The Lakewood Advisory Commission (LAC) was established to provide research on local issues to City Council. The questions of “how much research?” and “what for?” came up when City Council voted to update the LAC Ordinance. One resulting change was that the LAC can initiate their own research projects, for a grassroots, bottom-up approach instead of top-down. This change has also resulted in the rise of dual presentations to Council, one from LAC and one from city staff, which is a side effect of removing the top-down approach and a demonstration of who controls the flow of information.
The top-down approach was driven by the need for Council, as elected representatives, to initiate projects, to limit projects to manageable levels, and not to duplicate work that city staff is already doing. There are not many projects the city staff is not already working on. Therefore, the LAC started initiating its own projects. During the April 24 meeting, Council Members stated the need to keep LAC Commissioners occupied because Council had heard of members leaving due to lack of purpose. So the bottom-up approach is driven by the need to satisfy LAC Commissioners. In fact, Commissioners are told when recruited that a perk of joining is that they can work on projects that interest them.
The disparity between these two approaches was on display while discussing the proposed ordinance change and the ramifications may not be fully understood for some time. For example, Council Member Olver asked for the LAC to do more projects, without full Council approval. Mayor Paul replied that would lead to an unsupportable number of projects being done if everyone wanted their own project done. However, that is exactly what happened in the past when individual LAC Commissioners proposed projects. Several projects were done concurrently, driven by individual interests, which also led to Commissioners leaving the LAC due to the appearance of favoritism.
The other result is that when Council approves a project, the LAC and the city staff will both work on a project (see dueling presentations on the use of single-use plastic bags). In fact, the LAC cannot do targeted research because pertinent information related to the city must go through city staff, which the LAC does not have direct access to. Therefore, many projects do not make sense for the LAC to do alone, if at all.
City staff will always be in control of the flow of information and what the ultimate outcome of any project will be. City staff provides a memo on each activity of the LAC, the majority of times recommending that City Council take the recommendations “under consideration”. Action will be up to city staff.
The dialogue between Olver and the other Council Members showed that the established procedures in place for the top-down approach are still valid. However, the process for the bottom-up approach is less regulated and often invalidates the previous top-down approach procedures. The change in ordinance has been in the works for some time, delayed due to turnover in the City Clerk and City Attorney office, the two departments with the most knowledge of the LAC.
Prior to the grassroots, bottom-up approach, if a Lakewood resident wanted Lakewood to research a project, they petitioned City Council and City Council could do a Request for Action wherein Council would vote on lending City support to the project. These projects were rare.
Now a resident can join the LAC and get easily approved since the driving factor is retaining Commissioners. There are no guidelines for turning down a project and a precedent for individuals to do individual research.
Reader recommended business: Specialized Electric Company
Lakewood City Council Members have decided to oppose several state legislative efforts: Land Use bill, Right of First Refusal, and Regulating Local Housing Growth Restrictions have now all been officially opposed or strongly opposed by Lakewood. This is almost a reversal of where Lakewood started on these issues, with only two Councilors wanting to oppose and the others in support or monitor positions. One other notable change was the increasing number of people attending committee meetings.
Regarding Local Housing Growth Restrictions, this bill would have overturned Lakewood’s Strategic Growth Initiative (SGI), which was voted on and passed by the people. Since that time, Lakewood has been accused of using blight to go around SGI and not listening to the people.
Council Members Vincent and Stewart have identified problems and unintended consequences with the SGI. Vincent has heard from constituents for years and recognized they stood behind SGI. Both Members publicly wrestled with the decision to vote their own personal views (against SGI) or the views they believe a majority of their constituents hold (supporting SGI). Councilors Janssen and Olver had no such conflict; they supported the will of the voters from the beginning, in other words, supported the results of the SGI vote.
The legislative sessions were closely watched this year, with few residents attending in the beginning and several showing at the April 24th meeting. At that meeting, all four Members voted as they believed constituents would want – to support SGI and strongly oppose HB23-1255, the bill regulating local housing growth restrictions.
Public input also made a difference in the recently enacted Short-Term Rental ordinance, when a last minute amendment changed the proposal. Resident voices got that amendment repealed.
