A Resolution drafted by the Lakewood Planning Commission sought to address inadequacies in the process for Major Site Plans. The request for a Resolution came from Rebekah Stewart on City Council and was in direct response to the 6-story apartment complex planned directly adjacent to Belmar Park, its lakes, and established natural habitats. The Resolution notably promoted a paragraph recommending there be “an evaluation of the potential effects of a park adjacent development on habitats with the park, including any demonstrable effects on park flora and fauna”. In the Sep 4 discussion of the Resolution, Commissioner Kolkmeier mentioned that this was not a new concept and that Ft. Collins has an ordinance exactly on this topic, so that there were models available to draw from. However, Commissioner Buckley stated that he did not know what Ft. Collins experienced from this ordinance, and therefore recommended striking the paragraph from the Resolution. After a half-hearted round robin where other commissioners stated “perhaps we could recommend that City Council review the Ft. Collins ordinance” and “it’s unfortunate not to address the ecology at all”, the commission voted 4 to 1 to remove the paragraph and not consider protecting the environment in a review of Major Site Plans, even when they might be located adjacent to a park.
There is well documented peer-reviewed research of the adverse impacts of adjacent development on wildlife from increased noise, light pollution, pets – especially cats, bird strikes on window glass, and general human-caused disturbance. An industry as vilified as Oil and Gas is required to perform environmental assessments before beginning projects. However , the Lakewood Planning Commission has decided that in our human-centric world, protecting the environment should not be a factor that developers need to bother with. From developers to Lakewood: “Thanks!”.
History. Belmar Park was voted into existence in 1973, after a long-contested struggle of what the original Bonfils Stanton estate should become: a development that would provide a tax base for the newly incorporated City of Lakewood or a large, centrally located park. The outcome, Belmar Park, is described on the city website as one of the “true jewels of the city park system, a peaceful enclave in the center of town” that comprises 132 acres of natural area. It is valued for its wildlife (avidly photographed) and also for the serenity and tranquility it provides to park visitors.
Threats to the Park. In the 50 years since the inception of Belmar Park, the city of Lakewood has inevitably seen much growth. One recent proposed development at 777 S. Yarrow St., which currently contains the two-story Irongate office building, threatens the integrity of the park by adding 412 luxury apartment units in a six-story complex on 5 acres immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the park. Sixty-five mature trees would be removed. The project is legally zoned for this density after a zoning change in 2012. Done as a city-wide “legislative rezoning”, the change did not require neighborhood notification that most rezoning involves. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan further exacerbated the problem by designating Belmar Park and the adjacent land as a “growth area”, which allows for dense multi-storied structures. Also, with the designation of a Major Site Plan, the project to date has been reviewed only by city staff, with no input from City Council or the public. Residents of Belmar Commons townhomes, located within 300 ft of the project, were notified in 2023, 2 years after the project plans had been submitted to Lakewood.
Impacts to the Park. How would Belmar Park be affected by such development on its periphery? Over 240 species of birds have been catalogued at Belmar Park, according to Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird.org, including resident, breeding, and migratory birds. There is written authority on the detrimental effects of noise and night lighting on bird mating, nesting, and reproductive success. There is wide documentation of the threats to birds from collision with buildings and glass, a danger that the nearby multi-story building would present as birds fly eastward across the lake with afternoon sun reflected on the windows. The mature trees on the project site provide nesting and foraging sites for songbirds and raptors. As far as more people experiencing nature, there have been articles about our public spaces being loved to death. As a frequent visitor to Belmar Park, I have watched people fishing near the No Fishing signs, and social media has reported turtles being taken from the lake. With the addition of 412 apartment units encroaching on the park, degradation is inevitable.
Public outcry and City of Lakewood Position. When the public became aware of the project in August 2023, people filled City Council chambers to protest in each meeting from September into January 2024. Most City Council members and Mayors Adam Paul and Wendi Strom contended there was nothing that could be done to change the proposal due to the “right to build”. This raises the question, why does development supersede the wishes of the community and Lakewood’s own ordinances and plans, such as The Existing Tree Preservation ordinance, which requires protection of mature trees and design plans that minimize disturbance to such trees; the Lakewood Sustainability Plan, with a goal to achieve a 30 percent tree canopy by 2025; and The Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, which reads that new developments should be compatible and seamlessly integrate with existing neighborhoods (in this case the park and 1and 2-story townhouses.)
Additionally, according to the Lakewood Municipal Code, the calculation of land dedication requirements for park and open space, the developer owed the City 3.3 acres of parkland, which would have created a buffer with the park. However, the City opted to accept an “in lieu of” cash offer from the developer with no land donation, and intends to use the funds for a parking lot south of the library, effectively removing more trees and green space.
