The April 22 Lakewood City Council meeting had two hours of public comment, most of which were advocates of a ceasefire in Gaza. This seemed to be a scheduled appearance, with some Council Members in possession of prepared statements on the subject and one member, Councilor Olver, wearing a T-shirt in support for Israel. In this case, that sign of support was all he was allowed to demonstrate because his comments were interrupted by a motion to adjourn by Councilor Shahrezaei, who followed the motion with the words “We’re done with you, Councilor Olver.” The early adjournment not only cut off Olver’s comments but deprived three Councilors of their ability to make a ward report. This motion came after Shahrezaei herself made a statement in favor of a ceasefire, so the motion seems intended to stop Olver’s pro-Israeli sentiment. The motion passed by a vote of 6-5.

Councilor Comments:

Shahrezaei: Thanks everyone that came out and shared in public comment. She says “there’s some of us who’ve had the opportunity to connect with leadership in your group quite frequently” and she continues to offer her small sphere of influence to support this cause. She wants to continue this conversation

Mayott-Guerrero: “Thank you all for your energy and sharing your frustration and continuing to care when it is very, very easy to stop caring.  And I absolutely feel aligned with you all.” Signals her willingness to talk about bringing a motion to a future meeting on this topic.

Cruz: Thanks the group for bringing stories to shed light on how the tragedy unfolding every day in Gaza is deeply connected to our lives here in Lakewood. “I have been publicly standing as an individual and calling for a bilateral and permanent ceasefire for months… It pains me that with the limited power I have as a member of this body that we have not done more to listen to all of you and send this message more formally, but I do commit to continuing to listen” and says she will do what she can to “pave the path forward towards a free Palestine.”

Stewart: Thanks everyone for coming and says this humanitarian crisis is incredibly dire and “I am up here today, urging our federal government to do absolutely everything in our power to ensure that aid is getting to the people who desperately need it and that we are working towards peace.”

Low: “Hamas is a terrorist organization in a region with a complicated and long history…. The violence the Netanyahu government has unleashed in response has been horrifyingly disproportionate…. We do need a ceasefire and we need it now.” He is not planning on addressing this topic again as a Lakewood City Councilor.

Olver: “Isn’t it great that we can do this? You know where you can come in and speak and I can take the other side and we have a conversation. That’s one of the advantages of living in America.” Olver wears a t-shirt saying “I stand with Israel”. Starts to explain the meaning of “From the river to the sea”. Could not complete his comments.

Council Member Shahrezaei defended her actions when questioned at the Ward 1 meeting. Shahrezaei said that a meeting can be ended at any time. However, interrupting the current speaker to make a motion is not allowed by either Robert’s Rules, Bob’s Rules, or Council policies.

Scorecard: Adjourn the Meeting Rather Than Finish Council Comments

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Nay

Stewart: Aye

Low: Nay

Olver: Nay

Rein: Nay

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Nay

Letter from Celia Greenman regarding The All-America City Award – National Civic League

I am writing because I have heard that Lakewood is being considered for the All American City award.  According to your website, some of the areas of focus for this year’s theme are:

Removing barriers to participation in civic life
Improving public meetings through innovative practices
Undertaking reforms that give people a meaningful say in public decision-making
Creating a stronger sense of belonging and community
Promoting deliberative forms of public decision-making
Advancing equity and inclusion

In the above six categories I would say the City has failed.  Since the election of the new mayor in November, public comment has been pushed to the end of the agenda, whereas it had been historically in the beginning after the opening ceremony.  Mayor Strom has said this is to allow Council to complete their business, whereas a former City councilman once responded, “The people’s voice is the City’s business”.  The change in schedule means that people who work, have families, and/or who rely on public transportation can be excluded from in-person comment.  Remote Call-ins have been restricted because of recent hate speech.  Comments submitted on a web forum are often unread by City Council (a notation at the end of a comment signifies the number of council people who have read the comment.  At the April 22 Council meeting, a motion to adjourn was passed, leaving three councilors without an opportunity to give a report that might have provided diversity of thought.  Therefore, I conclude that the City has not removed barriers to participation in civic life or improved public meetings.

