Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Entrenched Bureaucracy

Lakewood is Laughing At Us

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Entrenched BureaucracyTagged , , , , ,

The May 7th Planning Commission meeting was a travesty of a public hearing. Lakewood cared enough to give residents an outlet for their grievances. No one cared enough to enact a single change. And sometimes they outright laughed at us. Watch the video below from the end of public comment, starting at min 2:58:25. One resident got up and publicly read an article from the Lakewood Informer. Watch the city staffer seated in the background unsuccessfully hiding her laughter during this reading. All of which was proved to be true. All of which city staff ignored and the entire Planning Commission dismissed — just like so many other valid resident points. The meeting started with Lakewood Chief of Sustainability and Community Developer Travis Parker explaining that he didn’t think this meeting wouldn’t change anything. He said that there were “pretty significant misunderstandings” of what staff could do. He said that “attacks on staff for being, you know, incompetent or malfeasant or acting in bad faith, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the good and hard work that’s done by people that are experts.” No one doubts city staff work hard. They all deserve thanks. But we also can’t assume they are always right and the residents are wrong about everything. We can’t assume that there is no other way to evaluate base assumptions. But that’s exactly what the Planning Commission decided to do. Ironically, one of the main points of the Belmar Park battle was about cutting down all the trees that could have formed an expanded buffer. Mr Parker himself has been educating residents on new zoning codes from Lakewood that will not increase the setbacks to what they were pre-2012, but will now require RESIDENTS to get a permit to cut down their trees. So the meeting was a pretty show that started and ended with all the well-researched points the residents brought forward being dismissed. Sadly, the best thing to be said is that being dismissed was more respectful than being laughed at. Required Grading Permit – Evidence not reported by city staff The permit pictured above is from Lakewood’s eTRAKit system, showing the grading permit that was applied for and received within one day of the complaint, just as reported by Steve at savebelmarpark.com The permit below is for demolition, which was applied for a month earlier. No malicious intent was implied and the problem was quickly corrected. Thanks to residents who apparently know less than city staff. Grading permit requirements below Actual permit that must be displayed before construction:

Read More

UPDATE: Disappointing but Not Surprising – We Need Your Help Now More Than Ever!

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, SustainabilityTagged , , , , ,

From Save Belmar Park, Inc., – a Colorado non-profit What happened at the May 7th Lakewood Planning Commission hearing was deeply disappointing—though sadly, not unexpected. After several speakers delivered well-researched, thoughtful, and heartfelt presentations, the audience erupted in applause. The public’s support for protecting Belmar Park was undeniable. So how does a small group of City officials override the will of the residents? Despite an overwhelming outpouring of public opposition—including emails, social media comments, and a nearly 10-to-1 ratio of anti-this-development comments on Lakewood Speaks—the Commission still voted 5–0 in favor of the 411-unit Kairoi apartment building. And they did so even after being presented with a powerful, evidence-based case showing that the proposed development directly contradicts Lakewood’s own zoning code, comprehensive plan, and parks master plan. This vote was a slap in the face to the community. It disregarded common sense, environmental preservation, and the very planning documents the city is supposed to uphold. The proposed zero-lot-line, six-story building is incompatible with the surrounding two-story Belmar Commons townhomes, overwhelms local infrastructure, and threatens the ecological balance of Belmar Park. The city has rolled out the red carpet for billionaire developers—again—ignoring the public and prioritizing profit over people, parks, and trees. Dozens of mature, century-old trees will be clearcut. Wildlife will be displaced. Belmar Park’s peace and beauty will be irreversibly damaged (if we don’t stop them). But, we have NOT given up—and we’re not stopping now! Our next step is filing a lawsuit under a 106A appeal, which will go before a Jefferson County district court rather than more city insiders. We believe we still have a strong chance at a different outcome—despite the city’s push to bulldoze trees—because the proposed development blatantly contradicts Lakewood’s own zoning laws, comprehensive plan, and parks master plan, giving us solid legal ground to challenge it in court. This is our last real chance to stop this destructive project, and we’re counting on supporters like you to help us make it happen. Legal fees are significant, and this is a fight the community should not have to fund—but we must because the City of Lakewood refuses to listen. Please stand with us—again. If this park means something to you, dig deep—and give as generously as possible (then smile knowing you’re helping to save something irreplaceable). Every dollar helps us hold the line against this destructive plan. Then share our campaign and spread the word. We’re fighting for what’s right: environmental integrity, community character, and the future of Belmar Park. 👉 Donate now: https://www.gofundme.com/f/save-belmar-park Directors Save Belmar Park, Inc. 