In the case of legislative matters, Lakewood’s decisions may have come too late to make a difference. In the case of Right of First Refusal, the bill was through third reading before Lakewood took a position. The recent change to strongly oppose for housing growth restrictions came when there are only two weeks left in the session and opportunities to participate are limited. However, it is important to note the vital role the public played and the equally important fact that Council listened.
The Jefferson County Legislative meeting on April 24 revealed many different viewpoints and issues, ultimately leading the county to take an amend position on the governor’s land-use bill, SB23-213.
Commissioner Kraft-Thorpe brought up many reasons to oppose SB23-213, including that the county should show support for all the cities within the county that have officially opposed the bill.
That was not reason enough for the other Commissioners. One person heard from city representatives in their personal capacity that they supported SB23-213, even though the official city stance was that of oppose.
From the county’s point of view, SB23-213 impacts municipalities more than the county, although rumors exist that the local control concepts in SB23-213 may be expanded to the county level next year.
The amendment for increased Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) evinced the most concern, especially because provisions for infrastructure were not addressed. That means an ADU could be build without a septic system, draining right into the aquifer. Citing California, who passed a similar bill last year, not many ADUs are not built, so that may not be a real consideration for Jeffco.
Reason to support the bill was that local control is “not solving the problem” of affordable housing, so something must be done. Commissioner Kraft-Thorpe addressed this directly by saying that the bill does not address affordability, only density. She also expressed concern over the elimination of public process in this bill. Commissioner Dahlkemper said that the county already had processes in place for public input, and that may help this issue.
One interesting comment was that a developer had called, seeking county help in protecting business corridors in transit areas, rather than just using all the area for high-density residential. Business taxes provide the funding for residential services like police. No movement in protecting business corridors is currently happening.
Jeffco majority decided on an amend position on SB23-213. Specific amendments will be left to staff or offered by others.
The grant is newly available through the EPA called the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG). These grants are a part of the Inflation Reduction Act, announced as “the most significant climate legislation in U.S. history”. As such, the grants make money available to municipalities and local governments. Lakewood is not currently seeking a grant itself but is signaling its aim to be included in available efforts.
As one of the 67 most populous Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), the Denver-Lakewood-Aurora MSA can receive $1 million as part of Phase 1. The grant needs a leader for the application and management. DRCOG may seek to serve as that leader.
In this way, DRCOG may play a pivotal role in Lakewood’s climate decisions, much the same way they did in choosing to eliminate funding for commuter routes without a formal discussion or vote by Lakewood Council.
Money from this grant can be used for staffing, modeling, and studies to reduce climate pollution.
Climate studies are a controversial issue. From pewresearch.org:
“The credibility of climate research is also closely tied with Americans’ political views. Some 55% of liberal Democrats say climate research reflects the best available evidence most of the time, 39% say some of the time. By contrast, 9% of conservative Republicans say this occurs most of the time, 54% say it occurs some of the time.”
Those numbers come from a 2016 study and America has only become more polarized since. Lakewood’s Sustainability Plan was written in 2015.
One tip from Harvard Business Review on polarizing issues is: “Before engaging in public debates, leaders should ensure that they have addressed polarization within their own organizations.” They also say to engage the “67% of Americans in the ‘Exhausted Majority,’ who say they feel fatigued by politics and feel forgotten in current debates.”
Have Lakewood Council, residents, and the “Exhausted Majority” been engaged in decisions to support the latest federal climate goals?
Supporting DRCOG’s leadership is Lakewood’s step toward supporting those goals. The Inflation Reduction Act could “potentially reduce U.S. emissions by 40% by 2030”.
Federal goals align with Lakewood’s sustainability goal of 50% emission reduction by 2030.
Lakewood’s next target date is 2025, with a goal of achieving a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases below 2007 levels. According to the 2021 report, Lakewood is currently at a 12% reduction.
The recent loan agreement for the removal of 995 Sheridan Blvd sparked questions about the finances and handling of the loan.
Further reading into L.M.C. 3.26.030, shows another provision which states: “…the city shall never be a joint venture in any private entity or activity which participates in the economic development fund”
The traditional interpretation of this clause is that the city shall not receive profits from a joint venture, but a loan agreement is a new construct for the city. This agreement is instigated for city purposes, more than the business.
One Council Member raised concerns that Lakewood was not set up with loan officers and other traditional bank operations which made for safe financial practices. That concern was dismissed with the explanation that the city was not making loans to people but making an investment in the land, which is guaranteed. The loan will be made to Ten Sheridan, LLC, enforced by a lien on the property.
