Lakewood News from Karen, Author at Lakewood Informer

A Look at Proposed Changes to Traffic Control in Lakewood

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on May 21, 2024.

Guest Post from Bill Foshag

Editor’s Note: Lakewood has a survey about changing the speed limit. However, the introductory information is incomplete and misleading. The concept of lowering the speed limit has supporting research from the Lakewood Advisory Commission, as they say, but also information showing it will be ineffective from police and traffic control. The survey does not link to that opposing research. Lakewood Informer is grateful for this resident article to bring you the news that Lakewood is not highlighting.

Lakewood City Council is considering proposals from the Lakewood Advisory Committee to increase safety and reduce traffic speeds throughout the city. The plans include reducing speed limits on residential streets from 30 mph to 25 or 20 mph, and the use of red-light and speed monitoring cameras. While well intentioned, the approach taken and comments made by Council members at a recent meeting seem to question if the recommended solutions will actually be effective.

The actions being considered originate from a request by Council Member (now Mayor) Wendi Strom in August, 2022. The request cites areas of concern in Ward 5, particularly the vicinity of Kendrick’s Lake Elementary school, and the Jewell/Kipling area. The request notes that she has received complaints from Ward 5 residents about speeding traffic in these areas. The Lakewood Advisory Committee (LAC) prepared a report addressing the request, presenting their findings to Council in June, 2023. In their report, the LAC recommends re-striping and repaving to narrow lanes and reduce speeds, use of funding to increase the use of multi-use off-street paths, reducing speed limits city-wide, and installing cameras.

Lakewood’s Public Works department also looked into the matter, and has formulated some solutions of their own, although they have yet to publish a final report. This was taken up again on April 1, 2024 at a City Council Virtual Study Meeting. Although the original request was intended for specific areas within Ward 5, Council is considering implementing the findings on a city-wide basis. Mike Whittaker, a traffic engineer with the Public Works Division, presented comments from the department’s staff discussions and recommendations based on the LAC report.

Lower speed limits do not result in slower driving

There are a couple items that stood out from the Public Works presentation. First, they note that in cities where speeds have been reduced from 30 to 25 mph, or even 30 to 20 mph on residential streets, the average speed drivers actually drive is reduced by only 1 or 2 mph. Drivers choose to exceed the new lower speed limit and continue to drive at or near the speeds they are used to driving. This was noted in a study from Minnesota when some of their residential speed limits were reduced. The City of Boulder saw similar results, but on some streets, driving speeds actually increased. Another concern by Public Works is that lower speed limits might actually irritate some drivers who will respond by driving more aggressively. A third point of concern deals with the use of red-light cameras. When drivers know that a red-light camera might catch them running the light at an intersection, they are likely to err on the side of caution and brake suddenly to avoid a ticket, catching the driver behind off-guard, resulting in a rear-end collision. This subject actually came up a couple times during the meeting and is always an issue wherever red-light cameras are installed.

What are the costs?

Notably absent from the discussion was the mention of any firm costs associated with implementing these plans. For changing speed limits city-wide, new speed limit signs need to be painted and installed to replace all existing signs on residential streets, at some unspecified cost to taxpayers. Red-light and speed control cameras require additional studies of where to install and where to aim the cameras to be effective. The city would be dealing with a contractor who operates the cameras, and that involves a monthly rental cost ($8,500 per month for one unit was cited in the meeting), plus additional costs for installing the cameras, city personnel to monitor them, and costs to administer and collect fines.

A city-wide solution is not the answer

One puzzling thing that comes to mind after listening to the Study Meeting is this. The streets cited as being in most need of control (Alameda, Wadsworth, Colfax, Mississippi, and Jewell were mentioned several times) are not residential streets. The Public Works presentation, and the LAC recommendations, do not have any discussion on how reducing speed limits on residential streets will impact the areas of greatest concern. If I have to drive 20 mph on South Quail Street (a residential street), is that likely to reduce accidents at Alameda and Wadsworth? The obvious answer is no. Many residential streets in Lakewood, and particularly the older streets that are a bit wider, are safe to drive at 30 mph. Instead of replacing all of Lakewood’s “Speed Limit 30” signs and mandating a lower 20 or 25 mph limit, the practical solution is to reduce speed limits in the areas that are most troublesome and increase enforcement efforts in those areas. If that means allowing police officers the opportunity to earn a little overtime pay, those costs would certainly be less than what it would cost to replacing all the residential speed limit signage. One of the Council members remarked the drivers who are most dangerous are the ones egregiously speeding – the ones going 40 and 50 mph on residential streets. Those violators are particularly dangerous and need to be targeted, not the ones going one or two miles an hour over the limit.

Unintended consequences

Another puzzling item that was not fully discussed in the Study Meeting deals with how drivers react to reduced speed limits. If drivers only reduce their speeds by 1 or 2 miles per hour when speed limits are lowered, is there really any benefit to reducing speed limits at all, or are you out to make the residents “criminals”? Do you really notice a difference if you are driving 29 or 30 mph? Probably not. Theoretically, the City could mandate residential street speed limits so low as to reduce the possibility of an accident to near zero, but it really doesn’t make a difference if people are still going to drive 29 mph in what was once a 30 mph zone. By their own admission, the City has told us that people are generally drive the speed they feel is comfortable and safe (within reason) whether the speed limit is 30, or 25, or 20 mph. There is no reason to spend tax payer funds replacing speed limit signage and inconveniencing residents with lower speed limits throughout the city if there is no discernable benefit, particularly if there are problems only in a few specific areas. The best decision here is to keep the residential speed limits at 30 mph and not criminalize our residents by lowering limits to 25 or 20 mph.