Read More

The Bend: A Government Financing Trade Deal

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Word GamesTagged , , , , , , , ,

Lakewood may be forcing a property owner to blight their own land in a backroom trade deal wherein staff pledged a positive vote from City Council for a metro district. The deal would give The Bend development city financing in exchange for metro district status. In January 2025, a representative for The Bend developer made the following public comment: “The city is actually only allowing a Metro District to be put in place if the URA (Urban Renewal Area) passes so that it is a vehicle for this infrastructure and tax increment financing. They actually would not pass our Metro District standalone. They’ve made that very clear.” – Allie Meister, Lincoln Properties, at Green Mountain Water Board Meeting, min 40:13. This deal illuminates why Lakewood is rushing through a URA and metro district public hearing on the same night. Staff presentations have repeatedly touted the advantages of doing both the URA and the metro district at the same time. They claim these are complementary structures. But they are not complementary. Rather, these are essentially overlapping structures that could finance the same set of infrastructures. Apparently, financing public infrastructure is a profit center. Overlapping financing is duplicative. Even worse, for The Bend, neither metro district nor URA is appropriate. The Bend is not a “serious and growing menace” to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare, which is the statutory reason for Urban Renewal. The Bend does not provide public services, which is necessary for a metro district. The metro district will only be used for financing. Therefore, the most appropriate government assistance, if any, would be a Business Improvement District (BID).  BIDs are the more accountable, less powerful, way to achieve development financing but no one is advocating for its use. Instead, developers prefer to form metro districts. This initially involves the developer loaning money to the new metro district.  Then the metro district issues a bond, with interest, to pay back the loan. Since the developer and the metro district are the same people (different legal entity), the developer has now gained itself government immunity, as well as millions of dollars of interest payments. In many cases, the interest payments never end – they only continue to grow. This outcome isn’t possible with a BID. (See Denver Post series “Metro Districts: Debt & Democracy” by David Migoya for more in-depth information on metro district abuses) Therefore, developers generally want that metro district as a profit center, rather than as a way to finance development, since they front the funds in either case. A URA is also meant to fund public infrastructure. Much of the public infrastructure was repeated under both the URA and metro district justification. Only one method is needed to finance infrastructure, and, as noted, the developer will provide the base funds in any event. As Karen Gordey reported in the Lakewood Informer, there was no required financial gap analysis completed to show that city funding was required. Therefore, with a metro district there is no need for a URA. This conclusion is also shared by a report from the Independence Institute. A URA has not required a metro district in the past. However, Lakewood can trade URA financing for affordable housing. Lakewood is not allowed to pay for housing directly. Lakewood is not even supposed to demand any percentage of affordable housing. There is no zoning or ordinance that requires it.  The irony is that Lakewood City Council itself sunset the Strategic Growth Initiative ordinance. Under that ordinance, this development would have fallen under the allocation review system wherein Lakewood could have asked for affordable housing to permit this many units in a TRANSPARENT process. Instead, the city is now working behind the scenes to make this same thing happen. So, through the URA, Lakewood will gain affordable housing, aka government housing or government-subsidized housing. Those units can be used to qualify for state grants for even more development in Lakewood. “Without the Urban Renewal plan, in our case, we wouldn’t be able to deliver kind of what they want to see or their vision for this piece of land which includes housing retail and affordable housing they you know both the state and the city and the county do have a desire to have a portion of the site have affordable housing in it.“ Allie Meister, Lincoln Properties, Jan 28 2025, min 35:57 Lakewood residents will pay for The Bend development by giving the developer financing. The new taxes from that development are diverted out of the general fund, which pays for Lakewood resident services like police, and instead will pay for The Bend development responsibilities like streets and pipes. The decision for an Urban Renewal Area is very separate from the decision to approve a metro district. The developer did not originally desire to be in an Urban Renewal Area and Lakewood may not approve a metro district as a standalone decision. But, operating together, the developer and city can trade financial incentives that residents throughout Lakewood will pay for.  The developer offers blight and gets metro district status and financing. The city offers URA financing to indirectly offset affordable housing units and gets a basis for more state grant funding. “Municipalities are using a tool (URA) meant only for serious threats to the public as a tool for gaining a competitive advantage in economic development. Which, essentially, is a way to financially reward development partners and a method to force the public into a future desired by government planners.” -From The Empty Promise and Untold Cost of Urban Renewal in Colorado Just like Lakewood’s deal to buy Emory Elementary, residents should know the full plan to leverage this deal for more high-density development using state grant funds from the affordable housing units. Without that knowledge, which has not been disclosed, neither the URA nor the metro district decision makes any sense. There will be a City Council vote on the metro district and URA on Monday, May 12 that is open to