Council Members asked how much money was available in the fund but no clear answer was possible because the 2022 financial report is not yet available. The current estimate is the fund holds over $9 million but that is not the full answer. Lakewood counts about $5.5 million in investments as of the 2021 financial report. There was about $3.8 million in cash. So the current loan represents one-quarter of the remaining cash available unless significant changes have occurred in 2022.
Reader recommended business: Specialized Electric Company
At the April 10, 2023 Lakewood City Council meeting, Lakewood has taken the unprecedented step of authorizing money from the Economic Development Fund to demolish and remove a vacant building at 995 Sheridan Blvd for non-economic reasons. The building, the old Holiday Plaza shopping center, has been deemed a public safety concern. By paying for the demolition and removal of this building, Lakewood will gain an estimated 18-24 months of time that the community will not have to deal with the eyesore and associated criminal complaints. The money for the loan will come from the Economic Development Fund, which is restricted by code for the purpose of promoting economic development within the City, but in this case will be used for public safety. The property is intended for mixed-use development.
Residents of the area spoke overwhelmingly in favor of this proposal. Although the city had previously granted the property a blight status to facilitate redevelopment, that development has been slow to occur. The property has been mostly vacant for over 10 years and the number of service calls has grown to almost 130 a year.
The new owners of the property have plans for demolition and removal. However, the typical construction loan is tied to building permits and permits take a long time to obtain. That’s why vacant buildings are left standing until new building permits, and the associated construction loans, are obtained.
That timing may change now that Lakewood has devised this method of using the Economic Development Fund to cover public safety. Lakewood Mayor Adam Paul calls it “a bold move”, explaining that the fund cannot be used directly to help the homeless but this is another way to serve the community.
In fact, using the fund itself is the bold move. According to Lakewood Municipal Code, L.M.C. 3.26.030, “The purpose of said fund shall be to provide funds from the city to further the economic development goals of the city by providing financial assistance to projects attracting enterprises that City Council determines will further the accomplishment of the city’s economic goals.”
Traditionally, the fund has been held to the expressly stated restrictions by sponsoring economic projects to cause revitalization. In this loan agreement for 995 Sheridan, no new projects attracting enterprises will be funded. A new interpretation focuses not on the economic development, but on the results.
Economic authority derived from city’s police power – no direct economic authority granted to the city
All economic goals must be “in furtherance of the public health, safety and welfare”, as stated in policing powers for the city, under which the economic development fund was created. By focusing on the ends instead of the means, there seems to be no limit as to what the fund can be used for, and in fact, that question was not discussed, although some kind of “restriction” was universally acknowledged.
Will there be any restrictions to future fund use?Can any loan be made in the name of public safety?
No one on Council or staff made the argument that this loan agreement would have economic benefits, per se. The benefits presented focused on public safety.
Mayor Pro Tem Wendi Strom summarized the discussion by saying “I know it is no guarantee we are going to get our money back” but this will “increase public safety”.
This loan is a pilot project. Using the Economic Development Fund for public safety will allow many future projects throughout the city. Measures of success/failure of the project were not presented. However, by using the economic development fund for public safety directly, Lakewood is providing a measure of the success/failure of the fund for attracting businesses, by showing there may better ways to spend the money or perhaps that the fund is overfunded for its purposes.
The loan agreement was approved 8-3, with nays being Council Members Janssen, Olver, and Springsteen.
On January 28, 2023 City Council held their Annual Planning Meeting to establish their strategic goals and priorities for the upcoming year. Two facilitators from Point b(e) Strategies assisted in this process. Their completed report is provided in the PDF at the end of this piece. The last part of the facilitators’ document requests that each councilor set up a rank order of goals based on his/her perception of the needs of their communities. Once the goals were ranked, the final compilation would be presented to the public. The individual rankings were done through Survey Monkey and the results were unavailable to the public. However, through several CORA requests and phone calls I was able to obtain the City’s final report. An email from staff directed me to a new website with instructions to click on each goal to show tasks and status (see https://lakewood.clearpointstrategy.com/)
OBSERVATIONS FROM CITY WEBSITE GOALS
Re: Secure, Inclusive, and Affordable Neighborhoods
Task: Add inclusionary zoning to an upcoming Housing Policy Commission agenda and then follow-up with a study session.
