Author: Lakewood News from Karen

Screenshot of the Dec 19, 2022 City Council meeting

By Lenore Herskovitz

On Monday, March 24 the City Council will hold the first of 2 Special Meetings regarding the Annual Review of the City Manager, Kathy Hodgson. Residents are not privy to the standards or metrics that are used to evaluate the job performance of our most powerful and most highly compensated city officials. At one time, the City of Lakewood Community Survey was issued every 2 to 3 years which included approval ratings for the city’s performance. In 2010, when Kathy Hodgson took office this approval rating was 67%. By 2022, this had dropped to 38%. Since then, this survey has not circulated. Until 2022 these survey results were included in the evaluation process (See Lakewood Informer news report from 2022). On Dec. 19, 2022, the City Council met to amend the City Manager’s 2014 Employment Agreement and establish the 2022 Employment Agreement. This was supposed to be discussed on Dec. 5 in an Executive session but 4 Councillors (Able, Springsteen, Olver, and Janssen) opposed the session because they felt they had not been provided enough information in advance of the meeting.

Screenshot of the Dec 19, 2022 City Council meeting
Screenshot of the Dec 19, 2022 City Council meeting video


At the Dec. 19 meeting there was confusion about whether the representatives were voting solely on the amendments or on the new contract because the packet that was presented only included a staff memo and the resolution containing the proposed amendments. There was no redlined version showing what had been removed from the 2014 contract or any copy of what the new contract would be in its entirety. One thing that had been eliminated was any use of the community survey results when determining the City Manager’s compensation. Only City Council would make that determination moving forward. In spite of the fact that no complete copy of the 2022 contract was provided, the majority of council members voted to pass it. Those voting in favor included our present mayor then Councilor Strom, Mayor Pro Tem  (then Councilor) Shahrezaei, and Councilor Mayott-Guerrero. Those opposed were the same 4 who voted against the Dec. 5 executive session which forced the public hearing on the 19th. As a result, the determination regarding the City Manager’s review and compensation rests in the hands of our elected council members. How often do these individuals hold the City Manager accountable? Is there really any oversight when department heads fail to comply with city codes or ordinances? For example, when the previous Director of Community Resources failed to evaluate fees-in-lieu on an annual basis from 2018 to 2023 as required by ordinance, were there any consequences? The City Manager appoints this and other directorial positions and is responsible for supervising them. Recently, it was discovered that perhaps the Chief of Sustainability and Community Development and his staff had not been following the 2018 Parkland Dedication ordinance, which can be seen in a letter dated October 23, 2024 on page 2 of this document under Item 11 Parkland Dedication, the developer, who had not yet been issued a building permit, was being charged the old fee of $254,545 an acre as opposed to the $432,727 fee that went into effect on June 1, 2024.

Are ordinances mere suggestions rather than laws to be followed under this City Manager? Is discretion to reinterpret the law acceptable now? Who, if anyone, is providing oversight and accountability from department heads, or do mistakes just get scapegoated or buried altogether?

After years of complaints, meetings are still posted on the wrong site. There still is no consolidated, easily accessible City Directory to identify employees by department and their city contact information. At the annual planning session, councilors have requested better communication between themselves and staff. The City Manager was supposed to provide in-person quarterly updates on goals set at the retreat. Instead, there are updates on the city dashboard in addition to a workshop that was held in person (with no recording available to the public who couldn’t attend). For years, City Council has seemed willing to overlook these shortfalls.

If you wish to share your views about the City Manager’s performance feel free to contact: CityCouncilMembers@Lakewood.org
You can also contact your individual councilors through the link provided (https://www.lakewood.org/Government/City-Council/City-Council-Members)


Demolition photo at 777 S Yarrow

From savebelmarpark.com

Update 3/19/25: Permits were straightened out (very quickly) and demolition on track

Greetings Supporters of Save Belmar Park,

This is an update on the attempted demolition of the Irongate Campus we told you about yesterday.

The top image is 777 S Yarrow Street in Lakewood, CO after 24 hours of illegal demolition.

We now know that Kairoi Residential had moved forward with the attempted illegal demolition without obtaining proper permits.

Kairoi Residential attempted to illegally demolish the Irongate Office Campus at 777 S Yarrow Street.