Read More

Likely Defect Identified in Planning Commission Software

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, TransparencyTagged , , , , ,

From savebelmarpark.com The 777 S Yarrow public hearing is very close on: May 7th at 7:00 PM at 480 S Alison Parkway, Lakewood, CO You may now enter public comments online at: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/meetings/869. You may have to click on item 3. Unfortunately, a likely defect in the Planning Commission’s online file upload process has been identified and was reported via a follow-up public comment.  However, that public comment was rejected by Lakewood for violating comment policy. It appears the comment was rejected out of an assumption that the Planning Commission software could not possibly be broken. The city clerk was also very helpful in providing examples of other comments with attachments that were publicly posted as proof that the upload process is not broken. Notably, NONE of the examples provided by the clerk included the .doc file extension. Therefore, because Lakewood was obviously not going to investigate a reported defect that could potentially have been suppressing public comment file attachments for a long time, perhaps years, I investigated. It turns out that the Planning Commission does NOT accept all of the file extensions specified on the file upload dialogue (which is shown in the image at the top of page). Once I converted the .doc file to a .pdf file, then the upload process was successful! If you upload a file with a supported  .doc file extension, for example, it appears to work properly. However, if your comment is approved for publication, the attachment is never displayed. This is a material error because members of the public may reasonably assume their upload was successful since no error message is ever produced at any point in time during this process.   Nor does the moderation process capture file upload errors and notify users.   Nor are members of the public ever advised that the software may be unreliable and may silently dispose of file uploads. Upon reviewing public comments just this morning, one person who supports approving the Kairoi project referenced his attached letter.  But no attached letter was displayed.  So his attachment may also have been lost by the software. Therefore, members of the public or any parties with a matter to be heard by a quasi-judicial panel could upload files for the official hearing record and discover after the hearing record is closed that their file uploads were rejected.  Then it is too late to re-submit their files. This problem is also complicated by a significant conflict of interest due to the fact that Mr. Parker, Lakewood’s executive in charge of making development recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, is also and incredibly an advisor on the executive team of the same software company that is at the crux of possibly suppressing public comment by silently rejecting documents intended for quasi-judicial hearings. We suggest the city is indifferent both to the public perception and the risks of this conflict of interest. We also suggest that as a result of enabling this conflict of interest, the city is also indifferent to the requirement for software quality control. Please consider that a quasi-judicial hearing is a legal proceeding.  What if the clerk of a court periodically discarded or lost documents delivered by litigants without telling anyone?  What do you think would happen to that court clerk if this malfeasance came to light after years of discarding court documents? We are not suggesting any Lakewood employees are disposing of these files.  The comparison is being made to the apparently inconsistent software vs what if an employee hypothetically did the same thing?  We doubt that an employee would get off so easily. But in Lakewood, the software does get off easily. And consequences can be significant if a court is not diligent regarding management of important technology used in processing court documents or evidence. Consider the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the fiasco over their DNA tests.  It was recently revealed that hundreds of DNA tests were allegedly ‘manipulated’ over a 30-year time period and as a result material facts were omitted from official records even though no DNA matches were falsified.  The CBI Director stated: ““Our actions in rectifying this unprecedented breach of trust will be thorough and transparent.”   Will Lakewood be as forthcoming regarding ignored software defects that potentially corrupted public hearing records? Has this defect been suppressing relevant files for years?  It is possible.  Especially considering Lakewood does not seem responsive to any report that the software does not work properly.  Anyone who has previously reported a problem may have received a similar response that it was user error because other people can upload files – but of a different file type. Therefore, we strongly urge that Mr. Parker be required to recuse from any matter that may eventually involve the Planning Commission or City Council where the PeopleSpeak software is used to accept public comments for any quasi-judicial hearings or city council meetings. In the meantime, any past decisions made by the Planning Commission or City Council where online public comments were accepted from the public should be reviewed and new hearings potentially announced once the software is fixed. Stay tuned and thanks for listening, Steve

Read More

Springsteen Files Injunction Regarding Emory

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Jeffco, TransparencyTagged , , ,

