The March 13^th Lakewood City Council meeting included 3 hours of public comment, mostly regarding short-term rentals (STRs). People spoke both for and against STRs. However, the biggest reveal was that ALL sides spoke about the lack of enforcement of current ordinances, which leads to speculation of how new measures, like censure, may be implemented.

Public comment shows residents perplexed at the city allowing illegal STRs for years.  However, the city argues STRs are not illegal because the words “short-term rental” cannot be found in ordinance, so they have never stopped the activity. Residents argue that STRs are commercial lodging, like hotels, that has long been banned in Lakewood through zoning.  

At one point, “The [Lakewood] Planning Department determined that short term rentals are most closely related to Bed and Breakfast, which is only allowed in certain residential zone districts, with a Special Use Permit. This action banned short-term rentals in the City of Lakewood, unless reviewed and approved via the Special Use Permit Process, which requires a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission.“ (see pg 4 of the 2018 memo for more details)

The STR ban was never enforced.

No member of the public spoke with confidence that the city will enforce these new ordinances either. 

It is important to remember that there are advantages to STRs. However, when you start so far below the trust curve, at the first sign of a problem, people will not be patient while waiting for a resolution. They will know there is no resolution for them.

Parking

Many residents spoke about the parking problem that has been worsening in Lakewood. Where streets used to have one big family with extra cars or one long-term rental with extra neighbors, now people are having to deal with student housing, group homes with unlimited residents and overflow from apartments with limited parking. These are not enforcement issues per se. The city will correctly point out that there is nothing illegal with extra parking used by students or apartments. Residents will point out that the city changed zoning to allow student housing and decreased apartment parking, thereby causing the parking problem. They are afraid STRs will be a similar situation of the city causing problems it cannot fix later.

Other Issues

Speakers raised other enforcement issues such as crime at light-rail stations and local stores.  One spoke of neighbors who are hoarders, creating neighborhood annoyances and safety concerns. One spoke of long-term owners who didn’t maintain their homes. Another spoke of long-term renters growing marijuana. Speakers repeatedly expressed concern over problems they see, and the lack of action to make things better.

A rough tally of speakers shows that:

• 11 addressed enforcement problems;
• 8 wanted the original committee compromise of a primary residence STR;
• 7 residents were dissatisfied with the Council enforcing Council process
• 6 wanted STRs issues put on the ballot for voters to decide;
• 6 were supportive of business- owned STRs;
• 4 were against all STRs

Residents seemed to be asking why the city doesn’t enforce its laws, or why the city changes laws that cause problems for certain segments of the population.

Censure

At the end of the meeting, Lakewood Council decided to study censuring fellow Council Members. Members speaking in favor of the measure are concerned about the use of non-politically correct language in Council dialogue, and it is this issue which is the suspected trigger for censure.

Council has a duty to self-police and censure could be a useful tool if applied equally. However, this seems to be another rule that would be implemented selectively. In fact, one of the reasons censure was removed from Council procedures was that it was a tool used by the majority for political purposes only. (See the full discussion at 4 hour 27 min mark)

As a basis for implementation standards, Council Member Springsteen inquired about other alleged, censurable actions. The Mayor muted her – not once, but twice.

These types of behaviors do not indicate that Council is committed to self-policing, but rather that they may use a new rule to selectively mute opposition thinking and ideas.

Lakewood residents gave example after example of how bending ordinances for selective purposes led to a breakdown in trust that makes governing harder, not easier. For people to understand the government is working for them, for ALL OF THEM, they must see that actions are not intended for political purposes.

LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL, STUDY SESSION, MAY 21, 2018

ITEM 4 – PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION – SHORT TERM RENTALS

Lakewood City Council meeting on March 13th included 3 hours of public comment, mostly regarding short-term rentals. Rather than summarizing the arguments, this post links to a representative video for the various arguments.

Argument AGAINST ALL STRs. Comments by Mr Josh (?), starting at the 1:19 mark…

Argument IN FAVOR of OWNER-OCCUPIED STRs. Comments by unknown starting at 1:58 mark…

IN FAVOR of COUNCIL/COMMUNITY process. Comments by Imara at 2 hr mark….

IN FAVOR of INVESTOR-OWNED STRs. Comments by Mr. Smith at 2:42 mark

To see the resulting short-term rental ordinance, see the city’s website.