Local activists intervened and the city ultimately had to shut down the illegal project.

So please consider this.

If you happen to be in the construction business, obtaining permits is standard operating procedure.  At least for any business that intends to obey the law.

Even if you want an electrician to install a circuit in a residence, you need a permit.

The idea a company that has been involved in the construction industry in Colorado and other states for many years does not know how to properly permit the demolition phase of a project raises some questions.

Especially considering that their own civil engineers at Kimley-Horn prepared a large document titled: “EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REPORT” that included great detail on the topic: “SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES”

The first listed responsibility in the Kimly-Horn document is:

“The city does not authorize any work to be performed until the City Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Permit has been issued.”

Did Kairoi bother to obtain a grading permit?  NO.

Did they plan to intentionally proceed with this illegal major demolition project?

Given these facts, it seems quite possible that their bad behavior was intentional.

But it also could be that they are so incompetent, they really do not know what they are doing in the first place including not knowing about the permitting process?

Because the Planning Department certainly seems that incompetent.  The Planning Department even proclaims today on their website that:

“Demolition of the existing building has begun under a demolition permit issued by the city.”

Obviously, either the City Of Lakewood has no clue about properly permitting a project or they conspired with the developer to intentionally approve an illegal demolition project.

Which is it?

And we live in a city that is more likely to arrest citizens for clapping at a city council meeting than they are to slap a fine on Kairoi.

And a city where they city attorney tells city council they cannot discuss a proposed ordinance because they are only ‘administrative officers’ and are not even allowed to talk about it.

Basically, a city with more clowns than the circus.  To be diplomatic about it.

Why would any well-run city want such a rag tag developer doing anything within the city limits?

Stay tuned and thanks for listening,

Steve

View original email here


Oppose HB25-1211 for no half fees for infrastructure

HB25-1211 is a deceptive bill concerning local government’s ability to set fees and it is passing the Colorado House on a party line vote. The most likely outcome of HB25-1211 is a profusion of concrete jungle developments with increased water usage and decreased ability for water districts to pay for costly infrastructure. But what IS NOT written in this bill is even worse because the bill contradicts existing law that is currently in litigation. HB25-1211 is using legislation to go beyond 100 years of case law to side AGAINST local governments in pending and future litigation.

At first read, the bill’s title and language read as if the main point is to conserve water by tying lower infrastructure fees to conservation measures. This is deceptive and misleading. Infrastructure has certain fixed costs no matter how much you use it.

To make this relatable, think about the appliances in your homes as your water infrastructure. It doesn’t matter if you promise to only use the dishwasher once a week or flush the toilet once a day. You still have to buy the whole appliance to make it work. You can’t buy half the appliance because you promise not to use it often. But that’s exactly the argument HB25-1211 makes. It asks water districts to let people pay less for their infrastructure because they promise to use it less.

No matter how you count it, 100 high-density apartments will use A LOT more water than a couple houses, even with yards. No water conservation is happening, none, only water and cost shifting.

However, the false talking point about water conservation is just a smokescreen for a larger agenda. The proposed bill stipulates that water districts have “a duty to serve”. The bare bones “duty to serve” provision, HB25-1211 contradicts the district’s ability to make decisions for the good of the whole district based on the current provisions like feasibility (see below).

“In addition, if the board finds it infeasible, impracticable, or undesirable for the good of the entire district to extend water or sewer lines and facilities to any part of such district, the board may designate by resolution such area not to be served with water or sanitation service, but such area designated not to be served shall be at least ten acres in extent.” C.R.S. 32-1-1006 (1)(b)

Bill sponsors like Representative Rebekah Stewart refused to make the bill conform with current law by accepting amendments to read “a duty to serve INSIDE YOUR DISTRICT”.

Without those important distinguished words, “INSIDE YOUR DISTRICT”, special districts could be forced to serve people and developments outside their boundaries, which is not currently true. As a former member of Lakewood City Council, Rep. Stewart has been sponsoring this bill because of one case in Lakewood that she disagrees with. By attempting to change state law on these litigation matters, Rep. Stewart appears to be making a tacit admission that the case she’s familiar with was legally upholding service plan boundaries.

This “duty to serve” provision has got districts so upset that one anonymous district said they can’t fight it because even talking through the possibilities may inspire new ideas to compel service that could bankrupt their district.

