual value and suggested 3% of actual value as an illustrative option.
Staff noted several considerations before placing an amendment on a ballot. Council packets and the presentation flagged limited public understanding of the need or rationale for a charter change, outstanding analytical inputs (a facilities assessment report expected in August), and the existence of a Charter Review Committee whose report is due in early 2026. Osher said those factors argue for further public outreach and examination before asking voters to amend the charter.
Council members expressed differing views on timing. Some members said the city has near-term capital needs and that delaying a ballot measure increases long-term costs for capital work as construction and material prices rise; others said the city should use the Charter Review Committee to build public understanding and a more detailed debt policy before asking voters to change the charter.
Staff said they had undertaken informal conversations with business stakeholders and potential partners and had considered polling and consultant outreach to test question language; those conversations indicated more work was needed to shape a clear public message. City staff recommended referring the matter to the Charter Review Committee for structured review and advice; council members endorsed that referral in the study session.
Staff also discussed debt instruments available to the city (general obligation bonds, sales-tax revenue bonds, and certificates of participation) and the different accounting and legal relationships those instruments entail. The presentation emphasized the difference between assessed value and actual value and how using actual value would materially increase the city's capacity to access debt.
Council members asked staff to develop a phased approach: (1) a more detailed debt policy and internal analysis (round 1) to establish prudent debt limits and use cases; and (2) potential ballot language and outreach (round 2) if and when council determines a charter amendment is appropriate. Several council members asked staff to ensure any public question explains the problem being solved, the proposed uses for the debt capacity, and safeguards in a debt policy.
Council did not place a ballot question on the June 10 agenda; staff said they would refer the topic to the Charter Review Committee for intentional review and to return to council with recommendations and draft language.