Where we are now. It is clear that the deteriorating Irongate office building should be demolished. The City declined to bid on the property when it became available in 2019, as reported by Westword. Development that is more appropriate in scale for the site, that adheres to the Lakewood ordinances, would be considered acceptable to much of the community. Any recent negotiations between the City Planning Staff and the developer are unknown at this time. However, for the first time in 12 years, the Planning Director has recommended a Major Site Plan to the Planning Commission for review. Years ago City Council ceded their authority to review such projects because of the time involved, and since then, Major Site Plans have been reviewed by staff with no public interaction with the developer. The review date is to be determined, but the meeting will be an opportunity for those concerned to once again voice their opinions. A decision by the Planning Commission that favors the developer over the needs of the park and the community will be challenged in court.
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.
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?
A city that for over a decade has not only refused to do economic development (in a true sense), but has lost jobs and is now planning to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize developers, under the guise of “economic development.”
A city that, for over a decade, has done nothing to improve the path conditions along Alameda Avenue, in Ward 4. Nor have any improvements have been made to alleviate the traffic increases at Union and Alameda.
To be fair, the city did spend an untold amount of money to add “roundabouts” on Green Mountain Drive. Perfectly placed to create a road hazard with any amount of snow.
A city that has been lecturing the citizens about how the citizens should be planting trees, to cool the city, you know? The same city that is now allowing an-out-of-state developer to destroy a much-beloved park at Belmar, while chopping down dozens of decades-old trees.
A city where for years now the recreational fields at Carmody Park are in an awful shape. Fields where parents actually pay a fee to have their children play.
They “fixed it” this year:
And this is a park that has favorable political sunshine on it.
A city, where instead of maintaining the hiking and biking trails damaged by runoff, a sign is placed, telling you to be careful. You should see what the head of parks gets paid, though.
A city, where the City Council goes in to executive sessions, to decide on even more perks for a City Manager, while the needs of thousands of residents are ignored and the city is millions over budget:
A city, where the citizens are lectured about how they should not be driving, to save the environment and stuff. While the city has failed to champion any sort of real economic development, so that thousands of people would not have to drive out of the city for work.
A city, where the citizens are told not to drive, while the aforementioned City Manager gets paid for mileage, just to go to work. A City Manager that lives in the city. Gets paid to drive to work. Do you?
Here is an exert from City Manager’s contract:
Source: Lakewood City Manager Contract
The taxpayers, it seems also get to pay for the privilege of the department heads using the medical benefits, after they leave. Do you get a perk such as that with your employer?
The City Manager also has a retirement perk that seems more geared for a CEO than a “public servant”.
In just one year, the city spends about $100,000,000 just on staff alone. To be fair, some of that is police, which the city’s council has been hamstringing from even enforcing the laws that exist.
Here are the compensation numbers, just for the “department heads” (as of two years ago – you may want to see the updated ones for 2024):
As you walk around the neglected parks and drive on Kipling where the road surface has been in need of repair for years and most of the lights are out on some of the sections, may be think about asking the city what has it done with the tens of millions it receives every year, before even getting to the TABOR refunds? Perhaps start off by looking at the expenditure trends of the planning and city manager’s departments?
So when Lakewood asks for your TABOR refund (for parks and police of course), ask the city – why are millions spent on just the planning and the city manager’s offices alone and why is the city millions over budget every year? The cuts should have happened years ago, with money saved then be used for the parks, police, economic development and road and infrastructure maintenance. But, instead, the city is now spending thousands of dollars of your money for marketing research to see how to manipulate the residents in to allowing the city to keep millions more from the TABOR-mandated refunds.
New information shows that Lakewood has been planning on purchasing Emory Elementary, in partnership with the Action Center, since at least September 2023 as part of a homeless strategy.
In December of 2023, Lakewood City Manager Cathy Hodgson stated that Lakewood would be working with the Jeffco Action Center to move the Center into a closed public school so that Lakewood would have another building for their solution to homelessness. There was a strong, negative public reaction to this news, which only increased when Lakewood started talking about welcoming migrants. In reaction to the public backlash, the city cried “misinformation”, and both Hodgson and Mayor Strom stated that Lakewood has no direct control over the schools.
However, Hodgson did not explicitly deny that Lakewood has been working with the Action Center and Jeffco schools to move homeless services into a closed neighborhood school and increase housing for homeless. Instead, the manager or council called it “misinformation” in the news headlines, a statement solely aimed at migrant support (this claim was later also negated by discussions that homeless is homeless and Lakewood would support everyone possible.)
Recently alocal effort called Concerned Citizens in Lakewood, [email protected], submitted a CORA Request (Colorado Open Records Access request) which revealed planning meetings with the City of Lakewood, JeffCo Public Schools, and the JeffCo Action Center related to Emory Elementary School and a real estate transaction.
These planning meetings have been going on since at least September 2023.
According to emails, Lakewood’s City Manager Hodgson hosted an organizational meeting between Lakewood, the Action Center Executive Director Pam Brier and Jeff Gaitlin, Jefferson County School’s Chief Operating Officer. The email pictured below reveals that Lakewood and Jeffco Schools have held behind-the-scenes planning meetings for this school, while officials from both governments denied or stayed silent regarding any knowledge of future plans. The email appears to indicate that the purpose of this meeting was to define next steps on the partnership to buy Emory Elementary.
