Uncategorized

Consolidated Neighbors report that Consolidated Mutual has “completed unauthorized filling of the ditch and changing the grade most likely to heighten the base of the fence. CMWC crossed over public right of way and deposited approximately 100-150 cubic yards (10 large truck loads) of unspecified soil, apparently commingled with asphalt, into the Rocky Mountain Ditch water corridor and onto the City of Lakewood property near the 23rd Ave. and Ward Rd.” Consolidatedneighbors.org has more details of the work that has resulted in unauthorized grade changes to public land, filling in ditch property and causing erosion problems. As of February 9, City of Lakewood has issued a stop work order to Consolidated Mutual that they “must immediate cease all work on the retaining wall, the fence and apply for a Grading permit and install temporary erosion control measures.” Consolidated Neighbors continue to ask for shareholders to let the company know what they think of these actions.

Prestige Fitness has closed its doors on its 7777 W Jewell Ave, Lakewood location. Prestige has told customers that it was forced to leave due to increased rent demands. Prime Management company denies this claim and surrounding businesses support the management company. Surveyors have recently been seen inside and outside of Prestige. Prime Management may provide comment on that at a later time. Prestige is not offering membership refunds at this time.

Residents of Lakewood, Colorado occasionally have a voice on state issues. One example was Lakewood’s vote to cut a lane expansion on C-470 near Morrison in order to decrease traffic emissions for air quality. Lakewood is a voting member of the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). From the DRCOG website: “DRCOG has served as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Denver region since 1977.” DRCOG models vehicle emissions for proposed projects using state and federal funds. If a project shows emissions that will exceed limits it cannot proceed or must be modified. The limits for projects are defined in a new state rule adopted by the Transportation Commission. If a project doesn’t pass the new limit, no problem, money is still available for multi-modal projects. “…reduce growth in driving is an important tool” -DRCOG From the new rule, pg. 4, “A key finding in the Roadmap recognized that “making changes to transportation planning and infrastructure to reduce growth in driving is an important tool” to meet the statewide GHG pollution reduction goals (see Roadmap, p. 32). Section 8 of these Rules also advances the State’s goals to reduce emissions of other harmful air pollutants, including ozone.” To sum it up, the unelected Transportation Commission made a new rule, not a legislative law, to reduce growth in driving in order to meet their own new regional emission standards. This new rule was then passed to another unelected organization, DRCOG, to implement. Officials from metro governments got to vote on the new plan. How did Lakewood Vote Lakewood City Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei serves as the Lakewood DRCOG representative. With her vote, Lakewood voted to support the new plan, which eliminated a proposed new lane on C-470 near Morrison, along with plans for I-70 and I-25. This is in line with DRCOGs shift away from focusing on traffic congestion. In a LakewoodInformer interview, Council Member Shahrezaei says it’s a matter of law. This is in reference to the new rule that will not fund projects increasing emissions. When asked if she thought this was a place to advocate for those driving to the tech center for work, the answer was unequivocal…. “No”. But she also says, per the video, that there are many other ways for commuters to get to the tech center and that people work from home now anyway. “I think there’s a lot of ways to get to the tech center, and I don’t know that it’s single occupancy vehicles that are gonna do that for us,” says Shahrezaei. DRCOG agrees. See their performance measures listed below, or their Mobility Blueprint Summary. For some statistics on change in public transit and driving, see Sharf: DRCOG joins Colorado’s war on cars and roads.

Updated 1/30/23 with comments and call to action below January 23, 2023 Lakewood City Council meeting showed strong concern from residents around the Maple Grove reservoir. Consolidated Mutual is moving a fence around the reservoir, resulting in elimination of a wildlife corridor. The new fence itself is not compatible with wildlife. The damage has already been seen. These changes were not communicated to residents, or sometimes communicated falsely. Residents were present to ask Lakewood to coordinate with Consolidated Mutual in an effort to do better for the wildlife and fulfill more of the promises made to residents, who are also shareholders in Consolidated Mutual. For more information, see ConsolidatedNeighbors.org Comment from those involved LakewoodInformer reached out for comment from Consolidated Mutual with no response. Consolidated Neighbors responded with additional information on the lack of transparency from Consolidated Mutual. For example, the Consolidated Mutual webpage has been extensively updated in the last two weeks to show their care for wildlife, but the old-growth trees have already been cut down without prior communication. Regarding the fence, Consolidated Mutual promised to use the existing fence type but switch to a wildlife-unfriendly fence with no prior communication. Slides below from the City Council presentation, available online at https://consolidatedneighbors.org/presentation/ But what they actually used was different…. Call to Action Consolidated Mutual is made up of shareholders. Consolidated Neighbors asks for your voices at the annual shareholder meeting, or contact Consolidated Mutual anytime. The City of Lakewood offered mediation services. Consolidated Mutual declined. A follow-up neighborhood meeting has been promised to be held by Consolidated, but it has not been scheduled or confirmed yet. Other ways to get involved at https://consolidatedneighbors.org/getting-involved-2/

