Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Littleton committee reviews 2025 capital-improvement sales-tax spending, projects and proposed $32M debt plan
Summary
City committee reviewed 2025 uses of the capital improvement sales tax (formerly 3A), including $12.8 million collected in 2025, roughly $10.9 million spent, project-level examples (sidewalks, bridges, Geneva Lodge) and a proposed up-to-$32 million COP for Main Street; members debated reporting timing and a $2.5 million median project on Mineral Avenue.
A Littleton City committee on May 21 heard a detailed review of 2025 projects funded in whole or in part from the capital improvement sales tax (formerly called 3A), was told the fund collected $12.8 million in 2025 and spent about $10.9 million, and discussed a planned debt issuance that could fund the Main Street project.
Staff presented project-level accounting for the fund and said many large projects were funded primarily with federal and regional grants while the sales-tax fund served largely as the local match. Public works staff listed examples including the Plat Canyon and Mineral intersection upgrades (about $2.67 million total, roughly $115,000 from the sales-tax fund), Mineral Station East multimodal work (about $2.62 million, with approximately $254,000 as the local match), Uclid Avenue complete-street work (about $1.8 million from the fund) and a $22.2 million Santa Fe/Mineral project paid mostly with regional TIP grants and developer contributions; staff said the sales-tax fund contributed about $250,000 to that large project.
A finance staff member told the panel the packet was still draft because the city's audit had not been completed, but reported that the city collected $12.8 million in the capital improvement sales tax in 2025 and recorded roughly $10.9 million in related expenditures. Staff estimated an ending fund balance near $23.6 million and said direction received from city leadership is to reserve roughly one-third of incoming revenue for debt service. To advance the Main Street work, staff said the city is preparing a certificate of participation (COP) issuance of up to $32 million; the estimated annual debt service for that issuance was quoted at about $1.8 million to $1.9 million and would be paid from the sales-tax fund.
Committee members asked for more clarity about which projects are financed entirely from sales-tax dollars and which are grant- or developer-funded. Staff acknowledged the new project-management system (PMIS) being rolled out will be able to display one-page project summaries and a public dashboard by summer so members and residents can see project-level funding breakdowns and maps.
The committee spent substantial time debating program priorities and trade-offs. One member pressed staff on a proposed $2.5 million set of medians and irrigation work along east Mineral Avenue, saying that amount seemed large compared with pavement, bridge and basic infrastructure needs. Staff replied that medians and related streetscape improvements were included in the ballot and statutory language that authorized the fund and that the medians had been identified as a council priority in prior planning work; members discussed design alternatives and urged staff to explore less-water-intensive landscaping because of drought concerns.
Members also questioned project-management overhead and staffing: staff said about 10 full-time employees are included in capital-project management costs and that more enterprise-funded hires (in water resources, for example) are expected as projects grow; the committee urged adding a pavement-management project manager if chip-seal and resurfacing work reaches the $8 million range staff projected for upcoming years.
On timing, staff asked whether the committee would prefer to move the reporting deadlines in the committee's charter so the committee presents final audited numbers to council after the audit is complete. Members debated the trade-offs of keeping fixed deadlines (which encourage timeliness) versus waiting for audited final numbers; several said they were comfortable reviewing draft numbers early but wanted the final presentation to council to reflect audited figures.
The committee requested staff provide a version of the CIP list filtered to show only projects funded from the capital improvement sales-tax fund and asked for maps showing the specific 2026 roadways planned for chip sealing and resurfacing. Staff agreed to supply those materials at the next meeting.
The meeting closed after about an hour and staff said the next committee meeting will include additional detail and that Kevin Orton, who normally presents, will return from vacation for the May meeting.