So far, HB25-1211 is mostly a party-line issue.  Exceptions like Rep. Tammy Story (D) offered amendments to strip the duty to serve provision. Most Democrats, the party for the environment and sustainability, are supporting this bill that will turn suburban oases into concrete jungles. They have not realized that this bill encourages taking water out of the environment and putting it into high-density apartment infrastructure which will increase the heat profile and decrease the tree canopy.

The bill sponsors have also sold this false argument to conservation groups like Conservation Colorado and Western Resource Advocates. It’s unclear whether these groups and other legislators realize that water pricing generally increases with volume used, which is where the real conservation comes from.

There are other problems with the bill. Such as the focus on small government special districts instead of the largest water providers which are municipalities, private and public companies. It gives special privileges to developer metro districts. And it shifts costs from one user to another rather than promoting equality.

The sponsors only have a few local examples that they based the bill on and all of them are based on significant false facts. From beginning to end, this bill is deceptive and disruptive to the ability of water districts to provide the infrastructure people need in their daily lives.

Disclosure: The author is a Director of the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District and while the district officially opposes HB25-1211, all opinions expressed are my own.

Screenshot from Terumo explaining Ethylene oxide use

Terumo Not Liable

The Colorado Sun reports that Terumo will not be held liable for cancer since the company always met federal regulations.

From the Sun: “Terumo Blood and Cell Technologies of Lakewood was found not negligent Friday by a Jefferson County jury for alleged releases of toxic ethylene oxide into surrounding neighborhoods from its sterilization process, after four women sued the company for liability in their cancer cases. 

The plaintiffs, part of a large group of negligence and liability cases against Terumo and other companies who use ethylene oxide, claimed the Lakewood plant should have done more to stop chemical emissions into neighborhoods. They sought damages in state district court over their extensive medical costs, as well as physical impairment and disfigurement. “

Read the full article..


Screenshot from Terumo explaining Ethylene oxide use
Screenshot from Terumo explaining Ethylene oxide use

A pair of articles in the Denver Post show that Colorado residents are catching onto the fact that “affordable housing” isn’t the universal panacea that is being promised. New housing is not affordable, unless it’s government-backed, while higher densities are killing the very reason that people enjoyed their city in the first place.


Pro-development progressives in Boulder won’t solve the housing crisis

“Building a lot more housing won’t reduce prices because there’s an unlimited supply of people nationwide who’ll pay whatever it takes to live here. Boulder is a unique blend of access to culture and nature in a small city. There are plenty of people who want to move here and have the means to do so.”

This sentiment also applies to Lakewood, revealing the lie to all the promises that more housing will solve problems.


Denser housing vs. the ’burbs

“While Colorado lawmakers require upzoning and offer incentives in their push for denser housing concentrated at Regional Transportation District bus and train hubs, thousands of metro Denver residents like the Wellners are migrating to suburbs. They give multiple reasons for their moves: affordability, elbow room, quietness, safety and parks — things that transit-oriented development (TOD) often lacks.”

Many people moved to Lakewood for exactly this reason – wanting elbow room and safety. But Lakewood aspires to become more like urban Denver, in the name of affordability. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who will pay “whatever it takes to live here.”

Lakewood is planning on changing the zoning code to increase density even more. The Planning Director is already out talking about the change. It was baked into the results of the latest comprehensive plan, whether residents wanted it or not. Those people who do not want increased densification have until the new code is adopted to object.


Screenshot of Mady Connell show website

Mandy Connell, Host of The Mandy Connell Show on KOA and iHeart Media, challenged her listeners to rat out shenanigans at the local level. Thanks to you, wonderful readers who are also her wonderful listeners, Mandy invited Karen Morgan on for a discussion of crime and housing. We also talked about Lakewood’s new propensity of going over the heads of Lakewood residents to change state law rather than listening to residents.

Thank you Mandy for being so much fun, very well researched and getting the word out to everyone!

Just a heads up that Mandy may have another Lakewood guest next week so keep listening.

Listen to the whole segment from The Mandy Connell Podcast on KOA iHeartRadio.


