Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Ditch Flume topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears City Ditch Reach 2 options for Lower Ridgewood Park flume; preservation, safety and funding debated
Summary
At a study session the commission reviewed options for the Lower Ridgewood Park City Ditch flume: removal, stabilization in place, repair to carry water, or relocation. Staff recommended stabilization as a likely path; funding for preservation work is not currently included in the intergovernmental agreement and would be a City responsibility unless grant funds or a partner contribution are secured.
At a study session following its formal meeting, the Littleton Historical Preservation Commission reviewed staff presentations and consultant findings on Reach 2 of the City Ditch project, centered on a steel flume in Lower Ridgewood Park north of St. Mary's.
Ryan Grimroth (who introduced himself as "deputy director of public works") opened the presentation and described the project scope and objectives: provide a project history, summarize the flume's condition, review repair and relocation options, and gather commission input before staff takes agreements to Council. Stephanie Ellis, the project manager, outlined the piping project's rationale: "The main benefit and reason that we're piping the city ditch is it improves source water quality and protection of our primary water source," she said, adding benefits such as reduced stormwater inflow and lower long-term maintenance.
Consultant findings showed the Lower Ridgewood Park flume has leaking areas, missing anchor hardware and exposed but not undermined foundations. Staff presented four primary options with consultant cost estimates: (1) remove the flume (lowest upfront cost to the city), (2) stabilize it in place with minimal aesthetic work (one-time structural repairs estimated just under $20,000 and annual maintenance estimated about $10,000), (3) repair to make it fully functional as a water-carrying structure (estimated ~$300,000 up front with much higher ongoing costs), and (4) relocation alternatives with 10-year cost ranges roughly between $240,000 and $750,000 depending on approach.
Commissioners compared the lower-cost stabilization approach to the precedent at Slaughterhouse Gulch, where staff and the commission previously favored stabilization followed by preservation and interpretation steps. Staff noted limited grant opportunities (History Colorado and the State Historical Fund were mentioned) and clarified a funding difference from prior work: a $100,000 contribution that was part of an earlier Slaughterhouse Gulch agreement is not part of the Reach 2 intergovernmental agreement, meaning preservation-specific expenses would fall to the city unless separate funding or reimbursement arrangements are agreed. Staff said intergovernmental agreements will include temporary construction easements, permanent easements and a quitclaim to transfer some land around the park where applicable.
Ownership along the ditch corridor is complex: parcels near the cemetery and the corridor are a mix of BNSF railroad property, City of Littleton property, and other parcels; staff said easements and agreements are being negotiated to allow construction and define long-term responsibilities.
Staff identified milestones: staff will present project feedback to City Council on March 10, anticipate council consideration of agreements in June, and expect construction to start in fall 2026. Commissioners voiced a preference for keeping and stabilizing the flume in place where feasible, with interpretation or limited restoration to maintain historical integrity while addressing safety.
No formal commission vote on the flume was taken at the study session; staff will refine agreements, confirm funding arrangements and return to Council for approvals.
