Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Author : Lakewood News from Karen

Citizens Launch a Petition to Take Back Parks and City Stalls it

In the last week, Lakewood citizens launched a petition, started gathering signatures, and had the petition stalled by the city. From Save Open Space Lakewood Today Lakewood citizens start to take back their parks and open spaces from developers Thursday, March 21, 2024—Today Save Open Space Lakewood launches a petition requiring the City of Lakewood to strengthen and adhere to its ordinances to preserve land and open space.   Once the petition reaches a requisite 6,000 Lakewood citizen signatures, it qualifies to become a ballot issue. Initiative Summary as Set by Lakewood City Clerk: Shall the City of Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION be repealed and replaced to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and to require the City to accept open space and land dedications for current and future developments. For the full initiative text and to learn where Lakewood registered voters can sign the petition, go to SOSLakewood.org or contact Cathy Kentner at (303) 349-2434. Gross ineptitude or sabotage? City of Lakewood’s actions last week and in the past show loyalty to developers over citizens Citizens’ petition to save Lakewood’s parks from developers deemed invalid due to City error, robbing petitioners of time to secure enough signatures for citywide vote  Is this gross ineptitude or sabotage by Lakewood, which has thwarted dozens of citizen-led efforts, many to combat large developments next to parks and open space Read the full story at Save Open Space Lakewood

Terumo BCT Subject to New Emission Rule

Terumo BCT is one of four commercial medical sterilization facilities in Colorado subject to a new regulation meant to decrease emissions and reduce cancer risk associated with ethylene oxide. Terumo BCT Sterilization Services Inc., Lakewood’s 10th largest employer, has been the subject of lawsuits regarding concentrations of this compound that may cause cancer (see Westword article for more information). Residents have been submitting Lakewood news and public comment on the issue and it came to the attention of Lakewood City Councilor Rich Olver. Olver made a request on May 4, 2023 to hold a study session on the topic, inviting the EPA and Terumo to discuss. The motion was approved on May 22, 2023, but no study session ever occurred. Council Member Olver reports that he has renewed his request for a study session. The EPA press release does not provide any outside scientific references for how or why this the new rule is necessary but does predict a 90% reduction in emissions. Promoted Post:

Vacant Property Fee Focuses on the Lesser Problem

Lakewood City Council has set new penalty fees for vacant property owners in Lakewood. Some vacant land has been elevated to the level of a public nuisance because of the homeless encampments on them. However, camps on private property are a relatively new and lesser phenomenon than camps on public property. Public homeless camps have been increasing in Lakewood news for years, as Denver homeless have been expanding into Lakewood. Public encampments are so prevalent that they are increasingly being found on private property. The increased crime and poor economy has led to a downward spiral of vacant properties. So Lakewood has instituted fines on a property owner for having vacant land. Did Lakewood focus on the lesser private problem instead of addressing the larger public problem and is this an adequate alternative to hiring more police officers? Public Homeless Camps 2013-Oct, 2020 In 2020, Lakewood first started posting notices for private property. As shown below, they made a significant number of private property notices over two months, but it was still not as common as public camps. The temptation for Lakewood will now be to pursue these private properties to bring in revenue from fines at the expense of cleaning up the larger public property problem. Many properties in Lakewood have been vacant for years, with no crime problem, but since economic development has stagnated, these owners are left with property the owners would like to have in productive use but that option isn’t available at this time. So now property owners will be fined for a condition that is already not of their choosing, making it harder to sell the property as well. As of January 22, 2024, each vacant property owner must pay the city $700 every six months if the property is vacant and $800 for every emergency service call. The purpose of the fines is to incentivize property owners to find a renter faster or take their own security precautions. It is important to note that these taxpayers already pay for city and emergency services but the city is now charging extra. This may disincentivize new buyers from investing in Lakewood for long-term buy and hold strategies. At the City Council retreat on March 2, Mayor Wendi Strom commented that using city funds to demolish vacant private property was better than pursuing more police hires when Lakewood has still not hired to full staff capacity. In the end, if the city cannot control the larger issue of camps on public property, what are private owners to do differently? Reader Recommended Business: Cafe Ole

Community Meeting March 12

Two flyers are circulating for a community meeting on March 12, 2024. One flyer lists a speaker and suggests the topic of the meeting is immigration. The other flyer suggests the meeting is being called because City Council cancelled the March 11 Council meeting. The Council meeting was cancelled so that Councilors might attend the previously scheduled National League of Cities meeting in Washington DC. It is unclear when city officials were invited to the community meeting or if any can attend. Although discussion topics are not listed, the growing number of migrants is a concern to Lakewood residents – a concern that did not make it to the City Council 2024 priority list. These community meetings may offer residents an opportunity for discussion that is not otherwise available. The community meeting is open to all, at Emory Elementary, March 12 at 6:30 pm.

An update on the CORA request bill HB24-1296

Cross post from the Colorado Accountability Project …the issue here isn’t one along party lines.  It’s one where an arrogant group of politicians have no compunctions about limiting the public’s ability to see what they’re doing.  And they do this in direct defiance of voters saying they want more transparency. I take this CORA vote the same way.  This is legislators thumbing their nose at everyday Coloradans like you and me.  Read more at the Colorado Accountability Project Editor’s Note: Lakewood has taken no position on this or any other legislative item, including: prohibiting residential occupancy limits, higher density construction , more statewide land use control, allowing local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE The Lakewood Legislative Committee meets March 7 at 3 pm. An explanation of HB 24-1296 from the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition The introduced version of House Bill 24-1296 had given records custodians the power to consider anyone — except a journalist — as vexatious if that person demonstrated “an intent to annoy or harass a custodian,” limiting their access to public records under CORA for 30 working days and making them go to court to challenge that designation. Read more…

Buses of Migrants at Lakewood Hotel

Two, separate, eyewitnesses confirm that an extended bus of migrants was dropped at the Hometowne Studios at 6th and Kipling, in Lakewood, Colorado. The first report came in on Monday, February 26 during a City Council meeting where Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom would later say she feared a busload of migrants would show up without prior notice. The news was confirmed the next day by a second eyewitness near the motel. An extended bus is the same as two regular buses and has been described as an RTD-style bus that was painted white. Hotel management has not returned calls. Denver responded that they have no involvement in any hotel in Lakewood. Mayor Strom responded promptly on February 28 that she was not aware of such a bus. A high-ranking city official has said that a private group is paying for the hotel.

A $9 Million Grant with Unknown “Strings” Attached

Guest Post by J.T. Johnson – Lakewood Ward 4 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. 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.) 

My Elder Buddy

Promoted Post My Elder Buddy a compassionate companion for your older loved one When you need someone to help with a parent or older loved one, please consider calling me for help.  I can take them to appointments, on fun outings, or walks, or stop in  for an hour or two, for those in need of companionship. I am known as the Mama Henster, due to my caring and engaging nature.  I am happy to run errands, cook dinners, do meal prep, light housekeeping, or just visit for a few hours (I’m a good listener and I give good hugs). The first hour is free, to see if we are compatible and comfortable with each other. Call or email me Amy Kauffman 303-564-5013 myelderbuddy@gmail.com for references and costs.

Lakewood City Council approves housing plan and Navigation Center, but residents still have questions and concerns

Guest Post by Bill Foshag 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

Scroll to top