Not only do the emails show the partnership being formed months ago, they show the plans were detailed enough to involve future meetings with real estate agents and school board attorneys. Notable in this email was that commercial real estate agents may not be needed. This was not the public process with ample notice the school board advertised.
Gaitlin, from Jeffco Schools, said in February that Lakewood was in the early stages of using the municipal option. The municipal option seems to have come into being just for Lakewood, since it was unveiled just after Hodgson announced the plans for the school.
Using the municipal option, no community involvement is necessary, and the city could get the property at a discount. There is no municipal option for a non-profit and there is no information on how the Action Center could afford to buy the property directly, although recent evidence shows there is ample money in grants from the state to provide housing.
Officials from all organizations have had months to tell the public that these plans were being formed and to explain the public good they expected to achieve. Instead, they chose silence and a “misinformation” campaign.
There has been no public disclosure of what the city and or the Action Center plans to do with the building, should the deal go through.
There has been no public disclosure of any possible agreements Lakewood has with the Action Center in order to use the municipal option for the benefit of the non-profit.
City Councilor Rich Olver explained in one Council meeting that he was told that Lakewood just wanted the use of the ballparks, they were not interested in the school building. He stated that by talking to city staff he believed Lakewood had no intention of buying Emory Elementary building.
This statement, unfortunately, does not seem to be accurate or else Lakewood would not have to be involved with a meeting between Jeffco Schools and the Action Center, let alone hosting such a meeting. So even sitting City Council Members are not getting the whole story from the City Manager.
Paying close attention to wording, all parties could be honestly portraying the information they want to portray:
Lakewood has no interest in the Emory Elementary building – but the Action Center does
Lakewood has no direct control over the school – unless they buy it
There is a public input period in the school disposal process – unless the municipal option is taken
Plans are not definite – but they are far enough along that at this point, trying to stop it is difficult since minds have been made up for months
Lakewood will not be housing people in the school – no, at that point it would be the Action Center, if they so choose. At the minimum they would continue with homeless services.
The Action Center has not replied to several requests for comment. Lakewood and Jeffco schools have gone out of their way to not talk about their plans when the opportunity arose.
When will residents know what is going on with their taxpayer-funded infrastructure?
If you missed the last two Lakewood City Council meetings, you missed… Well, let’s put it this way, if my Mom had caught me doing what I saw at the meeting, I would have been sent to my room without any dinner. Let’s start with the February 12 meeting:
Perhaps the most disconcerting and substantive financial part of the meeting came about as a result of questions posed by Councilor Rein to the City Planning Office and the State’s representative providing the grant. According to the City Planning Office, the taxpayers are on the hook for $2M – $2.5 of operating expenses each year. (The City’s own financial documentation indicates the operating costs will be much higher, but let’s use the Planning Office numbers for now.) He went on to say that any decision of the Council to accept the $9M grant would “not be binding on future Councils.” I believe most legal scholars would disagree with the City Planner and state that future Councils will be bound by grant conditions and the “strings” attached to the grant. A future Council could elect to breach – but that always comes with a price tag. Query: Where was the City Attorney while the City Planning Office was providing legal advice to the Council? She sat there and didn’t say a word.
Following the Planning Office comments, the grant representative from the State said that a contract would be negotiated with the City identifying the City’s obligations. This contract would only be negotiated AFTER the City accepts the $9M grant. She pointed out that the contact obligations would be for a 30-year period of time.
YIKES! The City will not know its contractual obligations with the State until AFTER it accepts the money.
What entity takes $9M without knowing what “strings” are attached?? The answer to that probing question is, your City Council. A simple remedy to this problem would have been to negotiate the terms of the grant contract PRIOR to accepting the money. Finalization of the contract could have been contingent on the City accepting the grant. At least the citizens of Lakewood would have known what their City Council had signed them up for if the terms had been negotiated in advance. But, No! The councilors were so eager to get their hands on more of your money that they apparently didn’t even want to know what the additional strings would be. And don’t forget, “he who controls the purse controls the “strings.” Other than the two councilors from Ward 4 (Olver and Rein), no councilor expressed ANY concern over the uncertainty of the “strings” attached to accepting the $9M.
Now, fast forward to the February 26 Council meeting. The issue consuming the most time at this meeting dealt with the Head Start program in Lakewood. Due to possible overlapping resources and the very high per capita cost of the program, Lakewood wants to eliminate the Head Start program from its provided resources. The City favors passing this opportunity to Jefferson County or a private entity. All of the councilors seemed to agree with eliminating the program from the City’s budget. However, there was some uncertainty over which entity (if any) might take on the Head Start responsibilities so as not to have a disruption of services.
NOW, here’s the dichotomy – because of the “uncertainty” the Council would not move forward to allow the City to notify the Federal Government (DOE) that the City of Lakewood would no longer be responsible for the Head Start program. The councilors wanted the City to informally probe other Head Start providers (private entities and Jefferson County) to ascertain their interest.
Here’s the problem: the councilors were told by the City representatives that the Federal Government cannot seek other providers UNTIL the City removes itself as the Head Start provider.
