Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Uncategorized

Glennon Heights Elementary Goes to Private Daycare

Information provided by Lakewood resident Anthony Farr. Thank you! Jefferson County School Property Disposition Advisory Committee recommends selling Glennon Heights Elementary to Jacob Academy, a private daycare facility. Jacob Academy hopes to serve 205 children at this location. Lakewood did not offer to buy this for community parkland like it did for Vivian Elementary. Many Lakewood council members feel Ward 4, where Glennon Heights is located, has more than its fair share of parks already. However, the property will utilize the existing school building and space for the new daycare. The final sale approval will be made November 14. There will be no other public involvement. One developer did not pursue buying the property after discussing the situation with Lakewood. The recommended bid came in under appraised value. Newly constructed homes near Glennon Heights at West Exposition Ave and South Oak St remain mostly empty, with steady price drops since they were made available for rent in February, 2024. Those units were not available for sale. The school board briefly discussed whether this daycare would be a direct competitor for state education dollars, since preschool is now a subsidized, guaranteed business model. More research will be presented at the next school board meeting but due to buliding restrictions, such as safety doors, the public schools do not expect to expand preschool at this time. Glennon Heights sale contract details from school board presentation:

Vivian Elementary Recommended for Developer Sale

Information provided by Lakewood resident Anthony Farr. Thank you! Vivian Elementary is recommended to be sold to Carlson Associates Inc. Carlson plans to develop into 34 homes on 6,000 sq. ft. lots. Carlson will work with the City of Lakewood and Jeffco Public Schools to have 3 acres of land set aside for a city open space. The purchase price is under the appraised value and under the posted cost of recent renovations that residents paid for through bonds. The final sale approval will be made November 14. There will be no other public involvement. Two developers did not pursue buying this property after hearing that Lakewood would demand parkland dedication. So Jefferson County Schools did not receive top dollar bids. The recommended bid came in under appraised value. The sale of the property is managed by JLL Investor Center. This same firm who is recommending buyers also recommended which schools to close, along with a school disposition committee. The City of Lakewood approved negotiations to buy the Vivian Property in what was likely an illegal executive session that did not notify the public of their intent to buy parkland from one school but not the other. Terms for the sale to Lakewood have not been disclosed or finalized. Vivan Elementary neighbors started a petition to get the city to save the property as a park. As of November, they gathered 1,126 signatures. This is large number of residents but ironic, given that Lakewood City Council recently derided the 8,000 signatures gathered as part of a recent park land petition. Council, including Councilor Mayott-Guerrero, said the 8,000 signatures wasn’t enough to listen to. In the Vivian case, the city acted on a much lower number. Contract details from the school board presentation: According to the 2024 Financial Report, the school board paid $1,868,804 for completed renovations in 2020, just four years ago. However, the Jeffco Builds webpage shows a total budget of $2,251,226 – more than the potential sale price of the property.

Vivian Elementary Recommended for Developer Sale

Information provided by Lakewood resident Anthony Farr. Thank you! Vivian Elementary is recommended to be sold to Carlson Associates Inc. Carlson plans to develop into 34 homes on 6,000 sq. ft. lots. Carlson will work with the City of Lakewood and Jeffco Public Schools to have 3 acres of land set aside for a city open space. The purchase price is under the appraised value and under the posted cost of recent renovations that residents paid for through bonds. The final sale approval will be made November 14. There will be no other public involvement. Two developers did not pursue buying this property after hearing that Lakewood would demand parkland dedication. So Jefferson County Schools did not receive top dollar bids. The recommended bid came in under appraised value. The sale of the property is managed by JLL Investor Center. This same firm who is recommending buyers also recommended which schools to close, along with a school disposition committee. The City of Lakewood approved negotiations to buy the Vivian Property in what was likely an illegal executive session that did not notify the public of their intent to buy parkland from one school but not the other. Terms for the sale to Lakewood have not been disclosed or finalized. Vivan Elementary neighbors started a petition to get the city to save the property as a park. As of November, they gathered 1,126 signatures. This is large number of residents but ironic, given that Lakewood City Council recently derided the 8,000 signatures gathered as part of a recent park land petition. Council, including Councilor Mayott-Guerrero, said the 8,000 signatures wasn’t enough to listen to. In the Vivian case, the city acted on a much lower number. Contract details from the school board presentation: According to the 2024 Financial Report, the school board paid $1,868,804 for completed renovations in 2020, just four years ago. However, the Jeffco Builds webpage shows a total budget of $2,251,226 – more than the potential sale price of the property.

