Littleton staff outlines retreat follow‑up: project sequencing, COPs vs. GO bonds and a push for clearer public engagement

City staff on May 13 presented a condensed follow-up to the March council retreat that maps the council’s priorities into a sequencing and financing framework for capital projects, and described planned improvements to community engagement and board/commission coordination.

"We identified 3 main categories to categorize capital projects going forward," said Adrian Burton, manager of innovation and performance excellence and interim finance director, summarizing the staff framework: time-sensitive projects (ready-to-go and often tied to grant or permit deadlines), transformational or legacy projects (large, long-term investments such as downtown phases), and emerging needs (projects that require further scoping or that respond to changing conditions).

Nut graf: Staff recommended matching project type to financing tool — certificates of participation (COPs) for time-sensitive projects with immediate deadlines and capital needs, and general-obligation (GO) bonds for large transformational projects that may benefit from broader voter support; emerging needs would be managed case-by-case with capital funds, COPs or bonds as appropriate. Staff also outlined a community-engagement plan using the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum and said it would strengthen work-planning and reporting by the city’s boards, authorities and commissions (ABCs).

Staff listed near-term milestones: a facilities-condition assessment presentation in August, an economic-impact study for Project Downtown planned for late summer, and the annual council budget workshop in September. Staff said sequencing for time-sensitive projects (examples: Bellevue Service Center, Santa Fe/Mineral corridor work, mechanical upgrades at Town Hall Arts Center) will be paced to avoid overloading staff and to align with cash-flow and grant timing; staff suggested COPs as a good match for several of those projects.

On engagement, Jessica Dixon Minh and the communications team proposed using the IAP2 spectrum to set expectations about when the public will be "informed," "consulted," "involved," "collaborated" with or "empowered" on a given project, and to build a timeline that aligns public input with decision points. Staff also proposed standardized annual work plans for ABCs, feasibility checks before a work plan is finalized, and semiannual progress summaries to council.

Council discussion touched on priorities (several members said downtown Main Street should be accelerated), the trade-offs of COPs versus bonds, the timing of a potential ballot measure for transformational projects and the need for robust outreach (councilors favored road‑show style outreach in addition to in-person meet-and-greet events). Staff said consultants for Project Downtown will be procured and that an economic-impact and catalytic-investment analysis will follow; staff urged council to allow time to digest study results before a final financing decision.

Ending: Staff will return with the facilities-condition study in August and the Project Downtown economic-impact study later this summer; no financing decision was made at the May 13 meeting.