Only one of the councilors expressed an opinion that acquiring another provider would not be a problem, given the City’s support for the program. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty (though likely small), the Council voted to delay notifying the Federal Government. Apparently, the councilors – even if they are well-intended – have little knowledge about Federal Government contracting. They may think that the Federal Government can move at light speed and such delay would have no impact on continuing the Head Start program. In reality, the timeframe between now and the City’s proposed schedule to withdraw from the Head Start program may be insufficient to allow the Federal Government to meet its contracting requirements. Council’s failure to allow the City to give timely notice to the Federal Government may result in contracting deadlines being missed.
Later in the meeting, one of the councilors recounted some of the events from the February 12 meeting. He specifically stated that the February 12 meeting included a “robust” discussion relating to the finances at the Navigation Center and the $9M grant. I must have attended a different City Council meeting because I heard no “robust” discussion about funding. Unfortunately, he misses the bigger issue. While there were brief comments about the current finances and how a portion of the grant could fund some of the operating expenses, there was no discussion about how the City would fund the long-term operating costs and no discussion about how to fund any of the “strings” the State will attach to the grant… and how could there be any discussion about those “stings” since the City Council has no idea what they will be. We heard no discussion about contents of the thirty-year contract required by the State, when those contract negotiations would occur and whether the Council would even review/approve the contract.
Editor’s note: Email received 2/29/2024 from Lakewood states “The contract you are referring to has not been drafted or finalized at this point. Planning expects that this will take place over the next couple of weeks. Thank you.“
Bottom line – Uncertainty over “strings” attached to $9M and saddling taxpayers with $60M – $100M+ of future obligations is not a problem for this council. ($60M if you use the Planning Office low number and likely more than $100M if you use the City’s internal numbers.) But a bit of uncertainty over the Head Start program caused the Council to delay timely, Federal notification and potentially destroying the Head Start program.
Even if you assume the Councilors are all well-intended, both meetings were a display of naivety and inexperience. In fact, Councilor Olver may have made the most poignant and accurate observation: He said the Council is suffering from “self-inflicted” wounds. That statement is indisputable! With the exception of Councilor Olver, maybe they should all be sent to their rooms without any dinner.
Lakewood City Council held a regular business meeting on February 12, 2024 to discuss a number of items including a resolution on the Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan and adopting an ordinance to accept a DOLA (Department of Local Affairs) grant to purchase and renovate a property on West Colfax that will house a Navigation Center. The meeting was well attended by a number of residents who were interested and concerned about these two issues.
Migrant Concerns
One of the main concerns that many expressed during the public comments, as well as an earlier town hall meeting on February 6th, was that recently closed public schools, the Navigation Center, and possibly city facilities would be used to house migrants being relocated to Denver, which would make Lakewood a de-facto sanctuary city. The basis for these concerns stemmed partly from the City Council meeting in January in which the City Manager, Kathy Hodgson, was instructed to meet with leaders of the City and County of Denver to “discuss all feasible options for Lakewood to do more to support our region’s response to the growing migrant crisis and influx of our new neighbors, and to report back to us (City Council) with options”. Language used by council members during the meeting, words such as “our new migrant neighbors” and “welcoming”, seemed to indicate sanctuary status for Lakewood was the direction in which council was headed. At the February 12th meeting, Ms. Hodgson reported that she and her staff had met with Denver officials, and no request was made of Lakewood for hotel, motel, or congregate facility support for the migrants. She also noted that “Denver is actually winding down the program related specifically to housing migrant newcomers”. Some suggestions for assistance from her meeting with Denver officials include hosting migrant families in willing resident’s homes, donating food, clothing, and cash to the organizations in Denver that are providing assistance, and volunteering with organizations in Denver that are providing aid.
Strategic Housing Plan
The resolution on the Strategic Housing Plan and the ordinance on the Navigation Center were both approved, with Ward 4 Councilman Rich Olver casting the lone “no” votes on both. Although both measures passed, there are still questions and concerns that remain.
The resolution to adopt the Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan calls for the plan “to (be) use(d) as a framework for future housing policy and for the development of strategies and action steps for increasing affordable housing options in Lakewood into the future”. The plan was prepared with input from City Council, City Planning staff, the 2023 Housing Advisory Policy Commission, a number of housing professionals, and Gruen Gruen + Associates, a consulting firm compensated with funds from a DOLA grant. Under “housing professionals”, the plan’s acknowledgements list a number of other individuals not affiliated with City government, two of whom are identified as “active citizens”. No homeowner associations are noted in the acknowledgements of the plan. The plan includes selected comments from members of the community.
The plan, as described by several council members, is a framework or pathway for future planning to provide more affordable housing to Lakewood residents to help alleviate the problems of increasing housing costs and homelessness. According to the final report, “The foundation of this Plan is to strengthen policies that assist Lakewood’s most vulnerable residents, including low-income households, working families and individuals, older adults, and Lakewood’s unhoused population; and improve the functioning of the housing market to meet a diverse range of housing needs”.