Lakewood Irritated by Yard Signs?

From Geek Nexus As election season approaches, neighborhoods across America are transforming in more ways than just the changing colors of fall. Yards are blossoming with red, blue, and everything in between, as homeowners proudly display campaign signs, turning their lawns into political statements. This colorful display, however, isn’t just a form of expression – it’s sparking debates and, in some cases, irritation among neighbors… The upcoming elections will shape the political landscape for years to come, so it’s no surprise that some Americans want to make their views visible. But while political yard signs are an essential part of the democratic process for many, not everyone appreciates them. To find out where these signs are causing the most contention, Geek Nexus surveyed 3,000 homeowners, ranking 175 cities based on the level of irritation sparked by neighborhood yard signs. In a ranking of the top 10 cities most aggravated by political signs, Fort Lauderdale, FL, topped the list, followed by Little Rock, AR, and Pasadena, CA. When it comes to Colorado, residents of five cities emerged among the most irritated when their neighbors decide to erect political yard signs in their front yards: Arvada (which ranked in #91st place nationally), Aurora (#118), Lakewood (#140), Thornton (#142), and Denver (#151). While Colorado may not be a battleground state, it seems residents of these cities would prefer if their neighbors kept their political views a bit more private – at least when it comes to yard signs. Whether it’s a disagreement over political beliefs or simply the cluttered look of campaign slogans across the neighborhood, many locals would likely agree that a little less lawn politics could go a long way in maintaining good neighborly relations. Interestingly, the list also includes two cities in ‘swing’ states: Surprise, AZ, and Ann Arbor, MI. Here are the top 10 cities most frustrated by political yard signs: 1. Fort Lauderdale, FL2. Little Rock, AR3. Pasadena, CA4. West Palm Beach, FL5. Portland, ME6. Omaha, NE7. Surprise, AZ8. El Paso, TX9. Ann Arbor, MI10. Salt Lake City, UT Infographic showing complete city ranking Beyond the rankings, Geek Nexus’s survey revealed some interesting insights into Coloradans’ attitudes toward political yard signs. For example, 60% of respondents said they knew their neighbors’ political leanings, while 40% weren’t sure or preferred not to know. As for the actual influence of yard signs, opinion was split: 46% of people think these signs can sway voters, while 54% believe they’re just lawn ornaments with no real effect on election results. Most respondents agreed that political yard signs should have their season, with 76% supporting the idea that signs should only be displayed during specific times of the year, like the lead-up to an election. And while only a small group (24%) admitted they’d consider removing a neighbor’s sign if they disagreed with it, the majority (76%) were clear that they’d rather not cross that line. Then there’s the matter of legality: 58% of people were unaware of laws regulating the display of political yard signs. And it’s not just the signs that cause tension – yard aesthetics, in general, can be a source of neighborly friction. In fact, 34% of homeowners admitted to having clashed with a neighbor over property appearance in the past. “Yard signs are a way for people to express their beliefs, but they can also create tension, especially during an election,” says Jake Valentine of Geek Nexus. “What we’re seeing is that something as small as a lawn sign can have a big impact on neighborhood dynamics. It speaks to the importance of balancing personal expression with community harmony, especially in a time as charged as election season.”

Lakewood 2A Summary on TABOR

A summary of articles from Lakewood Informer news related to Lakewood ballot issue 2A: Resident Fights Against the City Machine – TABOR City Uses Budget Presentation to Push TABOR Retention TABOR Will Be on the Lakewood Ballot City Seeks to De-Tabor but Over Collects Property Tax Give us your TABOR refunds, says Lakewood Lakewood Lobbies for Your TABOR Refund Lakewood and Jeffco To Spend Money To Keep Your TABOR funds Lakewood Budget Board Recommends Keeping Future TABOR Refunds

No More Gas Fireplaces?