Also, whereas planning departments in Greeley, Ft. Collins, Colorado Springs and Golden are extremely helpful, in my experience, returning calls and emails the same day I left a message and sending out requested information immediately, Lakewood has a convoluted process where instead of being able to contact staff directly by email the message goes through Lakewood requests with a 3 – 5 day response period. (The legal department does not respond to the public).  Although the city has hired a communications manager we now are getting more on social media sites like Facebook and Instagram but less regarding publication of upcoming Council meetings and their proposed agenda. The report on the City Council Annual Planning Retreat was available two weeks after the meeting  (this states the priorities and goals that Council has set for the upcoming year) but has not been mentioned in any city mailing. Another city publication (Looking @ Lakewood) formerly included reports from the City Councilors in all the wards in each issue which kept the public informed about the city as a whole. Now one ward is highlighted in each issue. In addition the City, while proclaiming in City Council meetings that the schools that have been closed are not under the purview of Lakewood but rather Jefferson County, has held private meetings with the Jefferson County School district’s COO and a non-profit organization for the homeless community regarding the next steps for one of the elementary schools.  The meetings have been held with no public input. This does not align with the City removing barriers to participation in civic life or undertaking reforms that give people a meaningful say in public decision making.

In 2019 Lakewood voters approved a Strategic Growth Initiative to limit the growth of development in the City.  Despite this support from the people, Lakewood continued to find exemptions and ways to continue to construct large non-descript apartment buildings.   Some of these projects allowed no input from the public.  One such project, under consideration, is located directly adjacent to a park that Lakewood describes on its website as “the crown jewel in Lakewood’s park system”.  The six-story 412- unit luxury apartment building went through 2 years of process in the planning department before notice was given to surrounding residents and the public.  Decisions were made by the Planning Director and Community Resources Department to allow the developer to pay a fee in lieu of donating the parkland acreage that is required by City ordinance, and which could have buffered the development and saved mature trees, of which 65 are scheduled for removal.  People opposing this project have repeatedly been told there is nothing the City can do. Development projects are not reviewed by City Council and have not been referred to the City Planning Commission in over 12 years.   Therefore, I conclude that this does not create a stronger sense of belonging and community, and does not promote deliberative forms of decision making. 

For years a local university has been purchasing property for university use, which is against the City zoning code.  In spite of the fact that the City (with contributions from two Citizen Interveners) won a lawsuit against the university in Jefferson County District Court and the decision was affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals, city staff still refuses to enforce an ordinance pertaining to the prohibition of university uses in low density residential neighborhoods.  This is an equity issue and an illustration of how the City is willing to set aside a court ruling that favored neighborhoods to support big money interests, in this case a university.  Therefore, I conclude that the City is not advancing equity and inclusion.

In summary I do not know the qualifications of the other finalists for this award, but I hope other cities are not as dismissive of citizens’ desires to be included in the civic process as Lakewood has been. The pervasive feeling of constituents is a lack of trust, transparency and accountability for our  local government. That shouldn’t be characteristics of an All Star City and I urge you not to consider Lakewood for this award.  However, if the award is based on just political conditions, the qualifications really do not matter.

Sincerely,

Celia Greenman

Lakewood, CO

The Lakewood Informer is growing! We know that many of you are too busy to watch meetings and write articles and this is another way you can support local efforts. We still plan on keeping the content free but if you’d like to contribute towards costs, please use the link or QR code below. Thank you!

https://app.autobooks.co/pay/lakewood-informer

Lakewood City Council agreed to lower residential speed limits on April 1, 2024, however what to lower them to is still in question. Council is reacting to a rash of complaints about speeding, however, Lakewood Police cited a lack of safety incidents. Lakewood Traffic Engineering cited studies that showed that lowering the speed limit 5 mph will turn into a 1 mph decrease, and sometimes there’s a overall speed increase, because drivers think that the new speed limit is unreasonable so they ignore it. Council relies on a report from the Lakewood Advisory Commission (LAC) to show the good intentions of speed reduction. Other programs that were discussed include automatic ticketing cameras and red-light cameras. All of these proposals will likely operate at a loss, as shown by recent experience in Aurora and other cities.

The speed reduction concept started years ago, with an assignment to the LAC to study the issue, which was presented June 12, 2023. The LAC report showed several ways of slowing people down, but did not show the other side by fully reporting effectiveness or unintended consequences. They also assumed a low-level residential speeding problem was a safety problem.

At that time, Lakewood Councilor Rich Olver sounded the alarm the issue was coming and was told he was a conspiracy theorist.

The Lakewood Police Department and Public Works Department had a slightly different view from the LAC, as presented on April 1. Their experience in the city showed that speeding was more of a complaint issue than a safety issue. A lack of safety issues would present problems with being able to secure speed photo radar because those cameras require working with CDOT on establishing safety corridors. The corridor must show an existing pattern of safety incidents, such as accidents or reckless driving, which do not exist on the streets requested by City Council. Complaints alone may not be enough to justify the problem.

Although the LAC proposal lists cities that lower speed limits, staff research shows that they are not effective or long-lasting without police enforcement. Changing the sign will do little to nothing, decreasing speeds only one to two miles per hour. Boulder showed an increase in speed as drivers got angry at the change and pushed back. Councilors such as Shahrezaei and Low argued that staff may not be as knowledgeable as the LAC on this issue.