Any person who does not want to be highlighted on LakewoodInformer can email us for removal. Thank you all for your public involvement.

via Karen Morfitt, CBS Colorado

“The City of Lakewood is one of the many Colorado communities where a debate about the future of short-term rentals has been taking place. As the popularity of such rentals grows, concerns surrounding the impact to the communities around them have also grown.

The Lakewood City Council on Monday voted to allow licensed short-term rentals for primary residents of a home. They had previously considered that property owners who didn’t live at the residence would be allowed to do short-term rentals and that was written out of the proposed ordinance.”

Read more…

The Board of Directors for West Metro Fire Rescue had three openings this year. Since there were only three candidates for three seats, the election was canceled and the results certified.

The 2023-2027 Board Directors are:

• Amira Watters
• Mike Williams
• Bill Clayton

For Mike Williams and Bill Clayton, this will be a continuation of service. Amira Watters will be starting fresh but is familiar as the Executive Director of the Jefferson County Business Resource Center until it closed in 2021.

The canceled election will save approximately $30,000 for a polling place election. The 2023 budget did not include a mail-in ballot election. Voter turnout was low in 2022 and the idea of changing to a mail-in ballot was raised again as recently as November with no change in plans.

via  Cathy Kentner on YourHub

In a local and national housing crisis, Lakewood City Councilors voted to amend proposed legislation legalizing short-term rentals.

As amended, the ordinance would allow investor corporations to buy housing for the sole purpose of providing short-term rentals.

Read more…

The Colorado Attorney General’s office is asking the public for input on what this merger of Kroger (King Soopers)/ Safeway would mean for them.

“My office is already hearing from shoppers, retail workers, farmers, food manufacturers, and others from around our state who are directly affected by the proposed merger.”

Attorney General Phil Weiser, via The Denver Post

Colorado residents can weigh in with opinions at forums or through a survey at

https://qrco.de/grocerymerger

Read more at: Weiser: The Kroger/Albertsons grocery merger deserves a thorough anti-trust legal review

Guest post from Lenore Herskovitz

Lakewoodspeaks is touted by city staff and its platform provider Peoplespeak as a place to make hearings “Inclusive. Transparent. Easy. Convenient.” Theoretically, this sounds very impressive but in reality, this costly site has been plagued with numerous problems.

Between 5/10/2018 and 12/21/2022 the City paid Peoplespeak a total of $270,800.00. According to the financial ledger we are presently spending $4,400 a month for this service. Unfortunately, there are many problems that have persisted over the years including which city website to use to locate information, how to successfully phone in a comment, how to post comments on Lakewoodspeaks, what are the specific rules pertaining to public comments, and the technical difficulties when viewing meetings from home.

Recently there has been an issue when completing submission of a written comment. The CAPTCHA function which verifies valid users indicates “failed” but when you press submit it goes through anyway. The city clerk and provider are aware of the problem, but it has remained unresolved for weeks now.

On February 13th, the City posted a comment by an individual claiming to be “Terrified in Ward 1”, clearly a violation of the rule prohibiting using a false identity. The commenter began with a criticism of the way a city councilor had handled an interaction with an attendee at the February Ward 1 meeting then veered off topic into a personal attack on the councilor and a planning commissioner referring to them as “dangerous ghouls”. Through an open records search, the true identity of the commenter was discovered. That individual had not even been present at the Ward meeting.  The city clerk had wanted to deny a posting based on the false identity violation and also suggested citing the policy against personal attack. His recommendation was overruled after several days of deliberation and the inciteful post appeared on Lakewoodspeaks. The city responded to several citizen complaints about this by removing the recommended moderation policy. The new one is vague and weaker regarding what can be printed. Instead of removing comments that violate the guidelines which is the protocol for other Peoplespeak cities (including Wheatridge and Grand Junction), Lakewood requests citizens “to please refrain from the practices”.

There is an addition to the policy which states “Comments that are not protected by the 1st amendment will be redacted or removed”. When the city clerk was contacted for a clarification of specific comments that would not be protected by the 1st amendment, the response was sending the link to the moderation policy.

Mayor Paul talks about decorum at the beginning of public meetings. Because Lakewoodspeaks has changed their guidelines regarding written comment submissions the gates to misinterpretation have been opened. Will decorum requirements be the same for written, in person and phone in comments?  Hopefully, the confusion will not lead to more divisiveness or discourage people from participating in hearings.