Lakewood City Council Member Paula Nystrom and Jacob LaBure proposed banning gas fireplaces on October, 14, 2024. On the heels of two other proposals that night for increased sustainability measures, most Councilors urged for a deeper discussion of the topic at the council’s annual retreat. Councilor Rebekah Stewart was the only other “yes” vote on moving this ban forward. This discussion will be included again later in the zoning update tentatively scheduled for May, 2025 The city is already moving forward to fund electrification efforts, which include eliminating all gas appliances. As recommended by Lakewood’s Sustainability Committee, funding incentives would be provided for residents to voluntarily change their appliances, after which, mandates would be needed for everyone else. When asked whether Council is advocating for electrification, then-Councilor Wendi Strom responded that Lakewood was just in the research phase. According to the 2025 budget Q&A, Lakewood has moved beyond research without a Council policy vote and without further public discussion. Lakewood will be a part of five different programs to remove gas appliances in residential homes starting in 2025. The theory is that since grants are “free money”, no one could object and furthermore, the city’s Sustainability Plan calls for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 2007 levels by 2025 so no public discussion is needed. As Councilors LaBure and Nystrom point out, Lakewood is behind its goals. To assist in reaching those goals, all gas appliances will have to be replaced with arguably more expensive and less efficient electric appliances. The goal does not address how to power the new electric infrastructure given the grid cannot handle the current load. It also does not address the legal problems caused by similar demands to the commercial property world. There is no word on how to reverse or stop Lakewood’s policy of encouraging high-density growth, which led to more people with more gas appliances over the past decade. Funding programs according to budget Q&A: Scorecard: Banning Gas Fireplaces Strom: Nay Shahrezaei: Nay Sinks: Nay Mayott-Guerrero: Nay Cruz: Nay Stewart: Aye Low: Nay Olver: Nay Rein: Nay LaBure: Absent Nystrom: Aye

Residents of Lakewood Reject Smart Tech, Citing ‘Big Brother’ Fears, Reveals Study