Demolition photo at 777 S Yarrow

From savebelmarpark.com

Greetings Supporters of Save Belmar Park,

The Kairoi Belmar project is moving forward with no active citizen objections.  Will this rogue demolition mess be a wake-up call?

The top image is 777 S Yarrow Street in Lakewood, CO after 24 hours of demolition.

Construction photo
Photo from savebelmarpark.com

The Demolition Permit was approved on March 12 by Lakewood so the city is fully aware of what is happening.

However, the contractor has not installed any erosion control devices, silt fence, etc. as required by the Kimley-Horn specifications shown in the second image above.

They began demolition on March 13 in violation of their own established Sequence Of Construction Activities as specified by Kimley-Horn engineers.  

We assume this is OK with the city manager and city council because the city would have approved everything at the REQUIRED MEETING before demolition begins as stated on page 11 of the Erosion and Sediment Control Report :

Read the full Savebelmarpark email from the source


Radiant Painting and Lighting https://paintwithradiant.com/

From a resident with a question. Thanks for sharing!

According to the Jefferson County website: https://www.jeffco.us/4887/Federal-Impact-Updates

“In 2023 the county [Jefferson] received about $105 million in federal revenue from approximately 130 different awards. The county relies on these federal dollars to provide a broad range of critical services such as food assistance, early childhood education, highway safety, crime victim assistance, employment services, child support, medical assistance, emergency management, and preventative health services. Additionally, in 2023 we administered about $110 million in direct federal assistance to our community. Once our 2024 audit is complete, we will have more recent numbers.” 

Question: Why are Jeffco County Commissioners risking the loss of $215 million dollars in essential federal funds to openly defy federal law by not cooperating with federal immigration law and an Executive Order to eliminate DEI offices? 

County answer: “We will continue to provide essential services and resources to our community and are in the process of identifying strategies to do that in the event that we lose funding.” 

In other words, RAISE OUR TAXES AGAIN. 

Voters in Jefferson County were not allowed to vote on implementing DEI in the County nor could we vote on defying federal immigration law for the County to protect illegal immigrants nor vote on defying the DEI Executive Order. These decisions are the sole responsibility of the County Commissioners and their handlers.


Please share any answers you hear from the county as to whether they will comply with federal direction in order to receive federal money.

16 March, 2025 Thanks to a reader who provided new information, this post requires a major rewrite. Please stop reading now and stay tuned!


What will Lincoln Property Company (LPC) do with the toxic landfill on The Bend development at 4th and Union? No one knows.

One part of the property has development plans, including the area SOUTH of 4th Ave. This area is supposedly free of contamination and can be developed by following safety rules.

The area NORTH of 4th Ave is where no development can occur because it wasn’t fully remediated, only covered with dirt. There has been no plan filed for this land so the site plan is incomplete.

The city needs the plan for the entire parcel of land to design adequate resources and to reassure residents the area is safe. But if anyone knows the full site plans, Lakewood Informer can’t find them.

Google map of The Bend property at 4th and Union
Google map of The Bend property at 4th and Union showing the landfill on the north half and the development site on the south half

Lakewood Informer filed an open records request for the site plan. Instead of supplying the document, the city said to get it online.

Open Records response from Lakewod giving website to tind documents
Open records response from Lakewood

To be fair, knowing where to find the documents yourself is a valuable tool for any government website, which always seems convoluted. The Urban Renewal application materials were posted for the meeting back in January. However, there was no site plan included.  (Thank you to the city staff who handle requests)

Going to the eTRAKiT development site revealed no permits or projects for that parcel ID.

Screenshot of eTRAKiT website showing "no rresults"
Screenshot from eTRAKiT website for The Bend parcel

There is obviously a site plan, pre-development application, development application, or whatever is applicable according to Lakewood property development steps. Lakewood and LPC have been working on this site for years. And perhaps there is a good reason why I can’t get the material myself online. But regardless, I do not have that information to share.

Public statements from LPC confirm that they will decide what to do with that land later. They have acknowledged that there is no plan for land right now, even as a concept.

How can the city approve a site plan that doesn’t include the entire site?

How can the city let homes be developed across the street, literally, from an acknowledged environmental hazard site, without getting some kind of plan for that land?