A common remark from the neighborhood associations was a feeling they were not included in the preparation of the Strategic Housing Plan.
At the Lakewood City Council meeting, several people spoke up during the public comments, representing themselves or neighborhood associations. A common remark from the neighborhood associations was a feeling they were not included in the preparation of the Strategic Housing Plan. They believe that community associations need to be included and recognized as stakeholders in the planning process. One of the representatives also listed off a number of non-governmental organizations in their community that are already providing services to the needy and homeless. The implication being that perhaps we already have the resources in the community to address the housing issues. Of particular note along these lines is that aside from the two “active citizens:” noted in the acknowledgements of the plan, are nine others who are associated with non-governmental (i.e. for-profit) real-estate development or brokerage firms. This raises serious questions about whose interests this report represents, the residents of Lakewood or the real estate businesses that possibly stand to profit from the plan. While the importance of input from real estate professionals is not being entirely dismissed, more representation from residents and neighborhood associations whose communities will be impacted by actions taken from this report must be considered and should receive at least equal representation.
Implications taxpayer money would be paid to developers
The plan includes four strategies and action items: invest in affordable housing, expand overall affordable housing supply, expand housing choices and services for residents, and keep residents stably housed. Under “invest in affordable housing”, wording is included “would provide financial support for housing programs and incentives to encourage the production of more affordable housing units”, and “voluntary program that encourages private developments to build affordable units by offering a range of incentives”. This wording implies taxpayer money would, in some way, be paid to developers as an incentive to build affordable housing. What other options did the preparers of this plan consider to encourage development of affordable housing without the use of taxpayer funds? The plan also includes discussion of small lot zoning, smaller housing units and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Does this mean the city will consider allowing developers to purchase existing homes, remove the existing structure, subdivide the property, and build small homes on the subdivided lots? What is the impact on the community of increasing population density resulting from small lot zoning? Do our residents really want more high-density housing? The plan also states “the city could deploy local funds to supplement down payment assistance programs”. City Council needs to consider that someone needing a subsidy for a down payment may not have sufficient income to support the mortgage, and perhaps those funds would be better used to subsidize rent until the individual can afford the down payment and mortgage (while home ownership and building equity, is a generally a good thing, it may not be the best solution for everyone). We should also consider what kind of housing do we want – how do we arrive at a comfortable balance of rental units versus privately owned condos/townhomes and houses?
To what extent should governments be subsidizing housing in Lakewood? Are there any instances that demonstrate that government subsidies have actually decreased the cost of anything, or do government funded subsidies actually increase costs for everybody? These are some questions that community members raised that City Council has not yet fully addressed. More community input and participation from neighborhood associations is necessary before moving forward with the housing plan.
Navigation Center
The second major news topic discussed at the February 12th City Council meeting concerns accepting and moving forward with the $9.5 million funding to purchase, renovate, and operate a Navigation Center on West Colfax. The funding in large part comes from a DOLA grant, with a smaller amount funded from other sources. According to Lakewood’s website, “the city will serve as a pass-through agency for this grant to allow RecoveryWorks to provide increased and immediate access to services for those without stable housing in a central location at 8000 W. Colfax Ave.” RecoveryWorks was founded in 2019 and had been operating for a couple of years at 7011 West Colfax before moving to the 8000 West Colfax location late last year. According to RecoveryWorks website, “we provide and facilitate access to comprehensive and integrated medical respite, recovery, housing and employment services for those who have few or no resources”. James Ginsburg, executive director of RecoveryWorks, was present at the City Council meeting and provided additional information about the center and how the funds from the grant will be spent. According to Mr. Ginsburg, approximately $5 million of the grant will go towards the purchase of the building at 8000 West Colfax, Lakewood, Colorado (currently, the space is being rented). An additional $4 million of the grant will go towards significant rehab of the building, including building out office space, and adding shower and restroom facilities. He also mentioned the facility would ideally provide 100 beds as a 24/7 transitional housing shelter, with no time limits on how long those being sheltered could remain at the facility. Annual operating expenses are estimated to be in the $2 million range. Responding to comments from a council member, Mr. Ginsburg said that the target groups for the center are the elderly, veterans, disabled, and the medically frail. In addressing the concerns that migrants will take advantage of the facility, he stated that of the 350 individuals they have served in the last 2-1/2 years, only 9 have identified themselves as immigrants, and they were referred to immigration services. He also commented that 95% of the people they serve are Jefferson County residents, and 80% grew up in Lakewood.
Resident comment on the navigation center
A number of citizens came forward during public comment with questions and concerns they feel have not been addressed by City Council on this ordinance. Many remarked the city should be spending funds on what they see as more pressing needs. They said that the services in Lakewood are already stretched thin and the city should not be taking on more obligations, but needs to focus first of those in need already in Lakewood, particularly the elderly, poor, and veterans. Others expressed fears the Navigation Center would become a magnet for other municipalities, including Denver, to send people in need from their communities. Several others suggested the police department needs to strengthened, and focus on enforcing existing ordinances, particularly laws dealing with vagrancy, sex and drug trafficking, street side soliciting (panhandling), and compliance with Federal ICE protocols. Concerns about personal safety and a general feeling of lawlessness in the city were expressed by a couple of residents. One person mentioned cost overruns at other similar service centers that were in the news and questioned how Lakewood would be able to handle such a situation if and when it arises here. Another resident suggested RecoveryWorks be accountable to the City, providing information on success rates on substance abuse recovery and getting people placed in permanent housing. Most of these pressing concerns were not addressed during City Council’s discussion following public comment.