“It’s not good policy to make most of our residents outlaws” Staff response to “Why not go down to 20 mph”

NOTE: It is important to note that the discussion did not differentiate between people going <10 mph over, versus aggressive drivers going >10 mph. The latter is more serious and those drivers are most apt to ignore all signs.

Staff already cite lack of resources for dealing with other, more serious issues. On traffic concerns, they urge Council to look at red light cameras because running red lights presents an evidence-based safety concern. However, staff cite research to show no camera will generate enough revenue to cover the cost, meaning that Lakewood would lose money on any of these efforts with dubious return in safety.

Aurora is stopping their pilot program and other cities who lowered speed limits to 20 mph had to raise them up to 25 mph due to public backlash. There was no report that residents were happier with the 25 mph ending.  

Council seemed to prepared to stick to their preconceived notions that speed limits must be reduced based on the LAC report requested by Council. They agreed 10-1 that speed limits must be lowered, but debate continues on what to lower the limit too. Additional research on cameras will proceed.

Notable Council Quotes and Position Statements:

Stewart: Wants to lower limits to 20 mph and acknowledges that the result may only be one or two miles per hour less, but that one or two miles per hour less could save a pedestrian’s life. Not interested in red light cameras or enforcement in high-traffic areas.

Shahrezaei: Says Golden and Denver have gone to 20 mph so it would make sense to match our neighbors. Argues that the police and staff don’t have enough data to draw conclusions but the LAC does. Interested in red light cameras.

Olver: “I applaud the reality-based thinking [by the staff].” Would like to stay at 30 mph and look into red light cameras.

Low: “Very much in favor of reducing the speed limit”. Argues with staff whether it is really necessary to work with CDOT to justify and set up safety corridors and would like to find a way to make it happen. Argues that the staff presentation is mostly conjecture. Summed up that what he heard staff say was that lowering to 25 would have no real effect and going to 20 mph made things worse but if he saw data that going to 20 saved lives then he’d agree. Interested in red light cameras.

Labure: Favors 20 mph. Focuses on enforcement consequences. Raises concerns on major arterials. Interested in red light cameras and noise level monitoring.

Mayott-Guerrero: Says that since Lakewood is in a region of 20 mph, touching Golden, that this a known best practice. Advocates for redesigning streets with tree medians and bike lanes, with more speed limit signs. Not interested in red light cameras

Cruz: Would like to see the more expensive street redesign measure and lowering to 20 mph because it would be an important investment in pedestrian safety and climate goals. Not interested in red light cameras

Rein: Asked questions about technology effectiveness and data collection. Favors 25 mph. Not interested in red light cameras

Sinks: Favors 25 mph. Would like red light cameras but not one per ward, instead at targeted intersections. Advocates for noise meters for speeders (staff respond there is no law that would allow that).

Nystrom: Favors 25 mph. Asks for more research. Interested in red light cameras

Strom: Favors 25 mph. Not interested in red light cameras

For years, the City of Lakewood has been asking water districts to lower their fees on new development. Water districts have understandably said no to this request. The water board sets tap fees, not the city. 

Well, Lakewood had enough of asking. New state legislation was introduced by Representative Chris deGruy Kennedy, forcing water districts to be “reasonable”. 

His jurisdiction covers Lakewood. His wife is now running for his house seat. He worked with at least one member of the Lakewood Planning Commission and City Council to write this bill on behalf of special interests that will restrict authority of water boards throughout the state to set responsible fees.

http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1463

Kennedy has bipartisan support. There is little time left for water districts to oppose the bill. The Special District Association (SDA) helped write this bill, without letting its members know. They remain silent on a position but Kennedy has repeatedly stated he has their support.

In fact, one member of the SDA was referenced in the bill itself, in the form of a Colorado Supreme Court decision in which his district won. He was not notified or consulted. He had to explain to the SDA that the legislative interpretation cited in the bill was wrong.

Both Representative deGruy Kennedy and the bill authors cite a supposed difference in fees between different districts as justification for this bill. We can show a variation from $2,000 to $47,000. These fees are tied to infrastructure costs in each district.

Asking one district to artificially lower fees because of another district is like asking Colorado to lower income tax because another state doesn’t have it. Sounds “reasonable”, right?

There is no problem with tap fees except that people don’t like fees.

If you give developers a break on fees, do you really think they will lower housing prices?

Lakewood gave exceptions to developers for affordable housing for the last five years and got NOT ONE affordable unit. This bill will only be transferring costs to existing customers because SOMEONE will have to pay.

Ironically, the bill’s Lakewood sponsors and authors will not have their rates raised because they get service from a private company that is not subject to this legislation – a private company that charges more tap fees than many special districts.