Lakewood has issued a directional drilling permit ROW24-01480 to the developer as follows: “Xcel Energy gas main extension for new build.”
That might sound like a typical thing to do for a new build. But there are some problems.
No ‘new build’ has been approved. Or has it? Has the city made a secret deal? Why does the city assume this is a done deal when it is still up to the Planning Commission to decide? Do city staffers have inside information? Have city staffers been having ex parte discussions with Planning Commission members regarding approval of the project?
Based on this new permit issuance and the included announcement by the city that there will be a new build at 777 S Yarrow St, we urge that the entire Planning Commission recuse themselves from the decision and refer the matter to the next appeal level in order to avoid what would obviously be a predetermined and biased decision.
And further, doesn’t it seem strange extending an Xcel natural gas line to serve an unapproved site when Xcel has explicitly stated the site plan proposal ‘does not seem feasible’? Especially considering the gas line requirements Xcel specifies have not been satisfied even on the 4th site plan submittal from the developer?
In less than a year, the $0.10 fee from shopping bag sales have generated $692,000 for Lakewood so far. That revenue was only 60% of the $0.10 fee. The remaining 40% stayed with the stores, which means local stores made about $461,333 from plastic bags fees. Lakewood revenue from bag fees will be used to support multiple sustainability projects in 2025, including an Organic Waste Pilot Program as well as a project focused on Multi-Family Waste Diversion Resources.
The plastic bag fee is a state law even though “plastic bags result in about half the emissions of alternative bags,” a fact known since at least 2014.
The Organic Waste Pilot Program would include a variety of test programs aimed at increasing participation in both backyard composting and community collection hub programs for food waste.
The Multi-Family Waste Diversion project would develop toolkits, educational resources, and provide technical expertise to property owners and managers of multi-family buildings with the goal of supporting the establishment of recycling and potentially organic waste collection service.
These seem to be expensive education projects but new projects could still develop. Lakewood anticipates generating over $250,000 every year from this fee.
Most of Lakewood City Council is concerned that Lakewood will not reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Although Lakewood has been increasing climate change regulations and spending for over a decade, it’s not enough and the city will be increasing both spending and regulation in 2025.
Are these goals achievable and which programs are most effective?
Lakewood is still developing its model to predict emission reduction. It is almost impossible to attribute which programs result in the best emission reductions because every result is intertwined not only with other programs but with the existing climate, which by definition is changing.
Lakewood has more sustainability goals than surrounding cities. Lakewood is named “one of 119 cities across the globe providing leadership in environmental action and transparency by the Carbon Disclosure Project”, showing Lakewood is more aggressive than most of the world. The city is currently working on a new climate vulnerability study, a new sustainability plan, updating zoning codes and building codes for increased required sustainability measures. Votes on the new codes are scheduled for spring.
Full-time sustainability staff has increased from 2, in 2014, to 12 in 2025. Dozens more part-time staff are employed throughout all city departments. According to Sustainability and Community Development Director, Travis Parker, about 30% of the new comprehensive plan focuses on sustainability.
The key to City Council goals was to secure more funding. Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei points out that cities like Fort Collins and Denver have a dedicated sustainability budget. She says grants for one project at a time is not a long-term solution. She believes residents want more funding to go to sustainability efforts. According to Shahrezaei, Lakewood played a pivotal role in securing a regional $200M grant because it has the tracking numbers for emissions and workforce.
Council will talk about new revenue generating possibilities at the annual retreat workshop.
Council Member Paula Nystrom asked for a new program and budget for residential greenhouse gas emission reduction for the upcoming revised budget.
Lakewood has not asked residents to support the climate change fight directly with their pocketbooks before. Staffing initiatives often start as “free money” from other sources and continued past the grant’s expiration date without a public discussion. More direct taxing and funding suggestions represent a significant new direction for Lakewood, especially on the scale of new programs at millions of dollars a year.
Councilor Glenda Sinks was concerned about being able to track sustainability spending through the budget. This was a good question without a good answer. According to Director Parker, Lakewood is not showing much in the budget yet because it is in the “enviable place of having more money available than we have plans for yet but that won’t be the case for long.” There was no answer as to where the money is shown in the current budget.
Councilor Roger Low echoes the need for clear spending and goal tracking in the budget. He would like to see more progress on SolarApp implementation.
Council Member Sophia Mayott-Guerrero floated a new idea to expand the greenhouse gas fee and have a larger spending pool to be used for things like sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, park maintenance, road maintenance, climate impact and water impact. All of these could be viewed as “sustainability” measures.
