Littleton NextGen Board finalizes letter backing South Metro waste-diversion plan

The Littleton City NextGen Board finalized a draft letter of support for the South Metro waste diversion plan and agreed to submit it to council and city staff ahead of the plan’s October meeting.

The board’s discussion centered on endorsing the plan while flagging implementation steps. Pam Champborn, a resident, told members that “waste diversion is great, but what we need to see is some implementation alternatives with pros and cons.” Board members debated how prescriptive the letter should be and added language urging phased implementation and coordination with neighboring cities.

Board members said the plan contains actions that could be pursued in parallel — for example, adding compost services and improving hauler permitting — and that the board’s letter should support the plan broadly while reserving more detailed recommendations for later implementation discussions. Members also raised infrastructure benefits beyond emissions reductions, noting that fewer truck trips would reduce pavement wear.

Members discussed the single-hauler option included in the plan as a higher-risk, higher-impact measure. During the meeting participants described the typical procurement approach: the city would issue a request for proposals, enter a multi-year contract (board members discussed five-year contract cycles in the conversation), and use contract renewals and competitive re-bids to preserve cost and service pressure on haulers. One board member summarized procurement risks and protections by explaining that a city-run RFP would “facilitate competition” at contract renewal rather than leaving competition solely at the household level.

The board also asked staff to call out implementation concerns in the letter: (1) require hauler licensing and tonnage reporting for better data; (2) prioritize multifamily recycling and compost access so residents without subscription choices are not left out; and (3) treat construction-and-demolition recycling carefully to avoid unintended barriers to renovation and affordable-housing projects. Several members recommended stakeholder engagement with contractors and homeowners before implementing C&D (construction and demolition) requirements.

Robert, a city staff member, advised how the board’s work could be delivered: “I would send it as an email to the council and to the city manager and your liaison,” and offered to read highlights at an upcoming meeting if the board wanted additional visibility. The board agreed to circulate a final draft for quick review and to send the letter jointly before the council’s October 7 agenda item on the waste-diversion study.

The board did not take any formal, binding action beyond approving the letter’s language for submission; no votes on ordinances or contracts were taken at the meeting.

The board also asked to remain engaged as implementation details are developed so it can provide input on specific actions that could affect residents and small businesses.