Former Lakewood City Councilor and attorney Anita Springsteen is no stranger to Lakewood’s backroom dealing and use of executive sessions. Springsteen has filed two lawsuits against the city for using “negotiations” as the context for an executive session. Allegedly, those meetings were open meetings violations because they didn’t provide enough detail on the “negotiations” involved. Those allegations are playing out about the purchase of Emory school. Even residents living next to Emory had no idea the city was trying to purchase the school for the Action Center.  Springsteen filed an injunction to prevent the city from voting on the property purchase April 28 but Springsteen says “the Court held that the issue was moot when Council held the vote despite being on notice of the request for injunction.” She plans to refile the motion to prevent further actions by the city. She is also communicating with the Jefferson County Schools so they are on notice of breach of fiduciary duty. Councilor Mayott-Guerrero asked for an attorney to explain why residents have not seen open conversations about purchasing Emory before. The attorney for the city said negotiations are protected by executive sessions so there has been no public notice until now. The April 28 meeting, during which this conversation and vote took place, was duly noticed, he advised. Unfortunately, that still left many residents in Lakewood feeling like they were unprepared, not informed and left in the dark. Which is entirely reasonable since, as Lakewood just admitted, they did not tell residents they were working on this until now. Lakewood did not put the address of the property on which they were negotiating in the notice for executive sessions. City Council and staff were very clear that this was only the first step and that the city needed to proceed in this matter so they could progress to formal negotiations. But then what were they doing in previous executive sessions? Lakewood could have been transparent and told residents in September of 2023 that they were interested in buying the school on behalf of the Action Center, as documents show. Instead of fully explaining the plans for Emory, Lakewood cried “misinformation” and only addressed limited misunderstandings. There are also allegations that Jeffco was hiding talks because they were involved in negotiations to sell the property four months before it was officially disposed of. Council and staff still say that no decisions have been made and that they will listen to resident input at future meetings. Of course, that’s a variation of what they have said for the past year and a half while decisions were being made. There is no indication that plans will change based on resident input at the city level but that may be different at the school district level. There is also the possibility that the expanded interests of the Action Center will persuade people that this is the best use of Emory. The purchase of Emory for the Action Center was a priority for Lakewood since the school’s closing. It was the first and only one on the municipal option list to begin in January of 2024. Springsteen was one of four Councilors who demanded transparency before allowing an executive session to proceed. The session involved the City Manager’s contract renegotiation. The four Councilors calling for transparency prevented a super majority vote, which is required for an Executive Session to proceed.  This forced the contract renewal to take place at a public meeting so that the public could see who voted to renew the City Manager’s contract, which increased her benefits. Springsteen has filed three lawsuits regarding open meetings violations, two of which pertain to property negotiations. Springsteen says “the third case was for an Executive Session involving ‘legal advice’ on a CCU issue that had already been resolved upon appeal a year prior, which calls into question the purpose of the meeting.”

Read More

Lakewood’s shady Jeffco Schools business deal

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Word GamesTagged , , , ,

By Jimmy Sengenberger, in the Denver Gazette The backroom deal I warned about last year is now playing out in broad daylight. In February 2024, I asked whether Lakewood was eyeing a bargain on the closed Emory Elementary — a deal that could dodge public input and leave Jeffco taxpayers holding the bag. Fifteen months later, the answer is a resounding yes. On Monday, Lakewood’s City Council authorized a $4 million below-market purchase of the school — a site that got $2.6 million in taxpayer-funded upgrades before Jeffco closed it in 2023. It’s now on track to become the new home of the nonprofit Action Center — courtesy of a taxpayer-funded workaround. The Action Center’s mission may be noble, serving vulnerable families and individuals. But the process? Not so much. It reeks of an almost theatrical disregard for transparency and taxpayer interests — with a straight face. In January 2024, Jeffco Schools quietly introduced a new “Municipal Interest” process giving municipalities like Lakewood first dibs on shuttered schools — without competitive bidding or public input. COO Jeff Gatlin confirmed Lakewood’s “interest in the Emory property,” revealing they were already “working through the municipal interest route.” Translation? A backdoor sale — letting Jeffco Schools unload taxpayer-funded property at a loss. A consultant even advised this process empowered the district to skip community feedback entirely. Read the rest of the article….