Aside from the safety factor to the people living there, the city needs a full site plan to develop adequate infrastructure. This site is anticipated to include almost 2,000 homes, which will impact traffic, water, fire and police resources. Are the resources currently being planned enough for the entire parcel? Or only half? Why not disclose the plans for the entire site?


From Save Open Space – Lakewood

2/24 Lakewood Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, backed by dark money, continue City’s long history of choosing development over environment

Council’s action threw out the wishes of over 8,000 community members who signed the Save Open Space Lakewood Green Initiative petition

2/24 Lakewood Council approved a new land use scheme reinstating a loophole that allows developers to pay a fee in lieu of land donation


On February 24, 2025, Lakewood City Council voted to repeal and replace the citizens’ initiated Save Open Space Lakewood (SOS Lakewood) Green Initiative with City Hall’s anti-environmental, no-transparency, developer-friendly ordinance. 

“The City’s vote reinstates the practice of back-door deals where fees are prioritized over parks and open spaces. It is also a slap in the face to petitioners whose pleas not only went unheard, but who also faced personal attacks by a well-orchestrated campaign against the initiative,” said Cathy Kentner, petition representative.


At the heart of the initiative was eliminating the provision that allowed large developments to pay a fee-in-lieu of creating a one third acre or larger “pocket park.”  By wrongfully withholding building permits from projects that had already paid a fee and by wrongfully requiring land dedication for smaller projects, City Hall was successful in fabricating a “crisis” that they “heroically” solved. They used the “unintended consequences” suffered by the smaller projects to put back in place all of the problems that led to the initiative – back-door deal making and a scheme where paying a fee is always more of an incentive than providing the open space. And there is no oversight for even the largest of development projects.

The irony is that the majority of city councilors boast their support for sustainability and parks but their actions enable corporate greed to rule. Or perhaps they are making good on unspoken promises to campaign donors. 


More than half of the money spent to elect Mayor Pro-Tem Jeslin Shahrezaei to Council, or tens of thousands of dollars, came from the Metro Housing Coalition and the National Association of Realtors which, in 2020, apologized for its long-standing racist policies. In addition to being heavily funded by those same organizations, Mayor Wendi Strom was also supported by One Main Street Colorado, recently described in The Denver Post as a “dark money” group.

Former Lakewood City Councilor, now State Representative Rebekah Stewart, received money from these same developer dark money groups. She has already sponsored two bills that favor developers and propose to make citizen initiatives more difficult.


Speaking on behalf of Save Belmar Park, attorney Patricia Mellen said, “This ordinance experience has raised more questions than it has answered. What happened to the great oversight ideas from the study session a month ago? What happened to the ideas from last March? Why does the discretion and power always return to the staff? Why was the staff’s moratorium on building permits allowed when the City had months to create contingency plans about what would happen if the ordinance gathered enough votes? Why did the City staff not use waivers for affordable housing and single family homeowners? Why was a self-inflicted crisis the strategy? Save Belmar Park’s frustration is with the same issues in this ordinance that exist in the zoning ordinance where there is a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability, a lack of elected official oversight, a lack of public input, a lack of appeal options about decisions.”


A Denver Post editorial (2/16) proclaimed “Lakewood’s Messy Fight Can Be Solved.”  But instead of finding a simple solution, as suggested by the Post, and instead of keeping their word to make amendments without changing the overall intent of the initiative, City Hall pulled a bait and switch, revealing a developer friendly ordinance that incentivises a fee in lieu in every case.


Kentner said, “Instead of accepting responsibility for the chaos they had created, City Hall launched a campaign of misinformation to scapegoat the initiative for problems that they labeled ‘unintended consequences.’ The petition was falsely labeled ‘anti-growth,’ yet it was the City that withheld building permits, causing numerous people to suffer needlessly. The ordinance passed this week does not honor the wishes of many thousands of constituents who signed a petition asking the City Council to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee instead of providing parkland and to apply it to all projects that haven’t already met the requirement. The default should be land dedication for parks and open spaces; not a fee that is many years old and is never commensurate with the price of the land. Oversight is not a ‘barrier’ to development. It is a ‘guardrail’ to big money corporations buying out of our land use requirements.”

This week’s vote overturned the initiative, keeping none of the citizen requested provisions.


Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Subscribe


© 2022 Lakewood Informer | All Rights Reserved
Designed by Mile High Web Designs