Dangerous by design

A possible exception to this are the streets in the Belmar development that are narrow to begin with, have cars parked along both sides, and a number of pedestrians crossing the streets. The sight-lines are such that it is difficult to see what’s around upcoming corners. Streets in this area, to the fault of the developer and the traffic engineers who approved their plans, are poorly thought out and a hazard to automobiles and pedestrians.

One particular method of speed control that should not be used is that of narrowing traffic lanes by use of medians and/or bicycle lanes. An example of this is along 20^th Ave. between Youngfield and Simms, where the bicycle lanes merge into the traffic lanes and the median is widened allowing only one vehicle (either a bicycle or automobile) through at a time. This is particularly dangerous for bicycle riders if a car cannot slow down fast enough to avoid a collision. Essentially, bicyclists should not be used for speed control on our streets. One of the Council members mentioned they felt the bicycle lanes along Garrison between Alameda and 6^th are dangerous. Part of the problem along certain stretches of Garrison may be that the street cannot easily be widened. On heavily travelled streets like Garrison, for the safety of both drivers and bicyclists, there may have to be some future consideration of limiting these areas to motor vehicles.

The proposed use of cameras

The issues of red-light cameras and speed control cameras are different than the discussion of speed limit reduction. The regulations pertaining to traffic control cameras falls under the State of Colorado. Under the constitution of the United States, the person who is guilty of an offence is the one who is charged and the one who has to bear the penalties imposed under the law. With traffic control cameras, the person to whom the vehicle is registered pays the price regardless of who committed the infraction. If your Uncle Bob borrows your pickup truck and runs a red light, you get the ticket, not Uncle Bob. You can possibly get out of paying the Uncle Bob’s fine, but that involves additional time and effort on your part. Colorado’s ordinances can probably be challenged successfully on constitutional grounds, but until then, it’s the law in the State. Stepped up enforcement of our traffic ordinances in the troublesome areas ensures the actual offender is the one receiving the penalty for their offence.

Increased and selective enforcement – the better solution

Stepping up enforcement of traffic laws regarding speeding and red-light running also offers a more effective deterrent to violations. If you get a citation in the mail for running a red light or speeding, there’s not much that offers a deterrent to repeating the offence. You simply go online and pay the fine (a lower fine than if you are issued a ticket by an officer), no points off your license, and no reporting to your insurance company. Receiving a ticket from an officer is much more of a deterrent to speeding or red light running. It takes up more of your time as the officer runs a background check on you and your vehicle, discusses your infraction, writes up the ticket, and sends you on your way. A written ticket will have a higher fine, and will result in points off your license and a report to your insurance company. There is an additional sense of humiliation if you have your children, spouse, or friends in the vehicle with you at the time.

Stepping up enforcement in specific locations and at specific times is very effective in reducing violations while acting as a deterrent to future problems. When people regularly traveling a certain route become aware of increased police presence they will slow down and their driving habits will improve. More often than not, increased enforcement in an area is only needed for a couple of weeks – just long enough for drivers to take note and be more aware. If an area was previously patrolled and has become troublesome again, just step up enforcement in that area for a couple more weeks. The costs of increased enforcement efforts should not be a great concern. If the City believes it has the funding to change all the residential speed limit signage and install, monitor, and administer red-light and speed limit cameras, those funds can easily be spent for some overtime pay for our police officers or hiring a few more full-time officers.

“We’re Done with You, Councilor Olver” – Ceasefire Advocates Only at City Council

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on May 9, 2024.

The April 22 Lakewood City Council meeting had two hours of public comment, most of which were advocates of a ceasefire in Gaza. This seemed to be a scheduled appearance, with some Council Members in possession of prepared statements on the subject and one member, Councilor Olver, wearing a T-shirt in support for Israel. In this case, that sign of support was all he was allowed to demonstrate because his comments were interrupted by a motion to adjourn by Councilor Shahrezaei, who followed the motion with the words “We’re done with you, Councilor Olver.” The early adjournment not only cut off Olver’s comments but deprived three Councilors of their ability to make a ward report. This motion came after Shahrezaei herself made a statement in favor of a ceasefire, so the motion seems intended to stop Olver’s pro-Israeli sentiment. The motion passed by a vote of 6-5.

Councilor Comments:

Shahrezaei: Thanks everyone that came out and shared in public comment. She says “there’s some of us who’ve had the opportunity to connect with leadership in your group quite frequently” and she continues to offer her small sphere of influence to support this cause. She wants to continue this conversation

Mayott-Guerrero: “Thank you all for your energy and sharing your frustration and continuing to care when it is very, very easy to stop caring. And I absolutely feel aligned with you all.” Signals her willingness to talk about bringing a motion to a future meeting on this topic.

Cruz: Thanks the group for bringing stories to shed light on how the tragedy unfolding every day in Gaza is deeply connected to our lives here in Lakewood. “I have been publicly standing as an individual and calling for a bilateral and permanent ceasefire for months… It pains me that with the limited power I have as a member of this body that we have not done more to listen to all of you and send this message more formally, but I do commit to continuing to listen” and says she will do what she can to “pave the path forward towards a free Palestine.”