There is also confusion because the city has several websites. The greatest problems are with Lakewoodspeaks.org and Lakewood.org. At times there seems to be overlap and at other times conflicting information is posted. At the Annual Council Planning session this year, Mayor Paul suggested a “one stop shop” approach. Since Lakewood.org is the official City website all information could be filtered through this platform. We could adopt a policy similar to the one in Golden, Colorado where comments are reviewed by the City clerk’s office and posted on the city’s website (see image below).

So, is Lakewoodspeaks a problem or a solution? While the aspirational concept is promising, the reality for Lakewood has been less than stellar. Peoplespeak is expensive and riddled with unresolved problems. Now Lakewood doesn’t even follow the moderation guidelines used by other cities with the same platform. Let’s apply the “one stop shop” approach by consolidating our many sites into Lakewood.org. This would eliminate the need for Lakewoodspeaks. Encourage accessibility by simplifying rather than complicating. It can be done, and it should be done.

One last thought, platforms are only meaningful when citizens want to be involved. That desire quickly dissipates when the decision-makers, including staff and elected representatives, disrespect their constituents by not responding to their concerns with action.

Corrected 3/10/2023 to remove information regarding moderation policies found to be incorrect.

A legal conundrum underlying the Short-Term Rental (STR) discussion is whether STRs (like Airbnb and Vrbo) are home businesses or not.

The answer is:

• Yes – for licensing, insurance, incorporation and taxing
• No – for zoning, building codes, and public hearings
• And definitely don’t ask how they differ from hotels for any of the above.

The issue was raised in the February 13 City Council meeting. Per Lakewood Zoning Ordinance Article 14, the definition of a home business is “any occupation of a service character which is clearly accessory to the main use of the premises as a dwelling unit, and which does not change the residential character.”

Citing the zoning definition, City of Lakewood attorneys advise that STRs are not a home business at all, because the business in question is dwelling.

Business: “the activity of making, buying, or selling of goods or providing services in exchange for money.”

Britannica.com

The convoluted argument is summed up in the proposed, “Business and License Regulations for Short-Term Rentals” wherein it states: “due to the residential nature associated with operating an STR, the use of a primary residence as a Short-Term Rental shall not be considered either a major or minor home business as those terms are defined within the Zoning Ordinance.”

So in the business regulations for STRs, it states STRs are not a home business.

Regardless of what you may think of that legal argument, it has been rendered moot by the recently passed amendment to allow short-term rentals in a non-owner-occupied residence (you don’t live there, you just rent it out).

Reside: to dwell permanently or for a considerable time

dictionary.com

Per zoning ordinance definitions, the main difference between a home/residence and a hotel/motel is the transitory nature of the stay. It seems logical to assume that with no one residing at the home, it is no longer a residence.

Another indication of a change in purpose is when property is owned by a business. Many rental owners form a business and register with the Secretary of State as legal protection. In that scenario, the business owns the property.

The purpose of the building has now shifted into a transitory-stay, business nature, rather than residential. It is lodging, just like a hotel. Hotels are required to have a lodging facility license and follow certain rules.

Jefferson County also considers short-term rentals to be a residential use. They only allow STRs on properties over one acre in size, with adequate parking, and special exception approval.

Jeffco’s definition also neglects to address the difference between long-term residential use, and the transitory lodging use that characterizes hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts. Advocates of de-regulation will point out that all of these businesses may benefit from being zoned residential, with residential building codes, and/or no public hearing for a lodging license.  

It may be necessary for Lakewood to revisit the decision that STRs are not a lodging business, even a home business, with the inclusion of non-owner-occupied rentals. These houses will not be serving their primary purpose of being a residence. They will be transitory lodging for visitors – with all the associated pros and cons.

This is one example of the items that may be reviewed before the March 13 meeting.

UPDATE: 5 March, 2023. Public comment is not being accepted for this item on Lakewood speaks. Until and unless they enable this feature, you can comment under agenda item 6: General Public comment. The latest redline version to be voted on is available on https://lakewoodspeaks.org/items/2887.

Over two years of committee work on Short-Term Rentals (STRs) was overthrown during February 13^ths City Council meeting. One of the basic underlying premises of the proposed regulations was whether to allow STR use in investment homes, or only in primary residences. After working with residents for year, the Lakewood City Council committee on STRs decided to only allow STR use in home with an owner in residence,

However, on Feb 13, Council Member Shahrezaei proposed changing that base assumption and allowing another, secondary or investment home, to also be used as an STR.