The role of other governments
During City Council’s discussion, there were some brief mentions of other municipalities (Jefferson County and some neighboring cities) providing support for the annual operating expense of the Navigation Center if they refer their residents to Lakewood. There was no additional discussion at the meeting on details of any cost sharing proposals. Because it was briefly mentioned (and in the context in which it was mentioned), this is something that apparently has been previously discussed among City Council members and others. Lakewood needs to know what to expect in terms of people coming in from outside of Lakewood seeking services provided by the Navigation Center. Are they residents of Arvada, Littleton, unincorporated Jefferson County, or elsewhere? What kind of services will they be seeking at the Navigation Center in Lakewood – mental health, addiction recovery, housing assistance, or something else? How much will the referring municipalities reimburse the city for the cost of the people they send here? These are questions that should have been addressed and answered before moving forward with accepting the DOLA grant.
Is there a pattern of success?
The question of efficacy is essential to understanding the degree of success of any program like what the Navigation Center is undertaking. Some additional questions to help with this are “what are the success rates of other similar programs in similar metropolitan areas” and “where have programs like this succeeded (and failed) in the past, and why”. Programs in cities like San Francisco, Portland, Baltimore, and elsewhere, have not been successful and those cities are now struggling with serious homeless and substance addition issues. We would not want to model our programs based on programs that have not worked in other cities. City Council should ensure the RecoveryWorks program is actually following the pattern of successful programs and is achieving its goal of preventing homelessness and getting people into stable and permanent housing. Progress should be monitored at least quarterly and reviewed to see if changes are necessary to improve efficacy. Residents should be informed of the success rates quarterly and apprised major changes to the program that would affect the city or the communities in the vicinity of the facility.
Not a solution, only a first step
One other comment Mr. Ginsburg made which was repeated by a supporter during the public comments, was that the Navigation Center is not a solution to the city’s housing problems, but only a first step. Obviously, the challenges of homelessness, substance addiction, physical and mental health currently facing Lakewood are complex, and will require more resources than the Navigation Center can currently provide. A couple of residents touched on this in their public comments. The concern here is if the Navigation Center is only a stepping stone to solving the housing problem in Lakewood, what is the solution (or what are the solutions)? Is City Council planning to expand the Navigation Center in the future? Is City Council planning to bring in other programs and organizations to supplement the work of RecoveryWorks? To arrive at a final solution for homelessness, what will the impact be on our neighborhoods, what will the costs be, and where will the funding come from? The Strategic Housing Plan does not address problems of substance abuse and mental illness, both of which impact Lakewood’s housing needs. So simply following the Strategic Housing Plan is not sufficient to fill in the gaps to eliminate the housing problem – something more is still needed. City Council will need to address this and let the community know what their plan is and ease the concerns of residents and assure us they are moving the right direction.
Were existing non-profits considered?
During the public comments and the discussions of the City Council members during the meeting, a number of other non-profit organizations operating within Lakewood were named. These include the Jeffco Action Center, Jefferson Center for Mental Health, Mean Street Ministries, as well as several others. These are all organizations that are trying to help people in need, including homeless, in our community. Has City Council considered if partnering with one or more of these organizations could possibly achieve a lot of the same goals of easing the homelessness problems in Lakewood? Or, possibly, do we have overlap of efforts among any of these organizations that could provide more assistance to those in need if they share or combine their resources (staff and facilities)? These question were not posed during the meeting, but are things that City Council should consider.
Law enforcement considerations
Finally, City Council needs to consider the roll of law enforcement plays in this. As pointed out by several residents in the public comments, there are valid concerns that laws governing sex and drug trafficking, drug possession and use, vagrancy, street side solicitation, and ICE compliance are not being enforced. As a republic, we are governed not by people but by laws. The laws are in place to protect people’s safety, property and well-being as a base for a stable society. A number of residents in their public comments noted concerns for their own personal safety – some people no longer feel safe living and working in Lakewood. Certainly panhandling and washing windows from the medians at Colfax and Wadsworth (or any other intersection) is not safe and should not be (and by statutes is not) allowed. It is not up to City Council, law enforcement, judges, or prosecutors to decide which laws will be enforced and which ones won’t, especially laws that affect the safety and well-being of the community. City Council needs to review the needs of the Lakewood Police Department to see if additional officers are needed to ensure laws are properly enforced. If additional funding is needed, perhaps DOLA (or other) grants are available to provide the needed funds.