FACT: Last spring this topic was scheduled for discussion by the Development Dialogue Committee. The day before the meeting, the majority of City Council members voted to disband the committee claiming it was redundant because the Housing Policy Commission would be working on this. To this date, inclusionary zoning has been ignored while the Commission spent the past year focused on the recently passed Short Term Rental policy.
Re: Effective, Accountable, Transparent, and Data Informed Government
Task: The City Manager will provide a quarterly update regarding City Council goals.
Status: Completed
Although the website says this task is completed, several councilors that I spoke to were unaware of any update. These quarterly reports should be specific about progress, delays or stagnation regarding the priorities and need to be made public.
Task: Continue efforts to improve accessibility of the website and meeting notes.
Status: In progress
It should be noted that in spite of the request to consolidate websites to minimize confusion, the City chose to create a new site to post this report on priorities. Without assistance from staff no one would even know this exists. This new site does provide a history of goals from previous years. There is a pattern of completion when it comes to commissioning studies but less success when it comes to implementing the results. Visible, measurable changes often only reach the status of “in progress”. If City Council is persistent maybe that can change.
*Correction 4/14/23: Councilor Able attended the full meeting, including data from Councilor Olver
The March 20, 2023 Lakewood City Council meeting was to study multi-modal transportation; specifically bike lanes. The session included a presentation by staff for Council consideration. Council Member Rich Olver, an experienced biker, brought additional data in the form of pictures of specific bike lane hazards. Rather than “study” this data that was “outside of our norm”, multiple members of City Council and the City Manager appeared to leave the meeting in silent protest.
Summary of the meeting
The presentation by staff included an overview of the advantages of biking, biking lanes, and options for bike lane creation. According to Max E. Kirschbaum, Director of Public Works, the challenges that Lakewood faces include “Retrofitting an existing street can often require widening.”
Depending on the treatment, a bike lane could cost $500,000 per mile. The next step for this project would be to identify priorities and establish a budget. Several corridors are considered ready for “quick action”, such as existing bike lanes that just need vertical separation, or roads that are wide enough.
Following the presentation, Council Members had requests to prioritize their wards, requests to look into grant money and mention of some challenges to bike lanes. Discussion was limited to these individual comments.
Silent Protest
Council Member Olver prepared some slides to show specific problems in Lakewood at the end of the meeting. However, Mayor Paul advised the Council that it is “outside of our norm” for Councilors to present data, therefore he advised that Council did not have to stay for Olver’s data. In fact, Mayor Paul cut his video as soon as Olver started talking.
Other Councilors followed suit. Councilors Shahrezaei, Mayott-Guerrero, Stewart, Vincent, Mayor Paul and City Manager Hodgson all cut their video, seeming to leave the meeting rather than listen to data presented by a fellow Council Member. Olver provided visual data of bike problems in the city (see below). In fact, most of the problems were in Wards 1 and 3 (Olver is Councilor for Ward 4), but Councilors Shahrezaei and Stewart appeared to leave. Councilors Able and Janssen stayed for the entire meeting (Paragraph corrected to show all specific names 4/14/23).
This silent protest of Council Members seems to suggest that only data prepared by staff is suitable for consideration, which is at odds with the idea of a study session.
Olver’s data showed that connectivity is a bigger issue for those currently using bike lanes, rather than vertical separation on existing lanes. He showed several easy fixes for dangerous spots and his data was specific to Lakewood, rather than the general overview that was involved in the staff presentation, that had a different focus.
Even without Olver’s data, it would be appropriate in a study session to discuss specific problems such as whether to prioritize vertical separation or connectivity. That discussion did not happen. All details will be left to city staff to decide.
Photo from Rich Olver: bike land ending for traffic merge at dangerous curb. Suggestion was to paint the curb red and watch the connection.Photo from Rich Olver: bike lane ending after fast downhill segment. Connection to path especially hazardous.
Two Colorado bills were under scrutiny at the Lakewood legislative committee meeting April 3.
HB23-1190 Affordable Housing Right of First Refusal: Concerning a right of first refusal to purchase qualifying multifamily residential property by a local government.