Stewart: Thanks everyone for coming and says this humanitarian crisis is incredibly dire and “I am up here today, urging our federal government to do absolutely everything in our power to ensure that aid is getting to the people who desperately need it and that we are working towards peace.”

Low: “Hamas is a terrorist organization in a region with a complicated and long history…. The violence the Netanyahu government has unleashed in response has been horrifyingly disproportionate…. We do need a ceasefire and we need it now.” He is not planning on addressing this topic again as a Lakewood City Councilor.

Olver: “Isn’t it great that we can do this? You know where you can come in and speak and I can take the other side and we have a conversation. That’s one of the advantages of living in America.” Olver wears a t-shirt saying “I stand with Israel”. Starts to explain the meaning of “From the river to the sea”. Could not complete his comments.

Council Member Shahrezaei defended her actions when questioned at the Ward 1 meeting. Shahrezaei said that a meeting can be ended at any time. However, interrupting the current speaker to make a motion is not allowed by either Robert’s Rules, Bob’s Rules, or Council policies.

Scorecard: Adjourn the Meeting Rather Than Finish Council Comments

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Nay

Stewart: Aye

Low: Nay

Olver: Nay

Rein: Nay

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Nay

Will Lakewood Follow Denver into Lawsuits over Green Remodeling

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on May 7, 2024.

Denver and Colorado are being sued for rules on climate goals and greenhouse gas emission standards that the City of Lakewood is considering adopting. Denver and Colorado both approved a building performance standard that would force builders, landlords and homeowners to meet emission goals through green remodeling and electric appliance retrofits. Lakewood also has building performance standards through its Article 13. Lakewood takes four times as many climate mitigation and adoption steps as other cities, leading to Lakewood being named a leader in climate action. Lakewood is one of only 119 cities around globe to take steps like building standards. Rule 28 in Denver and Colorado goes even further by requiring “benchmarking” performance since 2021. Based on building performance, it is now time for required cuts, leading to a lawsuit by the Colorado Apartment Association, the Colorado Hotel and Lodging Association and others. The cuts will require costly remodeling. In August of 2023, Lakewood staff recommended the city join Denver and Colorado in the benchmarking program, described below, that only about 30 cities throughout the nation have adopted. However, these policies are not market-tested and they are extreme enough that Denver and Colorado are being sued. If Lakewood leadership adopts the additional staff recommendations, or agrees to recommendations from the LAC on Green Remodeling, the city may find also find itself in the news and in legal jeopardy.

Colorado apartment landlords sue to block Denver, state greenhouse gas cuts that they find crushing

State and local governments don’t have a right to require expensive renovations and appliance swaps to cut greenhouse gases, group suit says – by Michael Booth4:08 AM MDT on Apr 25, 2024

Is Being a Leader a Good Thing?

In a “you say potato…” moment, the lawsuit in Denver shows that one person’s leader is another person’s extremist. Not everyone agrees that going where these climate policies lead is worth it. While the debate rages over climate science, policy makers rarely point out that there are two sides to the story, in order to promote their narrative. Climate policies have real-world economic consequences that could make housing even more expensive.

Lakewood already has an Enhanced Development Menu that requires new development to meets a point scheme, based on the Menu options, that achieves climate goals of rolling back emissions in compliance with state goals. Development is thereby prohibited unless it meets climate goals. The policies Lakewood is currently advocating align with Colorado’s Rule 28 that monitors energy usage for buildings not already covered by the state. This process is called benchmarking, which Lakewood staff describe as “the regular monitoring and reporting of an individual building’s energy consumption to track changes over time and monitor progress towards increased efficiency and decreased GHG emissions.”

While the process may sound routine and innocuous, this program must be put in place before the government can have access to private energy-use data.

Once in place, the data can be used to set the bar and start imposing usage limits, incentives, conversions, etc. Lakewood is specifically talking about the switch from gas-powered to electrical tools and appliances.

Excel energy use from customer bills. This monitoring could be shared with the city for benchmarking.

The Colorado and Denver rules currently only apply to commercial and multi-family units but the policy puts them to the left of cities like Boulder, as seen in the map below. In fact, Denver is second in the nation only to San Francisco. Being on the forefront of the climate change debate gets Denver in the news but it also attracts lawsuits. And Lakewood is recommending these same actions.

Lakewood is taking things a step further and seeking similar solutions for residential homes, the details of which can be found at the city website, with more from the Lakewood Informer news site.

Back in August, Lakewood staff were enthusiastic about Lakewood becoming another purple dot on the map below, which would show their leader/extremist tendencies, depending on your viewpoint. Will that change once the lawsuits start?

From Institute for Market Transformation

Lakewood Being Considered for All-America City

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on May 2, 2024.