From HostingAdvice Digital Dilemma: Residents of Lakewood Reject Smart Tech, Citing ‘Big Brother’ Fears, Reveals Study. For years, public policy experts have forecasted the rise of smart cities across the U.S., envisioning urban environments that enhance online connectivity, streamline infrastructure, and improve public safety. However, public opinion is increasingly divided. While some welcome the benefits, many are concerned about the potential downsides – chief among them, the fear of a “Big Brother” society where constant online surveillance undermines privacy, a reality already observed in some parts of the world, like China. HostingAdvice carried out a survey of 3,000 respondents to take the pulse of the nation when it comes to the introduction of truly connected smart cities. The survey revealed that Los Angeleans are most in favor of converting theirs into a smart city. And who can blame them? By using AI algorithms, smart transportation systems can dynamically adjust traffic signals and manage and predict traffic patterns to address the city’s notorious bumper-to-bumper traffic.  Residents of New York City followed in second place in the survey, which again is understandable, given that city’s heavy traffic, which commuters who travel via the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway would attest to. The top 5 cities whose residents are most enthusiastic to become fully integrated smart cities:1.     Los Angeles2.     New York City3.     Buffalo4.     Dallas5.     Jacksonville When it comes to Colorado cities, 3 emerged as supportive of smart technology and would broadly embrace it. These were: Denver, Fort Collins, and Aurora. However, residents of Colorado Springs and Lakewood were skeptical of embracing smart city technology and would vote to reject it. Infographic showing survey results HostingAdvice asked respondents who were supportive of smart-city technology which aspects of it most appeals to them. Thirty-two percent cited more efficient infrastructure and transportation – improving rush hour traffic congestion appears to be the biggest draw. The second most popular factor is the improved environmental sustainability that can be brought about by smart technology. This comes as no surprise after another blistering summer across the country – fighting climate change has become increasingly important to many people. Twenty-four percent identified increased public safety as the most desired benefit, followed by better online connectivity (14%). However, as much as there is a willingness by some to embrace smart technology in their public spaces, a significant proportion of respondents are against it. HostingAdvice quizzed respondents on their primary concerns. The biggest concern (24%) is a potential loss of privacy due to increased surveillance. Many worry that smart cities in Colorado may lead to environments, such as Chongqing in China, a city of 30 million people, that is reported to have one of the highest concentrations of surveillance cameras in the world, with around 2.6 million cameras installed throughout the city. Critics argue that Chongqing’s vast surveillance network, including millions of cameras with facial recognition technology, represents a significant invasion of personal privacy. This technology allows the government to track individuals’ movements and activities in real time, raising fears about constant monitoring and lack of personal freedom. Another concern includes data security, hacking risks, and unwanted government control or interference (28%). Lastly, 10% of respondents said they worry about a lack of transparency about how their data is used. Indeed, when HostingAdvice asked Coloradans their opinions on the likelihood that smart cities could lead to a “Big Brother” society, over half (52%) said that scenario was ‘very likely’ or ‘’likely’. When respondents were asked whether they feel comfortable living in a city where online surveillance is used to enhance public safety, 57% said they were in favor. In fact, over two-thirds (70%) said they believe the benefits of smart cities outweigh the potential risks to privacy.  Finally, respondents were asked what they believe are the biggest challenges to implementing smart cities: Cost of infrastructure development (32%)Public opposition due to privacy concerns (19%)Cybersecurity threats (18%)Technological limitations (16%)Government regulations (15%)  “While the advantages of smart innovations are undeniable, it’s important we acknowledge residents’ concerns over privacy and how their data is handled. A truly smart city isn’t just about the tech – it’s about building trust and ensuring that these advancements genuinely improve the quality of life for everyone,” says Christina Lewis of HostingAdvice.

Jeffco Rescinds 777 S Yarrow Special Tax Deal

From Save Belmar Park For years, the property at 777 S Yarrow Street has been under-taxed.   Yes, that is the same location as the proposed Belmar Park West housing project. Jeffco has finally rescinded the special deal or whatever it was. It had been going on possibly for decades!  There is more to the story. Details at:  https://savebelmarpark.com/jeffco-tax-deal/

Janssen/Menten Proved Right – Lakewood Illegally Over-taxed

In 2023, then-Council Member Mary Janssen and resident Natalie Menten brought to light that Lakewood’s City Charter had a revenue cap to protect residents from rapid property tax increases. Most of city leadership said Janssen and Menten were totally wrong and besides, leadership said, Lakewood needed the money. However, it turns out Janssen and Menten were not wrong, and Lakewood is now adjusting the 2025 mill levy to comply with the City Charter. There will still be a property tax increase for residents, but only half of the previously proposed increase. Lakewood did not explicitly state the reason for the change because residents can sue if the city of Lakewood was found to be over-collecting taxes. Instead, staff only referenced a “complex legal issue.” Per the new slide presented October 21 (below), the original mill levy would have resulted in $1,561,000 more taxes than 2024 ($872k + $ 689k). The Budget Book advertised this was a 6.2% increase over the 2024 REVISED BUDGET. However, the revised budget is over $1,000,000 more than the original 2024 budget. The mill levy to collect property taxes was set in the original budget. In reality, the original 2024 budget to 2025 budget numbers show a 13.5% increase. Lakewood has been collecting almost double the amount of property taxes allowed by City Charter section 12.12. No one has said that Mary Janssen or Natalie Menten was correct in their original interpretation of the City Charter, as presented to the Lakewood leadership on October 23, 2023. No one even said this change was because of the City Charter provision. Instead, there was only a vague sentence explaining that “a complex legal issue has been identified.” This was a tacit, belated, admission that Mary Janssen and Natalie Menten were right. The city had to lower their mill levy or risk getting sued by the residents for illegally over-collecting property taxes. For three public meetings on the budget, the mill levy recommendation was an increase to 4.711 mills (about $22 per tax bill). On Monday, October 21, 2024, during the fourth and final budget meeting, city staff recommended increasing the mill levy to only 4.496 mills (about $11 per tax bill). Lakewood could only increase the mill levy by about half the amount they wanted because according to the City Charter they can only collect 7% more in revenue than the previous year, not 13.5% as originally proposed. With this change, Lakewood will only collect about half the amount of property taxes in 2025 as originally proposed. Another tacit admission that something was wrong involved the lack of conversation surrounding this issue. Not one Council Member questioned why this lower levy was necessary, even though every Councilor – besides Councilor Olver – has advocated for more spending and higher taxes. The lack of opposition or even discussion was highly unusual and points to legal implications that Council may have been privately briefed on the issue. The entire mill levy reduction discussion and vote took less than one minute (41:49 min mark to 42:42 min mark). Councilor Olver pointed out this was still a property tax increase for Lakewood residents. However, some Councilors disagreed, including Councilors Low and Rein who called the change a tax decrease. Nevertheless, Olver did the math for 2025 from 2024 and stated, “I have to point out that 4.5 is greater than 4.2. That’s my math and I’m sticking to it.“