Several Councilors, including Cruz and Shahrezaei, were interested in making sure that money was distributed equitably. They want to make sure that low-income areas were first in line for assistance, as was intended through the federal program that Lakewood receives funding from.
Councilor Jacob LaBure would like to be a national leader in sustainability efforts. LaBure points out that much of the federal money may be lessening under a new administration. As a result, he suggests Lakewood do more internally. For instance, Lakewood may require garbage and waste contractors to only use contractors with EV vehicles. Mayor Strom echoes the benefits of buying or contracting EV vehicles companies. Councilor LaBure would like to mandate new buildings, especially city buildings, be LEED certified through the building code. Director Travis Parker says some buildings could already meet LEED standards but do not want to pay the quarter million dollars to get certified.
Councilor Rein would like to see more specificity in the sustainability plan in order to get Lakewood on track for less emissions. He is interested in the city getting a LEED certification. City staff say big new projects under city control, like the new maintenance facility, may not be able to get LEED certification but will be sustainable on some level. Rein asked staff if the current budget has enough funding to improve sidewalk connectivity and make the city more walkable in order to cut down on vehicle traffic. Staff answered there was not enough funding.
Attorney and former Lakewood City Councilor Anita Springsteen, Esq. filed three lawsuits against the City of Lakewood this week regarding its violation of the Colorado Open Meetings Law (COML) during three Executive Sessions in a row on August 26th, September 9th, and September 19th.
The cases are all filed in Jefferson County District Court.
The first lawsuit (24CV31555) is on behalf of a citizen, Lenore Herskovitz. The City did not give proper notice or record the August 26th Executive Session, stating only that is was with regard to “legal advice” for an appeal the City won against Colorado Christian University an entire year prior to the meeting. As Ms. Herskovitz was an intervenor in that case (City of Lakewood v. CCU, 22CA1202 and 2021CV30629) – she had a right to know the purpose of the Executive Session and why there would be “legal advice” for a case the City won.
The other two lawsuits (24CV31588 and 24CV31574) on behalf of Ms. Springsteen, pro se, are with regard to Executive Sessions held on September 9th and 19th, only referencing “negotiations” to buy undisclosed property. No specific topic was given in violation of COML. However, citizens suspect the meetings involved the purchase of Jeffco school property – a controversial topic of great public interest. Citizens feel that concealing the topic was both in bad faith, and illegal.
(Note: These meetings are not archived online. They were executive sessions which are not available for the public. An example agenda is provided below.)
Ms. Springsteen spent four years on Council from 2019 to 2023 objecting to what she believed to be constant efforts on the part of Lakewood City Council and staff to conceal information from the public. The City has now become so bold in its lack of transparency that three illegal closed meetings were held without a second thought.
Hopefully the Jefferson County Court will remind the City of Lakewood that the citizens are in charge, and that government transparency is critical and required by law.
A former elected official should not have to sue her own City to force officials to follow the law.
Lakewood residents voted to give up their TABOR refunds forever. The measure started with Lakewood encouragement, used tax dollars to see what words messaged the best, and raised over $50,000 from people who benefit from city dollars. The money will be used for basic city services like parks and public safety, freeing up money for other city pet projects such as electrification and homeless initiatives.
The final vote tally came out 61.7% in favor, 38.2% against.
The first campaign committee report showed that a majority of city council members donated to the committee including Councilors Sinks, Low, Shahrezaei, Rein, LaBure, Nystrom and Mayor Strom. Greg Stevinson also donated $10,000. Stevinson just had more land annexed by Lakewood in May, 2023.
The second report shows the Lakewood Police Union and Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 21 each made $10,000 donations.
An interesting note is the $5,000 donation from the Colorado Gives Foundation. In 2024, Lakewood started a partnership with the foundation, appropriating $500,000 to give them* to develop more affordable housing (see budget book pg 23).
*Correction 13 Nov – Lakewood appropriated the money to spend on Colorado Gives affordable housing projects but is not giving the money directly to Colorado gives.
This circular relationship shows that the TABOR refunds will not just affect parks and potholes, as sold by Lakewood.
Ironically, a day before the election, Councilor Roger Low went on a rant during the City Council meeting, expressing outrage that a resident petition was not honest with the residents who were signing it. He said that if residents were asked to sign a petition that is probably illegal, they wouldn’t have gotten as many signatures, and his hypothetical description is a “much more accurate title”.
This sentiment was echoed by the majority of councilor, just like they agreed with the TABOR initiative language that there will be no new taxes. However, the city leadership failed to disclose that no new TAX RATES is not the same as no new TAX REVENUES.