Letter from Celia Greenman regarding The All-America City Award – National Civic League

I am writing because I have heard that Lakewood is being considered for the All American City award. According to your website, some of the areas of focus for this year’s theme are:

Removing barriers to participation in civic life
Improving public meetings through innovative practices
Undertaking reforms that give people a meaningful say in public decision-making
Creating a stronger sense of belonging and community
Promoting deliberative forms of public decision-making
Advancing equity and inclusion

In the above six categories I would say the City has failed. Since the election of the new mayor in November, public comment has been pushed to the end of the agenda, whereas it had been historically in the beginning after the opening ceremony. Mayor Strom has said this is to allow Council to complete their business, whereas a former City councilman once responded, “The people’s voice is the City’s business”. The change in schedule means that people who work, have families, and/or who rely on public transportation can be excluded from in-person comment. Remote Call-ins have been restricted because of recent hate speech. Comments submitted on a web forum are often unread by City Council (a notation at the end of a comment signifies the number of council people who have read the comment. At the April 22 Council meeting, a motion to adjourn was passed, leaving three councilors without an opportunity to give a report that might have provided diversity of thought. Therefore, I conclude that the City has not removed barriers to participation in civic life or improved public meetings.

Also, whereas planning departments in Greeley, Ft. Collins, Colorado Springs and Golden are extremely helpful, in my experience, returning calls and emails the same day I left a message and sending out requested information immediately, Lakewood has a convoluted process where instead of being able to contact staff directly by email the message goes through Lakewood requests with a 3 – 5 day response period. (The legal department does not respond to the public). Although the city has hired a communications manager we now are getting more on social media sites like Facebook and Instagram but less regarding publication of upcoming Council meetings and their proposed agenda. The report on the City Council Annual Planning Retreat was available two weeks after the meeting (this states the priorities and goals that Council has set for the upcoming year) but has not been mentioned in any city mailing. Another city publication (Looking @ Lakewood) formerly included reports from the City Councilors in all the wards in each issue which kept the public informed about the city as a whole. Now one ward is highlighted in each issue. In addition the City, while proclaiming in City Council meetings that the schools that have been closed are not under the purview of Lakewood but rather Jefferson County, has held private meetings with the Jefferson County School district’s COO and a non-profit organization for the homeless community regarding the next steps for one of the elementary schools. The meetings have been held with no public input. This does not align with the City removing barriers to participation in civic life or undertaking reforms that give people a meaningful say in public decision making.

In 2019 Lakewood voters approved a Strategic Growth Initiative to limit the growth of development in the City. Despite this support from the people, Lakewood continued to find exemptions and ways to continue to construct large non-descript apartment buildings. Some of these projects allowed no input from the public. One such project, under consideration, is located directly adjacent to a park that Lakewood describes on its website as “the crown jewel in Lakewood’s park system”. The six-story 412- unit luxury apartment building went through 2 years of process in the planning department before notice was given to surrounding residents and the public. Decisions were made by the Planning Director and Community Resources Department to allow the developer to pay a fee in lieu of donating the parkland acreage that is required by City ordinance, and which could have buffered the development and saved mature trees, of which 65 are scheduled for removal. People opposing this project have repeatedly been told there is nothing the City can do. Development projects are not reviewed by City Council and have not been referred to the City Planning Commission in over 12 years. Therefore, I conclude that this does not create a stronger sense of belonging and community, and does not promote deliberative forms of decision making.

For years a local university has been purchasing property for university use, which is against the City zoning code. In spite of the fact that the City (with contributions from two Citizen Interveners) won a lawsuit against the university in Jefferson County District Court and the decision was affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals, city staff still refuses to enforce an ordinance pertaining to the prohibition of university uses in low density residential neighborhoods. This is an equity issue and an illustration of how the City is willing to set aside a court ruling that favored neighborhoods to support big money interests, in this case a university. Therefore, I conclude that the City is not advancing equity and inclusion.

In summary I do not know the qualifications of the other finalists for this award, but I hope other cities are not as dismissive of citizens’ desires to be included in the civic process as Lakewood has been. The pervasive feeling of constituents is a lack of trust, transparency and accountability for our local government. That shouldn’t be characteristics of an All Star City and I urge you not to consider Lakewood for this award. However, if the award is based on just political conditions, the qualifications really do not matter.

Sincerely,

Celia Greenman

Lakewood, CO

Lakewood’s Takeover of Water District Authority

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 29, 2024.

For years, the City of Lakewood has been asking water districts to lower their fees on new development. Water districts have understandably said no to this request. The water board sets tap fees, not the city.

Well, Lakewood had enough of asking. New state legislation was introduced by Representative Chris deGruy Kennedy, forcing water districts to be “reasonable”.

His jurisdiction covers Lakewood. His wife is now running for his house seat. He worked with at least one member of the Lakewood Planning Commission and City Council to write this bill on behalf of special interests that will restrict authority of water boards throughout the state to set responsible fees.

http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1463

Kennedy has bipartisan support. There is little time left for water districts to oppose the bill. The Special District Association (SDA) helped write this bill, without letting its members know. They remain silent on a position but Kennedy has repeatedly stated he has their support.

In fact, one member of the SDA was referenced in the bill itself, in the form of a Colorado Supreme Court decision in which his district won. He was not notified or consulted. He had to explain to the SDA that the legislative interpretation cited in the bill was wrong.

Both Representative deGruy Kennedy and the bill authors cite a supposed difference in fees between different districts as justification for this bill. We can show a variation from $2,000 to $47,000. These fees are tied to infrastructure costs in each district.

Asking one district to artificially lower fees because of another district is like asking Colorado to lower income tax because another state doesn’t have it. Sounds “reasonable”, right?

There is no problem with tap fees except that people don’t like fees.

If you give developers a break on fees, do you really think they will lower housing prices?

Lakewood gave exceptions to developers for affordable housing for the last five years and got NOT ONE affordable unit. This bill will only be transferring costs to existing customers because SOMEONE will have to pay.