Read More

Toxic Legacy: Uncovering the Chemical Contamination at the Denver Federal Center – Part 3: The Bend Project and the City’s Blight of Transparency

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Entrenched BureaucracyTagged , , , , , , ,

By Karen Gordey See Part 1 and Part 2 for more background The Lakewood Planning Commission met on January 22, 2025; the day after the West Metro Fire Department Board of Director meeting.   During this meeting, Anne Ricker from Ricker Cunningham presented “The Bend” to the Planning Commission.  Commission Kolkmeier stated, “Just note for folks, listening and reminder to commissions and folks in attendance today that this is an unusual matter that comes before us.  We don’t typically get asked to make a recommendation as it relates to compliance the comprehensive plan on an urban renewal project.  But it is pretty straightforward.  The specific question that we will be discussing today is whether or not the proposal that is presented is in compliance with the comprehensive plan already adopted by the city of Lakewood.  That is the current plan, not the next plan that is still in process.” The documents (located on Lakewood Speaks) provided to the Planning Commission were the following: Where is the Blight Report also known as a Conditions Survey? Why does the Lakewood Planning Commission not know what the actual approval process for Urban Renewal project is?  The blight survey, while mentioned in the presentation, was not presented separately to the Planning Commission.    On February 3rd, I submitted a CORA request and subsequently received the blight report.   It is a 42 page document.  The closest document (shown above) would be the first one titled, “9.11.24 The Bend @ Lakewood Urban Renewal Plan revised 12.30.24 corrected 1.8.2025.  However, that document is only 32 pages and is missing the following pertinent information (and therefore is not the Blight Report/Conditions Survey): The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Environmental remediation Institutional Controls CDPHE findings Any land use restrictions Red Flags in the Blight Report Here are just a few of the inconsistencies: Feel free to look over both documents using this link:  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1O0eNIOLdCo833C0xGKrvvRAeH9sUeVez and ask yourself why would this type of pertinent information be omitted from the public documents. Is This Really “Blighted”? Because the property is predominantly open land, the statute requires at least 5 out of 11 blight factors to justify a designation. The planning commission presentation claims the land meets 9 out of 11.  A striking figure, considering the area’s size and federal legacy.  The City Council has yet to vote this as a new urban renewal project so it is not yet officially blighted. Additionally, the deed and the developer both mention an underground storage tank that leaked VOCS and MTBE.  However, do we know where this underground storage tank was located on the DFC?  Historical government documents tell a different story.  They reference TCA, TCE, DCE and never mention MTBE.  Building number at the Denver Federal Center changed over time, so: is the tank even in the location cited?  Is it the same tank? (Editors note: You can research underground storage tank locations at the EPA website) If the full report acknowledges multiple land use restrictions, how did the Lakewood Planning Department approve this development, phased or otherwise? The Missing Piece: Where’s the GAP Analysis? The gap analysis is supposed to justify public financing tools like TIFs. It reveals whether costs; such as contaminated land, demolition, or regional infrastructure make a project financially unfeasible without help. But in this case, no gap analysis exists.  A Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request was made.  Below you can see the response from the city of Lakewood. This is especially alarming because contamination at the DFC is well documented – and (contamination) has even been used to justify TIFs in other cities (like Castle Rock and the Gates property at Broadway & I-25).  Additionally, I am not sure why the Lakewood Planning Department would think the Federal Government would do a gap analysis on private property for a potential Lakewood Urban Renewal project. Finally, one final question is what portion of the land is the development planning on giving the city for parkland dedication?   Per the latest ordinance, hazardous land cannot be given to the city.  This means that the landfill area with the “no ground disturbance restrictions” cannot be dedicated for parkland.  Yet another reason to do a gap analysis to determine what amount of money this will cost the developer, city, taxpayers etc. Water Woes: The Lawsuit You Should Know About Lincoln Properties has been trying to obtain a commitment to water and sewer service from the Green Mountain Water Board (GMWSD)  since approximately July 6, 2023.  Because a decision has not been made, Lincoln Properties has filed a lawsuit against the Green Mountain Water Board.  In court filings from Jefferson County District Court, Lincoln claims that the district has withheld service, or at least failed to act, on its application for water and sewer hookups since July 6, 2023. GMWSD did receive a 74 page environmental report from Trihydro in August of 2024. However, no new testing has been conducted since the board could not decide how to proceed, including no testing for the 26 chemicals in the consent decrees.  I attended the April 8, 2025 board meeting and spoke during public comment.  In short, I explained I am not anti-growth but rather I am for common sense growth.  Lakewood will not go back to being the bedroom community we were years ago.  The northern piece of the property has a build restriction and the entire property has a groundwater restriction. There are additional questions that need to be answered: It will be interesting to see how the GMWSD court case plays out.  City Council is meeting on this topic during a study session on April 21, 2025 which is a virtual meeting.  Per the agenda and the accompanying materials, they will be learning about metro districts and TIFS.  Additionally, the builder is seeking guidance from the city on availability of sewer services from the city.   How much is that going to cost the taxpayers of Lakewood? As you can see, there are a lot of unanswered questions that need to be answered.  Maybe