Janssen/Menten Proved Right – Lakewood Illegally Over-taxed

In 2023, then-Council Member Mary Janssen and resident Natalie Menten brought to light that Lakewood’s City Charter had a revenue cap to protect residents from rapid property tax increases. Most of city leadership said Janssen and Menten were totally wrong and besides, leadership said, Lakewood needed the money. However, it turns out Janssen and Menten were not wrong, and Lakewood is now adjusting the 2025 mill levy to comply with the City Charter. There will still be a property tax increase for residents, but only half of the previously proposed increase. Lakewood did not explicitly state the reason for the change because residents can sue if the city of Lakewood was found to be over-collecting taxes. Instead, staff only referenced a “complex legal issue.” Per the new slide presented October 21 (below), the original mill levy would have resulted in $1,561,000 more taxes than 2024 ($872k + $ 689k). The Budget Book advertised this was a 6.2% increase over the 2024 REVISED BUDGET. However, the revised budget is over $1,000,000 more than the original 2024 budget. The mill levy to collect property taxes was set in the original budget. In reality, the original 2024 budget to 2025 budget numbers show a 13.5% increase. Lakewood has been collecting almost double the amount of property taxes allowed by City Charter section 12.12. No one has said that Mary Janssen or Natalie Menten was correct in their original interpretation of the City Charter, as presented to the Lakewood leadership on October 23, 2023. No one even said this change was because of the City Charter provision. Instead, there was only a vague sentence explaining that “a complex legal issue has been identified.” This was a tacit, belated, admission that Mary Janssen and Natalie Menten were right. The city had to lower their mill levy or risk getting sued by the residents for illegally over-collecting property taxes. For three public meetings on the budget, the mill levy recommendation was an increase to 4.711 mills (about $22 per tax bill). On Monday, October 21, 2024, during the fourth and final budget meeting, city staff recommended increasing the mill levy to only 4.496 mills (about $11 per tax bill). Lakewood could only increase the mill levy by about half the amount they wanted because according to the City Charter they can only collect 7% more in revenue than the previous year, not 13.5% as originally proposed. With this change, Lakewood will only collect about half the amount of property taxes in 2025 as originally proposed. Another tacit admission that something was wrong involved the lack of conversation surrounding this issue. Not one Council Member questioned why this lower levy was necessary, even though every Councilor – besides Councilor Olver – has advocated for more spending and higher taxes. The lack of opposition or even discussion was highly unusual and points to legal implications that Council may have been privately briefed on the issue. The entire mill levy reduction discussion and vote took less than one minute (41:49 min mark to 42:42 min mark). Councilor Olver pointed out this was still a property tax increase for Lakewood residents. However, some Councilors disagreed, including Councilors Low and Rein who called the change a tax decrease. Nevertheless, Olver did the math for 2025 from 2024 and stated, “I have to point out that 4.5 is greater than 4.2. That’s my math and I’m sticking to it.“

Scroll to top