Ironically, the bill’s Lakewood sponsors and authors will not have their rates raised because they get service from a private company that is not subject to this legislation – a private company that charges more tap fees than many special districts.

Lakewood Residents Petition to Save Their Parks

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 28, 2024.

Guest Post from Save Open Space Lakewood

Lakewood residents petition to save their parks and open space which the City likes to give away to developers. On April 27th they were at Lakewood’s Belmar Park with petitions.

Background

Local environment advocates will circulate a petition at Lakewood’s Earth Day, on Saturday, April 27, that would force the City from its arrogant behind-the-scenes approval of out-of-control developments to provide significant environmental stewardship for Lakewood.

Once certified with 6,000 required signatures, the petition becomes an initiative which Lakewood is required to vote for. If it doesn’t, it will be placed on a citywide ballot. Over one thousand signatures have already been collected in less than a month.

When: Saturday, April 27
Time: 11 AM -7 PM
Where: Heritage Lakewood Belmar Park, 801 S. Yarrow St., Lakewood 80226

“It’s become clear that nothing short of this petition is going to change complacent City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission to be responsive to citizen concerns and also supportive of preserving our parks and open space,” said Cathy Kentner, who co-created the petition with fellow longtime community activist Rhonda Peters. Both founded Save Open Space Lakewood which is organizing this all-volunteer petition effort.

The petition, titled the Lakewood Green Initiative, was inspired after the public learned Lakewood staff had worked for several years to preliminarily approve and advance the plans of Kairoi Residential, a Texas developer, for a 412-unit, 83 unit per floor, 6 story luxury apartment building with a footprint the size of two football fields which would share the eastern boundary of Belmar Park.

Belmar Park is a 132 acre beloved park in the middle of Lakewood’s growing concrete jungle. It is a peaceful haven for over 230 bird species (many protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), abundant wildlife and innumerable human visitors.

In preliminarily approving the Kairoi plan, the City ignored its own ordinances on protecting parkland and wildlife, improving tree canopy, fighting climate change and providing affordable housing. Instead it supported the gigantic 800,000 square foot design with no buffer with the park, the elimination of 69 mature trees, and lack of serious analysis of the development’s effects on the environment and on the safety of nearby residents who can only exit on a narrow street.

The public was notified very late as if it was an afterthought. Now the City claims many elements of the project are a done deal and they lack the power to correct this.

Since this deal was initially revealed, the City has placed numerous obstacles in the way of citizen attempts to have input on the development’s
outcome. Likewise, Lakewood staff has been actively attempting to thwart approval of the petition. The latest effort was an unprecedented five-day delay. Interestingly, a few hours after a local TV reporter submitted questions to the City, the petition was promptly approved and released to Kentner.

The Initiative Summary as Set by Lakewood City Clerk

Shall the City of Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION be repealed and replaced to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and to require the City to accept open space and land dedications for current and future developments.

Longer version: See soslakewood.org

Several years ago Kentner, who ran as an independent candidate for Mayor and has served on the Lakewood Planning Commission, successfully authored and helped pass a petition to limit population growth in Lakewood; it was subsequently approved in a citywide election.

By not following its own standards, Lakewood has effectively sold what should have been more than a dozen acres of parkland in the last decade. According to information provided by the city, Lakewood has not required land from developers since the Solterra development in 2007 and 2013.

Kentner said there appears to be a gentleman’s agreement between Lakewood and all of its developments so they are allowed to pay the City instead of providing open space.

Although citizens have long felt powerless as Lakewood approved large apartment buildings in charming neighborhoods and at the perimeter of parks, the Kairoi monolith at Belmar Park inspired several groups to work to either limit the size of the building or eliminate it entirely.

SaveBelmarPark.com is a comprehensive website that includes a petition to declare eminent domain on the land between the building and the park in order to create a buffer zone.

Save Belmar Park, Inc. has been organizing, educating and fundraising to pursue legal channels to protect the park.

Save Open Space Lakewood (SOS Lakewood) created a petition to bring these groups together to work toward a common goal of protecting Lakewood’s natural environment.

City Seeks to De-Tabor but Over Collects Property Tax

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 28, 2024.

Guest Post by Mary Janssen

Here we are again! The city of Lakewood is sending out a $73k survey to test the waters if the public is ready to De Tabor again and give up your over paid tax refunds so the city can spend it on their pet projects that they deem important.

After asking how things are going… snow plowing, police response, pot holes, the money spent on new parks (a new majority in Ward 5). They ask you if you would reject them taking more of your money.

One of the questions made me laugh. The one about the Mill levy. If you didn’t know I made a motion last October to decrease the mill levy from 4.7% to 3.85%. This would have decreased the revenue collected by the city to within the charter rule (12.12) which says clearly that property tax revenue must be below 7% growth from previous year.

12.12 LIMITATION ON PROPERTY TAXES. (a) The City Council shall not levy an ad valorem tax on taxable property in the City that provides revenue from such levy in an amount greater than was levied in the preceding year plus seven percent, except as hereafter provided. — From Lakewood City Charter

At a budget meeting I attended The city financial officer Holly Bjorklund was projecting a valuation number that she guessed was going to be the new property valuations. We do property taxes in arrears.