Whether you agree or not, this was a major change and one that residents may not be prepared for. Those concerned can still contact City Council with their views.

Using a non-owner-occupied house as an STR impacts the residents that are concerned about an increased number of strangers in the area posing a safety concern; that increased use of investment housing will make housing more unaffordable; that properties will not be well cared for.

Advocates for non-owner-occupied homes point to the economic advantages in investing, property rights and standards of care that ensure good business.

Discussion in City Council revealed that a “primary residence” clause was recently struck down in Texas. Legal advice was that federal case law in other circuits don’t affect us.

Sidenote: Council Member Springsteen disagreed with this legal opinion and stated her reasons. Mayor Paul forced a break with the advice that she was not the City’s Attorney.

Council Member Franks, who worked extensively on the issues, raised many questions that showed the proposed regulations would need reworked if non-owner occupied STRs were accepted. Everything from definitions to operations would need changed. New language to accompany this change was not available but Council Member Shahrezaei did offer the insight that in 2021 she replaced someone who had a different philosophy on this issue than she did.

Discussion ensued as to how to pass this change quickly, in part because elections were again coming up, but also because the issue has already taken so long. The City Attorney offered language that would allow it to pass with any future modifications necessary to be made by city staff.

In the end, the amendment to allow a second, non-owner-occupied STR passed 7-4, with Council Members Franks, Springsteen, Vincent and Able voting no.

The entire proposal was then tabled until March 13, to allow time for the city staff to rework the regulations as necessary. On March 13, there will be another public comment period regarding the whole proposal, including the new changes. This is your time to have your concerns heard.

However, Lakewood’s City Attorney asked for 30 days to complete the required work so it is unclear when the final product will be available to the public, or even to Council itself.

Other changes to the proposed regulations:

Inspections: A provision was added to allow the City Clerk to decide if adequate compliance with the section on inspection rules was made, so that grace periods can be accommodated as necessary.

Parking: The entire proposed parking plan was removed. Discussion against a parking plan was that there is already a problem but we don’t make others follow a plan and this would be hard to enforce anyway. Discussion for keeping the parking plan was that there is already a problem so don’t make it worse.  

Insurance: Council Member Mayott-Guerrero made a motion to change “commercial” insurance to “insurance that adequately covers STR liability”. Motion passed.

Notifications: The requirements for notifying neighbors of STR activity were simplified. Mediation requirements were removed.

Please send comments or corrections to [email protected]

During the February 13 City Council meeting, item 8, approving $472,000 for a public benefit agreement, was pulled from the consent agenda for public discussion. Although any item can be pulled for more discussion, the tool is rarely used because items on the consent agenda are routine and assumed to have support.

The agreement in question was giving the Natural Grocers food store chain a total of $472,000 to be used for expanding their corporate headquarter building on Alameda, adding a new building in that existing parking lot, and adding 25 new employees with high-paying jobs. Natural Grocers will also receive up to $140,000 in sales tax rebates.

Discussion involved whether it was the job of government to pick winners and losers. This point was underscored by a Council Member who called attention a neighboring business, Green Mountain Sports, which is going out of business.

Sidenote: Green Mountain Sports owner is retiring but a current employee would take over if it was financially possible.

A motion was made for partial funding for Natural Grocers but did not pass.

Discussion revealed that the money would come from a Lakewood economic development fund, not the general fund. The economic development fund is a result of the City of Lakewood Accommodation Tax (3%) on accommodations within the city. Estimates are that funding the Natural Grocers expansion would result in increased sales tax and high-paying jobs for Lakewood.

Several Council Members spoke in favor of economic development in general.

The economic development fund currently has approximately $9.5M in it, but unfortunately, City Council did not get that information until just before the council meeting.

The question arose as to who else had this opportunity; there were no other contenders. Other business can apply for grants, available through the Economic Development Program. This public benefit agreement was a unique opportunity, solely for Natural Grocers, similar to that made for Walmart.

Natural Grocers seems to be following the same model as Walmart, using government subsidies to fund their expansion. A cursory search reveals Natural Grocers have recently reached similar agreements in Green Valley Ranch,  Loveland, Canon City, and Shawnee, KS.

The motion passed 10-1 and will proceed to second reading. Councilor Janssen voted no, citing her belief the measure violated the Colorado Constitution, Article XI, sections 1 and 2.