Read More

Lakewood greenlights Kairoi to introduce invasive plants to BelmarPark

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Entrenched BureaucracyTagged , , , ,

Photo by Regina Hopkins From Savebelmarpark.com In case you are wondering, the Irongate Complex at 777 S Yarrow Street has been converted to rubble by the demolition crew.  Large piles of concrete rubble await removal. Moving on to the topic of the day, a portion of Belmar Park is designated for grading on the developer’s grading plan.  We estimate the area of the park to be graded amounts to thousands of square feet assuming the grading plan mentioned does not change. However, Lakewood’s Planning Department states the opposite: “The proposed development of this property does not involve or include any parkland…” Obviously, any area of the park destroyed by heavy equipment activities related to the Kairoi market-priced housing project will have to be fully restored to original or better condition, right?  Wrong again. According to the Erosion Control Report submitted to Lakewood by Kairoi’s civil engineers, only 70% of a restored area needs to be restored with ‘vegetation visible’ according to p.22.  There is no requirement that the park be fully restored to original or better condition!   Let’s say someone crashed into your parked car and does significant damage.  After body shop repairs, only 70% of the damage is repaired.  Are you OK with that?  If you are, apply for a job at the City of Lakewood where that level of completion is apparently acceptable when it comes to requiring developers to do the right thing. Once an area has been graded, the developer will usually attempt to restore the area. Read the entire newsletter…

Read More

Site Plan for the Ex-Superfund Landfill

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Budget, Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, SustainabilityTagged , , , ,

Thanks to a Lakewood Informer reader and local resident, the site plan for The Bend has been revealed! Contrary to previous reporting, plans have indeed been laid but when discussed in public meetings, those plans were “punted” till later. The north half was not a focus for the City because the planning department granted the developer a phased development status since remediation plans have not been set. Our reader supplied a full list of instructions to access this information online, which were not provided with Lakewood’s CORA response. To view the plans, the public must register with the eTRAKiT site and login. The address associated with the project is 11601 W 2nd Pl. In eTRAKiT, search for the following project numbers: The master plan reveals the area north of 4th Ave that is currently labeled “do not disturb” will eventually have more residential housing than the south end, totaling about 2000, rather than 2000 only on the south end. There is currently no public plan for remediation or start times while the developer, Lincoln Properties, works to secure the pieces necessary to get a metropolitan district approved. The metro district will be used as a funding mechanism, rather than a service mechanism, and nothing can proceed without funding. The difference between a funding mechanism and service mechanism is important because metropolitan districts are granted government privileges based on providing public services. To get any kind of infrastructure built on the landfill, the site will need remediation. The safety of the future residents would dictate that full site remediation be completed before building. It’s possible the profits from the south side will be used to fund the north side, or be used to repay developer investment before moving on to the more costly north side. A bank or private investors might demand remediation first since the success and cost of remediation will dictate overall project success. Federal grants are available to assist, which in this case is only right since the federal government caused the contamination. State grants are also available, many of which are pass-through for federal funds. Much of the rest of the funding will come through Lakewood’s Urban Renewal financing and metro district bonds. With Lakewood-approved, government-backed guarantees through metro districts, the developer can privatize the benefits while socializing the risks. The benefit to the public will be the ability to live on this revitalized land. In this case, there is no public living there and asking for a democratic vote on public services. Those future residents are depending on the city to represent their interests. There is no direct representation for taxation.

Read More

Update: Manager’s Salary Even Higher

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Budget, Entrenched Bureaucracy

Lakewood resident Bob Adams brings receipts! Lakewood Informer news stated that City Manager Cathy Hodgson made a base salary of $280,000, as stated during the December 19, 2022 City Council meeting. Mr. Adams made an open records request to find out that the City Manager’s 2024 annual base salary was $335,949. This does not include benefits. The adjustment could be year-over-year increases, which would be a 20% increase over two years. It could also be that the original $280,000 stated during council meetings was incorrect, if so, my apologies. Many City Councilors justify this high salary based on Manager Hodgson’s 15 years of experience. There is, understandably, no public discussion on personnel matters. However, the review used to be tied to a metric like resident satisfaction. With declining satisfaction, the resident survey came out with less frequency and is no longer a performance metric. From Bob Adams, 2023, open records request from Lakewood:

Read More
Scroll to top