After doing some research on what the city was collecting on previous years since the last De Tabor we found the city was over collecting property taxes one year alone was 18%. Based on this information I thought the citizens deserved a real decrease so that’s how my team and I came up with 3.85. It would have decreased the revenue to around 5%. The city would still be collecting a fair amount and provide the citizens the relief so desperately needed since the other districts i.e. school, Fire, etc. did not decrease their mills.

My team did some calculations and found that based on Holly’s projected valuation number the city would be increasing property tax revenue by 12%.

After getting the real certified valuation number from the Jefferson County Assessors in August the city would have made a whopping 24.5% increase in revenue. That new certified number was never brought up, so I made some papers to inform the rest of council, the mayor and the city manager and the budget committee about the new certified valuation numbers and why we must decrease the mill levy to provide relief to our Lakewood citizens. The only other councilor that contacted me about this was Rich Olver and he decided that based on the research and the facts he would co-sponsor my motion.

I had to announce my motion by council request and was denied the first time so I had to wait till the end of October at the budget approval council meeting, when I was allowed to bring my motion forward, as reported in Lakewood news. I had already provided the other councilors the mayor, the budget committee city manager and staff my findings and why we need to decrease the mill. I put my motion forward and councilor Olver seconded my motion, when out of the blue councilor Barb Franks made an amendment to my original motion to raise my mill levy number of 3.85 to 4.28% in an appearance to make it look like the revenue was neutral. I have an email from Holly Bjorklund the chief financial officer admitting that the city will be indeed increasing the revenue by 12.5% , not neutral.

During discussion about the amendment I cited the charter 12.12 and was told by the city attorney that we were talking about the mill levy reduction not the charter rule about the revenue cap. I was told that in order for the city to go back and look at the interpretation of 12.12 the city would have to be sued.

The 4.28% mill levy amendment was voted on 10-1. I declined to vote for the amendment because #1 it was based on an estimated valuation number not the certified valuation number and #2 I knew that the increased revenue would be above the charter cap.

So based on facts do you think its safe to let the city take your TABOR Refunds?

Mary Janssen

Previous Lakewood City Councilor Ward 5

Sale of Lakewood Motel leaves some Coloradans searching for new housing

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 22, 2024.

Cross-post by Karen Morfitt, CBS News

Room 110 at the Mountain View Inn has everything Joyce Gonzales needs.

“It’s small, but it serves the purpose, you know, for me,” she said.

Over the last three years, she has worked at a nearby gas station to pay $425 a week needed to live here. From the pots and pans on the wall of her kitchen to the small couch and TV in her living space, she has made it a home.

“Don’t have much but it’s all I have. I don’t want to lose it,” Gonzales said.

The reality is she will likely have to leave. The motel was sold to Recovery Works earlier this year, which informed long-term guests they would need to vacate.

“I said ‘So you guys are going to make someone homeless to help someone who is homeless?’ What is the purpose here?”

Read the full story at CBS news…

Jeffco Missed Opportunities for Sunlight on Emory

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 22, 2024.

Tip from Robert Greenawalt, https://improvejeffcoschools.org/

Here is an example of how much Jeffco schools’ staff wanted to keep quiet the talks about Emory and the City of Lakewood/Action Center. The conversation in this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWRI8v0vpl8 occurred at the very end of the November 1, 2023 Board of Ed study session. Staff was directly asked why they wanted the property declared surplus and their answer was that it was big and potentially costly to maintain. There was no mention that they had most likely been approached by, and had discussions with, Lakewood and possibly others. That was deceptive at best and lying by omission at worst. This deprived the Board, and community, of very important information. There is something very wrong with what transpired that evening.

Note: Read more of Robert’s reporting on Jeffco fiscal issues at https://improvejeffcoschools.org/

Thank you, Robert!

A Review of Lakewood’s Proposed “Beneficial Home Electrification and Upgrade Program”

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 18, 2024.

Guest Post from Bill Foshag

Editor’s Note: This plan will be acted on by City Council during the April 22 meeting. Check that meeting packet to see the full proposal for the LAC side of the story.

The Lakewood Advisory Commission (LAC) put together a “Beneficial Home Electrification and Upgrade Program” (BHEUP). This plan will come a great expense to the residents of Lakewood, and will mandate drastic changes to the City’s building code.

The Plan

The BHEUP plan targets Lakewood homes and multi-family buildings for CO2 reduction. It is presented in response to a proposal at a July 2023 City Council meeting where the Advisory Committee was approved to look into policies and actions to expedite “green renovation” in Lakewood’s residential buildings. Lakewood has a 2015 “sustainability plan” that calls for reducing the city’s CO2 emissions to 20% below 2007 levels by the year 2025. According to the plan, “Partnering in the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy commits Lakewood to achieve net zero community greenhouse gas emissions by 2050”. Achieving these goals means the entire elimination of the use of natural organic fuel sources (oil, natural gas, and coal). There is no discussion in the report why the city has partnered with a global organization that does not represent our residents.

Achieving these goals means the entire elimination of the use of natural organic fuel sources (oil, natural gas, and coal).

The plan states that 21% of Lakewood’s CO2 emissions come from residences. The sources of the remaining 79% of CO2 emissions in Lakewood (commercial, transportation, unspecified “consumption”, and other sources) are not targeted for reductions. The report does not state why residences are specifically targeted and why larger CO2 contributors are excluded. Traditionally, governing bodies have found it easier to regulate individuals, as corporations and larger organizations have lobbying groups and funding, and are better equipped to fight back and litigate if necessary.