This bill was first discussed at the last legislative committee meeting where votes were split on how to proceed. Councilors Stewart and Shahrezaei were leaning toward support, Janssen leaning to oppose and Vincent deliberating. At that time, Councilor Stewart had discussed the issue with city staff who said Lakewood did not need this tool right now, but Stewart said it might be good to have the tool available.
An official vote on 1190 was postponed until the next meeting. However, the next committee meeting was a special meeting called by Council Member and Legislative Committee Chair Rebekah Stewart. Her stated intention was to discuss SB23-213. Councilor Janssen stated that she had emailed about 1190, and noted the minute mark that the committee agreed in the last meeting to discuss 1190.
Janssen made a motion to oppose HB23-1190. The motion failed 3-2, with Janssen and Olver in favor (to oppose), and Stewart, Shahrezaei, and Vincent opposed. HB23-1190 is planned for Senate committee vote the following day (April 4). HB23-1190 has passed the House committee with Lakewood taking a “Monitor” position.
SB23-213 is Governor Polis’ Land Use bill seeks to implement statewide zoning and land use regulations. That power currently resides locally.
Lakewood typically allows the Colorado Municipal League (CML) to lobby for the city, except on select bills where they are in opposition. In this case, the CML is strongly opposed to this bill. Councilor Janssen made a motion to take a similar stance, to strongly oppose the bill. The motion failed 3-2, with Councilors Janssen and Olver in support (to oppose) and Stewart, Shahrezaei and Vincent opposed.
Reasons stated to oppose SB23-213 largely reflect the same concerns shown in the CML position paper; that it takes away local control, that it does not create affordable housing and that it ignores problems created such as parking and transit.
Lakewood’s delegate to the CML, Council Member Stewart, said that she communicated her desire to see amendments included for inclusionary zoning before moving forward. Overall, her main concern, which was repeated by everyone who is opposed to opposing the bill, was that the bill may pass and that Lakewood wants “a seat at the table”. However, there were no prepared amendments for Lakewood to discuss at any table, so at this point the majority opinion seemed to be to wait and hope there were amendments to make the legislation better.
Only one member offered supportive comments to SB23-213. Councilor Shahrezaei stated that “we are at the inflection point” for problems like affordable housing, that may now be a regional problem. In that context, only statewide control of the factors underlying the housing marketplace will work.
Both bills will continue in discussion at the next Legislative Committee meeting.
This is a continuation of the story entitled “Lakewoodspeaks: Solution or Problem?”
The software provider for the site Lakewoodspeaks is a company called Peoplespeak. When you search their website you will find a photo of Lakewood’s Planning Department Director Travis Parker featured as “Public-Private Innovations Advisor” next to pictures of the company’s executive team.
Once my article was printed in LakewoodInformer, I sent it to Mr. Parker for comments or questions. I am including highlights from these emails (full documentation of email exchanges available beginning March 3, 2023 available through download below).
Q: Mr. Parker asks why I sought out controversy regarding the Lakewoodspeaks site? He is also concerned that I didn’t look into metrics which show that the site is “actually succeeding” at improving “access to decision-making”.
A: “I welcome any metrics you want to provide to support your position.” None were provided. Additionally the implication that I sought out controversy is absolutely false.
“One [controversy] arose on Feb. 13, 2023 when an inappropriate posting appeared in the General Comment section of Lakewoodspeaks. This comment violated the platform’s moderation policy because the commenter used a false identity and the submission contained personal attacks.” The City decided to change their moderation policy rather than following established protocol of removing the offensive posting.
Q: Why didn’t I look into the cost of the city’s more expensive software programs if cost was my main concern?
A: Cost was not a main focus of the original article. It was one aspect of the complete story. It is interesting that Mr. Parker never references any monetary compensation the City pays to Peoplespeak, although he does mention “free upgrades”.
CONCERN: Mr. Parker points out errors/ inconsistencies regarding statements concerning Captcha technology and the moderation policy. The inaccuracies were acknowledged, explained and corrected with an apology.
Q: Mr. Parker asks: What is the goal of my article? He objects to my position that Golden has a more effective policy He asks are my goals lower costs, easier participation and more transparency?
A: Yes! Yes! and Yes!
The following are my set of questions sent to Mr. Parker on March 10, 2023 and his complete response dated March 22, 2023.
