NextGen Advisory Board weighs Project Downtown financing and Geneva Village options as capital study proceeds

At its Oct. 2 meeting, the NextGen Advisory Board discussed a recent city capital finance study session and how financing choices could affect Project Downtown and assets such as Geneva Village. Board members and a public commenter debated whether the city should sell or redevelop Geneva Village and how to prioritize competing capital needs.

Pam Chappell addressed the board during public comment and urged careful study before any sale of Geneva Village. "The city doesn't need money now. The city doesn't need to sell these properties now," Chappell said, adding the city lacks a 30- to 40-year budget projection and an asset inventory she said would be necessary before disposing of public land.

Board discussion centered on the capital finance study session staff presented to city council, which explored a mix of debt instruments — short-term certificates of participation (COPs) and longer-term general obligation or other bonds — to fund large projects. Participants described a range of potential Project Downtown price estimates cited in council discussions, including figures mentioned during the meeting in the $20 million–$36 million range; board members said additional design and phasing work would be needed to refine cost estimates.

Members also discussed the Urban Land Institute (ULI) advisory panel report on the Northgate/Geneva Village site; participants said the ULI team's suggested uses included housing and a public gathering space but that making housing affordable would require subsidies. A staff member indicated one near-term step could be issuing a request for information (RFI) or request for qualifications (RFQ) to see what developers might propose for the roughly 2.8-acre Geneva Village parcel.

The board also talked about the City of Littleton’s inclusionary-housing framework (referred to in the meeting as the inclusionary housing ordinance) and the city’s practice of accepting fee-in-lieu payments from developers. A participant said the housing fund derived from fee-in-lieu payments currently "is $510,000,000," a figure discussed in the meeting; the board did not independently verify that amount during the session.

Members generally agreed there is no single financing path and that a mix of options may be required. Several board members said advancing Project Downtown without a clear prioritization of components — infrastructure, trees, major construction items, and long-term maintenance — risks committing the city to long-term debt without guaranteed returns. One board member suggested the advisory board produce high-level, enduring recommendations on priorities and planning process participation rather than detailed financial prescriptions.

Next steps the board set: members will review the capital finance study materials and ULI report ahead of the next meeting, identify a few priority recommendations (for example, protecting certain open-space or historic-character elements or prioritizing long-lived investments such as tree canopy), and prepare draft guidance that could be shared with city council and staff as planning progresses. Board members also discussed asking city staff or consultants to return with more detailed design estimates to tighten cost assumptions before major financing decisions.

No formal votes or council decisions were taken at the NextGen Advisory Board meeting; participants directed staff follow-up and committed to prepare commentary for a future meeting.