The plan states that the targeted properties are multi-family units over 20,000 square feet, with certain exemptions for new homes under 2,500 square feet, and remodeling of existing homes. Further reading shows in fact, that it calls for changes to be made to the EDM which would include all existing residences and all new construction regardless of square footage under this plan.

The plan LAC proposes has four primary recommendations to achieve the goal of greenhouse gas reduction:

1. Establish a Lakewood program for tax credit and rebate match for qualifying upgrades.

2. Make additions to the Enhanced Development Menu (EDM), Article 13 and (continue to) adapt as conditions develop in order to meet goals.

3. Add full time employees as deemed necessary at the Lakewood Building Department and Sustainability Division to implement and administer recommendations.

4. Develop a comprehensive community outreach and education plan to promote and support appropriate electrification and weatherization.

Adding more support staff to implement these changes has budget implications at a time Lakewood is already asking for more money.

The plan calls for partnering with companies such as BlocPower, a for-profit corporation based in New York. No doubt BlocPower would profit from Lakewood’s adoption of this proposal. Representatives from BlocPower are noted as assisting in preparing this plan.

A Sense of Urgency

The LAC is making this proposal with a sense of urgency:

“The LAC supports urgent adoption of these recommendations so Lakewood staff will have time to develop programs affecting the 2025 city budget. Federal funds are available now and state funds become available in 2024”

and:

“They (Federal funds) may not be available indefinitely, especially given the uncertainty of election outcomes and politics. It is therefore imperative that Lakewood takes the below listed steps related to funding opportunities…”.

A quick approval of this plan by City Council allows less time for resident’s feedback. It does not allow for careful analysis of the necessary expenses and possible consequences of a proposal that will be very costly for the residents and likely to require unacceptable lifestyle changes.

Mandated Major Changes

The plan seeks to take away homeowners energy choices and impose city mandated regulations via changes in the building code and permitting processes to achieve these goals:

“Broad adoption of electrification is necessary to make significant change. Where voluntary reductions fall short of decarbonization goals, upgrades at the point of replacement of heating appliances and furnaces can be encouraged at permitting or through the expansion of Lakewood’s Enhanced Development Menu: EDM. Additionally, Federal, state, and local incentives can assist most homeowners in the transition away from greenhouse gas producing systems and can be weighted to further assist homeowners when affordability is insurmountable.”

Heat Pumps

The plan advocates the use of heat pumps to replace natural gas furnaces. Heat pumps can be thought of as air conditioners that can be run in reverse. They generally work well and efficiently within certain specific indoor/outdoor temperature ranges, but when those temperatures ranges widen, the efficiency drops. Working as a heat pump, the units depend on a certain amount of heat to be available in the ambient air outside so that heat can be transferred indoors for heating. For residential heating, heat pumps can work fairly well when the outside temperatures are in the 50 to 60 degree range, but their efficiency and ability to heat a home drops considerably when the temperatures approach 40 degrees. Below 40 degrees, heat pumps are not able to maintain indoor temperatures at comfortable levels so some sort of back-up heat source is required. The back-up is typically either a natural gas furnace or an electrical (resistive) heating source. While resistive heating works well, it is very expensive compared to natural gas heating. Heating homes in this area with heat pumps is very expensive, not efficient, and not practical considering the cold winters we have in Lakewood.

The plan also mentions heat pump systems for heating water. The BHEUP proposal states:

“Add electrification compliance of a heat pump water heater at the replacement of natural gas hot water heaters. This achieves GHG emissions reduction at a relatively low cost”.

This is a fallacy as the tanks and required equipment for heat pump systems are more complex and expensive than a traditional natural gas water heater. As with a heat pump furnace, the operating costs for a heat pump water system will increase dramatically on cold winter days when the temperature drops and the system needs to rely on an electrical backup for heat. Heating water with natural gas is clean, efficient, and inexpensive cheap. Heating water with electricity is very expensive.

The Costs

The BHEUP plan comments on the expenses that will be incurred if their plan is adopted:

“Decarbonization of existing homes is expensive. When federal and state incentives are not adequate to lower the costs enough to prompt action, additional incentives from local governments will be required and are proven to be effective, especially for those with low and moderate incomes.”

This is tacit admission that the residents will not be able to afford compliance with the plan, and that Lakewood will have to spend taxpayer money to cover shortfalls after state and federal funds are exhausted.

Additionally, the BHEUP plan directly calls for the taxpayers to pay for, or subsidize, the costs of implementing the plan:

“The past few years have brought an unprecedented surge in available government funding to support initiatives recommended here. Most of this recent funding comes from massive federal legislation: the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and other programs, providing targeted funding for climate and clean energy development with millions of dollars available to Lakewood and our citizens”.

During, and as a result of, the covid scare, the Federal government adopted a number of plans to make funds (through programs such as IRA and IIJA) available to stimulate the economy. The current availability of these funds to be used for funding the BHEUP plan is not addressed in the report. Similar arguments about the use of taxpayer funds (“grants”) were made by city council members in the discussions regarding the DOLA grant for the navigation center – the taxpayer money is available, let’s get it and spend it before another city takes it. Lakewood City Council has adopted a position of taking whatever taxpayer money is available and spending it without careful consideration of the possible range of outcomes or disadvantages. It is important to note that subsidies from the government come from money paid by taxpayers, so the plan would be implemented at a cost to the residents both directly and through the collection of property and income taxes.