The following are questions I have for you: 1. Regarding the timeline you provided, you said Lakewood became Peoplespeak’s first customer in 2017. Since the company wasn’t established until 2018, how did you locate these individuals? Did you have a previous relationship of any kind with any of the co-founders? 2. The Peoplespeak site claims an 800% increase in public participation. What time period does this cover? Can you provide specific numbers of people for a before and after comparison (before software introduced and after it had been operating)? There are claims that data from 2018 and 2019 showed significant numbers of people watching videos on the site and leaving public comments. How many? What figures are available between 2020 and the present? I would expect numbers to grow during the pandemic, did they? To what extent did participation change? What is the present numbers for Lakewood for in person participation vs. online when important issues such as STRs or Save Bear Creek are on the agenda? Presently, there is greater participation on Lakewoodspeaks because Nextdoor , councilors and word of mouth are directing people to go to that site to post comments about STRs. If Lakewood.org had been the only site, everyone would have flocked there. 3. Was there any cost to the City of Lakewood for Peoplespeak/Lakewoodspeaks services prior to 2018? If so, specify. 4. What is the difference between online software for town hall meetings and other public hearings? You stated there were many legal considerations around open meeting laws. Could you elaborate on this? 5. Your photo has a prominent place on the Peoplespeak website describing you as the Public/Private Innovations Advisor. What exactly does that position entail? Do you provide any services as an advisor? Do you receive any form of compensation or perks from your association with this company? Your many credentials including your position as Planning Director for Lakewood are noted and you said these lend credibility to the service. To downplay the importance of your photo, you mentioned that the Mayor and your Wheatridge counterpart were also pictured on the page. However, the Mayor and Wheatridge Planning Director are featured to provide brief testimonials about Peoplespeak. Why did you try to equate their roles in relation to the company with yours? 6. You have stated that you along with Lakewood staff have maintained an informal relationship with Peoplespeak. Which staff members are you referring to? Are you or any of these staff members aware of the many problems that have occurred on this site? Has anyone discussed these issues with the company? Is there anyone who serves as a liaison between the company and the city? If so, who? Should it be acceptable that a problem persists even after the provider has been notified? I recognize that there are a lot of questions here but you basically provided me with a cherry picked document that extolled the many virtues of the company. Perhaps you just weren’t aware of the difficulties constituents experience with the site. Consider yourself informed.
From: Travis Parker Date: March 22, 2023 at 7:12:09 PM MDT To: Lenore Herskovitz Subject:RE: Article from the Lakewood Informer
Lenore,
I am sorry, but I don’t agree with the premise of your position or the spirit of the questions you are asking.
In discussions I’ve had with other local communities about Lakewood Speaks, do you know the most common comment I hear? They say that it is a fantastic idea and that every community should be using it, but that they probably won’t start using it. The reason is that any innovation, no matter how well intentioned or successful, will be attacked by members of the community who (for unrelated reasons) don’t like the current city government. It is far safer for local government employees to do nothing at all and play it safe than to make improvements to the government for the benefit of the community.
I’ve dedicated my entire career to public service and I contributed a lot of my time and knowledge and energy to helping create Lakewood Speaks; not for recognition or pay (of course I’ve never received nor asked for compensation beyond my job), but because it was the right thing to do to make government decision making more accessible. Attacking something like that, something clearly intended to increase access and transparency, only exemplifies and exacerbates the problem of working in local government. Attacks like this are the reason local government employees have been conditioned to do as little as possible.
The path to real improvement in any field (government, education, business, etc.) is positive reinforcement. If you want to improve Lakewood’s government write an article praising someone doing something that you agree with. Submit a bonus recommendation for an employee taking initiative. Do anything to encourage positive action and going beyond the minimum job expectations. Throwing stones stifles initiative and is never the path to a better world.
As always, I’d be happy to have a real conversation by phone or in person. If you want to quote me, please quote this entire email.
Best,
Travis
There were many questions presented to Mr. Parker. Unfortunately he chose not to answer them but rather to deflect and create a diversion from the issues at hand. Problems can only be fixed when they are acknowledged.
For further information, the following download contains a more complete set of communications with Mr. Parker beginning March 2, 2023. There is an overlap and repetition of my questions to Mr. Parker (dated March 10, 2023) and his subsequent reply.