An informed government
Lakewood citizens need to continue using the City of Lakewood website to keep themselves informed about what is going on at City Hall. We also need to clearly communicate our concerns back to City Council by email, the LakewoodSpeaks website, telephone, at informal meetings the ward representatives periodically host, and at public comment at City Council meetings. City Council and those working on these large scope plans need to consider all options with the resources currently available with more consideration of the concerns of the residents and neighborhood associations than went into the measures that were approved at the February 12th City Council meeting. The city needs to carefully consider the impact (and possible unintended consequences) their decisions have on our communities and neighborhoods as a result of the plans they make. It is also important that the City clearly communicate their plans and avoid wording that obfuscates their intentions. These issues currently facing Lakewood are no doubt complex. We want to ensure the voices of the residents are heard, their concerns are addressed, and that future programs and plans undertaken by the City are effective, beneficial to all the members of the community, and are run in a fiscally sound manner.
City Council Member Rich Olver was the only nay vote for the Strategic Housing Plan, which passed on February 12, 2024. He claimed it was a poisoned pill because it contained provisions that did not have public support, such as using abandoned school buildings for homeless services. Neighborhood associations came to voice their concern that stakeholders were not included. The associations were more concerned about the development strategies than the unhoused strategies. The associations’ comments show that although the plan was billed as affordable housing, there were two distinct pieces: more high-density development and plans for the homeless. Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero said the Housing Plan will work “hand-in-hand” with the Navigation Center. These items are all interconnected to give Lakewood the same framework that cities like Denver use to deal with the unhoused.
The message from February 12 was that a majority of Council want the plan passed; however, there was no clear consensus as to what the plan means.
Councilor Sinks said it would be good to have a roadmap to follow. Others spoke of discussions still to come. Councilor Low promoted strategies for eviction protection, Additional Dwelling Unit expansion and directly funding housing.
Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei said, “The action at this point is to adopt this framework. Nobody is agreeing tonight to all these strategies. We are agreeing that there is a need for affordable housing.”
Agreeing to a need for affordable housing does not require even one page. The Strategic Housing Plan is 156 pages of strategies. Which strategies Council did not agree to was not discussed. Instead of approving all strategies in one motion, each strategy could be adopted by separate motion after further discussion. In fact, many strategies will need to be adopted by modifying ordinance to implement.
Olver said this plan is not making more affordable housing, it is not stopping corporate land speculation, or increasing home ownership possibilities. He asked for more time to study, but no other Councilor agreed. Other Council Members had agreed to pass the plan at a previous study session.
Shahrezaei pointed out that the Strategic Housing Plan was funded by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), the same department that funded the navigation center, and that Lakewood could not even change the name of the product DOLA had paid for.
How much of Lakewood’s policy does DOLA fund?
Is accepting all this “free money” from DOLA leading Lakewood to take the steps the state wants, rather than the steps the local residents are asking for?
Olver went on to explain that housing migrants in the schools would not happen because that requires a public process to rezone an abandoned school into a residential area. Just like operating a shelter requires a special use permit that requires a public process, unless there is a very good reason. In the case of the navigation center, the city planned for it to be used as an emergency shelter but didn’t get a permit because it was an “emergency”. Now the city has accepted a grant requiring the land to be used as a shelter so there is an argument that there the city cannot NOT approve a shelter permit, regardless of how many people show up during public process. Experiences like these may have been in the minds of the people laughing at the words “public process” during the meeting.
Scorecard: Approve Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan
Strom: Aye
Shahrezaei: Aye
Sinks: Aye
Mayott-Guerrero: Aye
Cruz: Aye
Stewart: Aye
Low: Aye
Olver: Nay
Rein: Aye
LaBure: Aye
Nystrom: Aye
Read previous articles about the Strategic Housing Plan:
Lakewood’s City Council’s established Core Community Values, and Commitment to Citizens, which are both found on Lakewood.org, which include commitment to transparent government, open and honest communication and a commitment to provide education and information. City Council, which includes the Mayor, has also committed itself to focusing on quality results, promoting an inclusive environment for all citizens, respecting the traditions of the community, and honoring Lakewood’s neighborhoods’ values.
City Council’s Policy and Procedures Manual (also found at Lakewood.org), approved on May 14, 2018, contains the official policies and procedures City Council (Council) has developed and approved for themselves, to which their duties, proceedings, meetings and conduct all must conform. The authority for the Council Policy and Procedures Manual comes from the City of Lakewood Home Rule Charter and the Council’s approval of their Policy and Procedures Manual (Manual).
Manual, Section 05.16, establishes official Council policy and procedures for Study Sessions. Study Sessions are a regular event conducted to familiarize the Council and the public with detailed information and aspects of subjects under consideration in advance of the date the subject is to be before Council on the regular Council meeting agenda. Study Sessions are scheduled to be held on the first and third Mondays of each month, to facilitate coordinated study of subjects in preparation for upcoming regular Council meetings, which are scheduled for the second and fourth Mondays of each month. The public may comment at Study Sessions and their comments add to the overall value of information presented and collected at a Study Session. A public comment period follows each presentation within a Study Session, prior to Council discussion.