There will be additional expenses for maintaining, growing, and administering a new BHEUP program. The plan calls for hiring people to seek funding for the program and to oversee and monitor the progress of the program to make sure the City stays on-mark with their CO2 reduction goals.

“…Add necessary full time employees at the Sustainability Division and as needed at the Lakewood Building Department to implement and administer any adopted recommendations.”

A typical basic solar conversion can easily cost $30,000. That will provide a homeowner with a 6 or 7 kwh system of panels, inverters, a battery backup, and wiring. An older electrical panel will require an upgrade, which will run an additional $5,000 to $10,000. Insurance companies sometimes will not insure homes after installing solar if the roof is beyond a certain age, so a new roof may also be necessary when converting to solar. Replacing natural gas furnaces and water heaters with heat pump units could easily cost $10,000 or more. Because heat pumps require more equipment, some remodeling may be in order to accommodate the additional equipment. What might appear to be a simple conversion away from natural gas to the alternatives advocated by LAC could easily cost the homeowner in excess of $50,000. The cost to convert all 42,000 single family homes in Lakewood would be in excess of $2 billion. There are an additional 30,000 housing units (multi-family, apartments, condos, etc.) that would need to be converted under this plan, at additional costs likely to exceed $1 billion. It is unlikely federal, state, and city governments would be willing to spend over $3 billion for Lakewood to upgrade its housing to all electric. The bulk of the costs, if this plan passes and the mandates are imposed, will be borne by the residents. With residents already struggling with their property taxes and a high inflation post-covid economic environment, it’s unrealistic they will be able or willing to spend anything near $50,000 to comply with this plan.

Comments From Advocates of the Plan

An advocacy group called Clean Energy Lakewood is cited in the BHEUP plan as assisting with the details and documentation of the report. A number of people speaking for this group appeared before City Council at the February 26 meeting during public comments. Each of them addressed the issues contained in the BHEUP plan. One speaker began his remarks with “the most important thing we can do is not use energy in the first place”. Living without the use of energy is not possible, yet this seems to be the ultimate goal of those promoting the plan. Another speaker commented that the residents need (as an imperative) to modify their homes, stating “we don’t have the resources to scrape them (the older houses in Lakewood), we’re going to have to rehab them”, seemingly implying City Council needs to mandate upgrades. He even admitted the cost of doing so is high, commenting that converting his home to net zero energy was “not easy and not cheap”. He added that the residents would have to change to a new way of living, stating “the greatest (variability) of all is lifestyles and the people that live in those homes”. Another speaker advocated the oft-heard money-grab excuse that we better get the Federal money before someone else does, saying “the Federal government has money available for this and if we do nothing, that money goes to other cities and residents (sic) elsewhere”

No Direct Benefit to the Community

Contrary to the name of the BHEUP proposal, the plan is noticeably absent of any mention of direct benefit to the community. It claims the aim of the plan is to reduce CO2 emissions, but there is no discussion or indication how implementing this plan will impact our lives or make anything better for residents. Claims that CO2 increases global temperatures (or vice-versa) are spurious at best. The “science” of the global warming/climate change debate is in fact not settled as a number of highly credentialed climate scientists seriously doubt the claims made by climate alarmists. To put this in perspective, global annual CO2 emissions are in the 35 billion ton range. The BHEUP plan notes that Lakewood’s annual CO2 equivalent output is approximately 882,000 mt which is far in excess of the global total – I believe the number they mean to represent is 882,000 tons. With these figures, Lakewood’s contribution to global CO2 output is 0.0025%, or about 1 part out of 40,000. If Lakewood entirely eliminated CO2 emissions, not just elimination of CO2 from residences targeted in this plan, there would be no significant impact on the global CO2 levels. A number of countries are continuing to increase their CO2 emissions each year, and those increases far exceed the total CO2 output from Lakewood. It is incredulous that the city would expect each homeowner in Lakewood to spend tens of thousands of dollars (not to mention additional tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funded grant money) on a plan that has no discernable benefit whatsoever.

The Bigger Picture – A Reason to Pause

As I write this, I take note of the bigger picture. There’s a movement advocating a switch to electrical power and the total elimination of the use of natural organic fuels by 2030, or 2040, or 2050 (depending on which global organization you listen to). People and corporations are beginning to realize the failures and limitations of this great conversion, and we’re seeing it in some recent headlines. “Ford to scale back plans for $3.5 billion Michigan battery plant as EV demand disappoints, labor costs rise”, “Ford Rival GM Pulls Back On 2024 EV Production Plans”, “EV euphoria is dead. Automakers are scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans”, and “Mercedes-Benz scales back electric ambitions as EV pessimism grows”, just to name a few. Large corporations and investment firms (including JP Morgan, State Street Bank, and BlackRock) who once embraced ESG (environmental, safety, and governance) guidelines are now baking off after realizing the onerous demands, high costs, and minimal benefit of the “environmental” part of ESG. A number of states have also taken positions against ESG themed investing guidelines for their state funds. People are realizing that converting everything from traditional organic energy sources to electricity is just not working out as promised. Yet the City of Lakewood seems to be rushing ahead, embracing the failed promises of an all-electric future as many others are taking a second look and backing off.

Author: Lakewood News from Karen