Lakewood residents will be paying increasing Lakewood tax revenues with the passage of this measure. The amount in resident pockets will get be lessened.
Lakewood has budgeted an ongoing $466,000 for Severe Weather Sheltering. This is a separate initiative from the Navigation Center but for now, the Severe Weather Shelter operates out of the Navigation Center. Once remodeled, the Navigation Center will have full-time sheltering capabilities. The Severe Weather Shelter is only for times when the temperature reaches below 32 degrees. In Colorado, there are about 153 days a year below 32. Lakewood leadership has not yet reached a consensus on sheltering options for the very hot days, but that discussion is happening. These are two separate discussions, weather sheltering and everyday sheltering, to serve different needs for the homeless population. The result is more homeless sheltering options and an increased budget. Money will come from the city General Fund. A decision on where to have a permanent Severe Weather Shelter has not yet been disclosed.
Lakewood has also set aside $300,000 from the Economic Development Fund to donate to unhoused non-profits, as well as $9.5 million to buy property for potential homeless initiatives.
Graph from BestPlaces.net showing approximately 153 days below 32 degrees
Lakewood resident Wendy Purcell has formed an issue committee to fight against Lakewood’s ballot initiative 2A to keep your TABOR refunds. This is a David vs Goliath story. What makes someone step up when the entire city government is against her? Lakewood Informer asked her.
*Updated with links to previous articles below
What made you decide to start an issue committee against the city’s TABOR initiative?
We are so lucky to have Natalie Menten as our TABOR watchdog all these years in Colorado. I am a handful of concerned citizens that want to keep TABOR refunds for Lakewood residents. Thanks go to Mary Janssen & Lynnda Gies to help get the word out about the city of Lakewood’s TABOR constant requests to take our refunds away forever.
Do you think you can compete with the big money the establishment has raised? Stevinson gave $10,000 and the majority of City Council has contributed.
Yes we can
Why do you think Lakewood can survive without your TABOR refund money? Every department is making statements about how dire things will be if they don’t get more money. Are they believable?
No. The city needs a balanced budget to expand the city as quickly as possible without any pushback from the residents the city depends on. The city is lobbying through through taxpayer-funded communication agents and established facebook channels.
How does an everyday resident like you get your message out?
We had a few posts on a some websites. Lynnda Gies & I canvassed the intersection of Alameda & Garrison on 10/20/2024 & got a positive response from the drivers for voting NO on Lakewood 2A.
Lakewood City Council stopped efforts by city staff to put up signs that would discourage panhandling or window washing. In July, Lakewood City Manager Kathy Hodgson proposed draft language that would ask residents not to give money to panhandlers. After getting feedback from Council Members in August, all efforts were put on hold. City Council apparently would not support putting such signs up. An online community discussion, summarized below, shows Lakewood residents are frustrated with Lakewood’s lack of action. Lakewood implies permission by continuing to deny action against it.
The proposed signs would not be a solution by itself. In fact, it would have blamed the givers rather than addressing the panhandlers. Other cities post signs similar to those below. Douglas County has claimed to have “nearly eradicated its own unhoused population with a simple message to its citizens: “Handouts Don’t Help.””
Examples of signs used by other cities. Lakewood did not have public drafts.
A recent discussion on nextdoor.com started with one Lakewood resident wishing that Lakewood would follow Arvada’s example by posting signs discouraging window washers. From the discussion, it is clear that most residents are frustrated with the presence of window washers in Lakewood. The key sentiments include:
Safety Concerns: Many residents express concerns about the dangers window washers pose to themselves and drivers by running through traffic, potentially causing accidents, and creating legal liability issues.
Aggressiveness and Intimidation: Several participants feel uncomfortable and even intimidated by the aggressive behavior of some window washers, especially when they continue to wash windows despite being told “no.” Women, in particular, report feeling harassed in these situations.
Policy and Law Enforcement: There is widespread frustration with Lakewood officials for allowing this activity to continue, contrasting with neighboring Arvada, where police reportedly prevent it. Residents feel that Lakewood is not enforcing existing laws and is not taking action to protect them.
Mixed Views on the Washers’ Intentions: While a few participants argue that window washers are trying to earn an honest living, most residents perceive it as an unwanted and intrusive form of begging, with some even equating it to harassment.
Desire for a Ban: A large number of residents would prefer that Lakewood implement a similar policy to Arvada, banning window washers from medians and intersections.