Council Study Sessions create the opportunity to present, question, understand, analyze, discuss and debate broad and detailed information, aspects and options associated with the subject, all the while allowing invaluable communication among Council, City staff and the public to occur. Participation in Study Sessions allows Council an opportunity and means to fulfill their Commitment to Citizens and focus on their Core Community Values, which were briefly introduced in the first paragraph.
Unfortunately, a disturbing and harmful trend has developed in City governance concerning the required use of Study Sessions in Council proceedings. Council chose to cancel a significant number of Study Sessions throughout 2023, and that trend of cancellations of Study Sessions is continuing in 2024. Holding Study Sessions, usually on both the first and third Mondays of the month, is required policy and procedure for Council.
Failure to conduct Study Sessions deprives City Council and the public of the necessary information, facts, perspectives, and a means of quality preparation necessary to make the best decisions for the Community on issues coming before Council for consideration and decision making.
The Council and the entire Lakewood community benefits from presentations and discussions during each Study Sessions. Council must ensure the scheduling and conduct of valuable, high quality Study Sessions, as they have required of themselves, for good reason, in their Council Manual.
Mayor Wendi Strom has changed the timing of public comment. In the name of efficiency, Strom has moved comment from the beginning until later in the meeting. Originally, public comment was moved to after the consent agenda. Now, there is no public comment until all business has been concluded.
You can voice your opinion after Council has voted.
In this case, efficiency may seem like shutting down the voices of the public. Are there other efficiencies being achieved?
The agenda for Monday, February 12 is shown below with notations for topics that will bring changes to Lakewood that have been in the news recently.
Public Comment online is available until noon, February 12.
To comment, go to the meeting agenda page and click on the item you wish to speak about. There will be a “Comment on this item” button. If there is no Comment button, Council is not accepting comment on that item particularly (for example, Mayor and Council Reports in the picture below). Anything on those items will go in “Public Comment”, while “City Navigation Center” has its own comment section.
Sidenote: Lakewood City Councilors expressed satisfaction during the January 8 meeting that there were 50 comments supporting migrant assistance. In point of fact, many of those comments were supporting revisions to the Yarrow St development plan. Recently, Lakewood Informer conducted a survey that showed residents were not in favor of the migrant assistance or the current plans for the homeless shelter. The survey had 4 times as many respondents as the public comment but is still not representative of Lakewood as a whole. 100 survey respondents were used as the basis of adopting building codes. (for more, see Opinion: Your Views Matter When They Agree With the City)
So this morning 2/8/24, I went to the Lakewood City Council Building to attend the Lakewood City Council legislative meeting. I made an error as to the time so I showed up at 8:30 and the meeting had started at 8:00 am. I am not my best at early hours.
The legislative committee is made up of one member of each ward and they look at bills from the 2024 legislature that is considering issues/consequences that would impact the city of Lakewood.
2024 Committee Members Council member Glenda Sinks – Ward 1 Council member Isabel Cruz – Ward 2 Council member Rebekah Stewart – Ward 3 Council member David Rein – Ward 4 Council member Jacob LaBure – Ward 5
Rebekah Stewart (Ward 3) is the chair of the legislative committee.
When I walked in there was a discussion about a bill about occupancy. I believe it was HB24-1007. But could not confirm that was the bill they were discussing. They decided not to put it on the list because the target city was Ft. Collins and college towns and did not apply to Lakewood so they would just watch it and add it to the list later.
There was a little discussion lead by Councilman LaBure as to the need to define the role of the legislative committee.
And then Councilwoman Stewart asked if there was any other business and Adjourned the meeting.
I arrived at 8:30 and the meeting was adjourned at 8:36.
I went to speak to the Deputy City Manager about how they had not stated when the next meeting would be and he said “in two weeks if it was not canceled.”
So stay tuned.
Meanwhile ColoradoTaxpayer.org is a great resource for what is happening at the Legislature
![To: Pam Brier; Kathy Hodgson
Cc: Gatlin Jeff; Donna Repp; Tolleson Julie
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Emory Elementary Next Steps Meeting
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:40:36 PM
Attachments: image001.png
# EXTERNAL – USE CAUTION #
Kathy and Pam, Jeff and I are very excited to meet with you next week! Pam, I know you had been
talking with JLL, our commercial real estate agent. We’re not sure we’ll need an agent for this
transaction, but we will be using an outside real estate attorney. We believe it will be helpful (and
expeditious) for the attorney to be present early on in our conversations. Our attorney is Blair
Lichtenfels with Brownstein.
We would like to proceed with our meeting next week without counsel to do introductions and
talk timeline and next steps. At the next meeting we set, we would like to have our counsel and your
counsels present so that we can begin to move forward.
My rough thoughts on an agenda are as follows. Please feel free to suggest content:
Introductions
Catch-up on current context – Action Center, Lakewood, and Jeffco
Discuss Jeffco surplus process and timeline
Identify next steps, including to set a meeting with counsel present
Thank you both!
Lisa
Lisa Relou
Chief of Strategy & Communications](https://g51.e2b.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/lakewoodplanningmeeting.png?w=434)