Overall, the general consensus leans toward a desire for stricter regulation or a complete ban on window washing at intersections, driven by safety concerns and the negative experiences of many residents. (Note: discussion summary and conclusion by ChatGPT)
The money for new pallet homes, or transitional housing units, will come from Lakewood’s Economic Development fund. The 2025 budget also shows the city expects to spend $9.5 million on land purchases for unspecific purposes, also from the Economic Development Fund. Lakewood is waiting to start the transitional housing program until land can be purchased somewhere. The city budgets $300,000 for pallet homes. These homes will be a new program that Lakewood will provide funding and support for, but may be owned and run by an outside organization with limited oversight. The Economic Development Fund has traditionally been used to develop economic opportunities in Lakewood, but in 2023, Lakewood re-interpreted the ordinance to include safety and general upkeep of the city. Previous discussion on the transitional housing program did not include a business analysis of any economic growth potential this program would provide.
The $9.5 million for land purchases could be used for transitional housing land (for pallet homes), in whole or in part. By approving the budget, the city will have funds to allocate for purchases as it prioritizes.
State of the Economy
The budget presentation shows that median household income rose by 10% but the Jeffco employment rate is down by 1%, marking the need for more economic opportunities.
Lakewood will vote on a property tax increase on Monday. This will be done through the normal budget appropriation and mill levy certification. It is not called a tax increase anywhere. However, the 2025 Budget Book, page 62, explains that a temporary reduction in the mill levy rate will lapse in 2025. As a result, Lakewood residents will pay 6% more property taxes and Lakewood will collect an extra $15.5 million in 2025.
Property tax revenue and % change for 2025 (from page 62 of the 2025 Budget Book)
In 2023, former Councilor Mary Janssen fought to get Lakewood to comply with the Lakewood City Charter and only collect revenues that are legally allowed. That equated to a property mill levy rate of 3.85%. Lakewood Charter has a revenue cap, not a tax rate cap, to protect its residents from windfall taxes, like abrupt property assessment increases. City Council did not agree to Janssen’s original proposal, but they did lower the mill levy to 4.28 mills.
For one year.
Now that year is up.
On Monday, the Council will vote to approve the full mill levy of 4.711 mills, thereby increasing the rate by 0.431 mills from 2024.
Your property taxes will go up again this year.
“Natalie Menten, board director with the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) Foundation, emphasized the importance of TABOR’s protections: ‘According to paragraph 7(c), the maximum annual percentage change in each district’s property tax revenue equals inflation in the prior calendar year plus annual local growth (new construction). That safety cap protects taxpayers and gives very sufficient additional revenue to government agencies. Voters shouldn’t waive any tax revenue cap unless it comes with the 4-year sunset prescribed in TABOR.”
In 2023, then-Councilor Janssen found out Lakewood revenue from property tax was increasing 12.87%. The City Charter only allows for a 7% increase in revenue growth (see City Charter 12.12)
“Growth from projected 2023 to projected 2024 Property Tax Revenue is 12.87%”- Holly Björklund, Chief Financial Officer, Lakewood, 2023
Lakewood will increase property tax revenues over the amount permitted in charter, as they have in previous years, while advocating to keep your TABOR refunds.
Explanation of Overcharging from Bob Adams
Every two years (odd numbered years), Colorado requires all real estate to be reappraised. This was done in 2023 and resulted in a huge increase in property valuations. This reappraisal applied to property taxes paid in 2024. The Assessor uses the newly appraised county real estate inventory to prepare a report of the assessed value which is provided to all county tax authorities. Based on that report, the tax authorities are supposed to calculate the overall mill levy needed to provide services (pay their budget) for the following year. The approved mill levy is then used to calculate individual tax bills.
As published by the Colorado Division of Property Taxation:
“Each year county commissioners, city councils, school boards, governing boards of special districts, and other taxing authorities determine the revenue needed and allowed under the law to provide services for the following year. [In other words, prepare a budget]
Each taxing authority calculates a tax rate based on the revenue needed from property tax and the total assessed value of real and personal property located within their boundaries. The tax rate is often expressed as a mill levy.”
If the law was followed properly, there would be only a minimal tax increase.
However, Jefferson County and nearly all county tax authorities, including Lakewood, failed to adjust the mill levies downward to equal their budgets. Even Governor Polis sent a letter to all tax districts urging them to reduce mill levies. Most refused. Instead, nearly all kept a higher mill levy which resulted in property owners being overcharged and the districts received a huge windfall in increased tax revenue. Now, of course, the city and county have introduced ballot measures to allow them to keep and spend the overcollected tax revenue this year, next year and every future year. and eliminate all other revenue caps so they can freely raise taxes without a vote of the people now required by TABOR.
This is the cause of how tax revenues were overcharged and overcollected.