Guest post by Joan from Lakewood My best friend Michelle came from Florida to spend Christmas with my family. It was the best present and made my Holiday. We were driving north on Union and at 4th I was pointing out the 59 acres of Federal land recently under contract and discussing a pending FOIA when she said, “It sounds like Cabrini Green.” “What?” I said. Michelle had grown up near Chicago and was always making Chicago references. “Cabrini Green,  a Housing project from the late 50’s and 60’s.  It was going to be utopia, gardens, open spaces and a roof over all but by the 70’s it was hell on earth. The gardens and open space were paved over. It started as two story row houses (Cabrini) and then there were extension of 17 story skyscrapers.”  The gangs came in and took over the buildings. And people using public housing became afraid to leave their apartments. Cabrini Green became a political hot potato and there was no repair of the damaged buildings. By the late 70’s the project was so unmanageable that the city started to dismantle the buildings. By 1995 the area had being urban renewed and the high rises were gone. It was a failed experiment and a hugh embarrassment to the people of Chicago. I pondered if we are under the best of intentions, with the vision of utopia and equity repeating history. With 15 acres under an EPA restriction because of unknown content of a previous munitions landfill, are we placing children in an unconscionable situation of exposure to God knows what? Is this the best choice for Lakewood? I now think of the development as Cabrini Green West with the addition of the Bridge to Nowhere. But some think I am a pessimist. Actually I have just lived long enough to see what often happens with the BEST INTENTIONS.

The 2022 City Manager Employment Agreement includes a new clause in Section 9: Benefits: “The Employee shall receive 20-days of Executive Leave Time which may be used in any manner desired with the intent of advancing leadership succession & organization development planning for the City by the Employee.” What does this mean? One interpretation is that City Manager leadership succession planning is currently underway. The only member of Council to directly comment on the new clause was Council Member Shahrezaei, who seemed to think the leave was for personal growth in leadership, rather than succession planning. When asked about it in an interview, she responded that the clause could mean both things. She’s right. Find Out While the new clause may not mean that a City-Manager-in-Training is in place, for a move of this magnitude, it may be important for City Council to find out, and decide how they would like to deal with succession management, rather than have the decision made for them. In fact, if there is a succession plan in place, approving this employment agreement may be tacit agreement to the plan. Two Council Members brought up the fact that it may be time to start looking for a new City Manager, based on length of service rather than any performance reason. Two other Council Members pushed back that they were not looking for a new manager and that no one asked them to look for a new manager. During this time, cautions about disparaging remarks were repeated. No alternative time to discuss a new City Manager was offered, although if succession planning is taking place, that is a matter for the public. Succession is already introduced in the agreement amendments. However, it seems no one on Lakewood City Council understands the topic is already on the table, if indeed, that is the case. As a reminder, Lakewood’s current City Manager, has worked for the City of Lakewood since she was 17 years old, and was trained by the previous City Manager.

OVERVIEW On December 19, 2022, Lakewood City Council passed a new City Manager employment agreement after receiving incomplete information and having limited Council discussion. Some City Council Members seemed to equate a new agreement with the City Manager performance evaluation while others spoke of contract provisions. The result is an agreement for the City of Lakewood’s highest-paid position that increases the City Manager’s benefits, reduces the City Manager’s accountability, and includes misunderstood provisions. The agreement amendment process started with misunderstandings. From the beginning, the public (and Council) was told that discussions were being held because incentives in the City Manager Employment Agreement expired. In fact, no expiration dates can be found in the previously existing 2014 agreement.  (see note 1 below) There is also some confusion regarding the extent of the amendments. Although the Mayor and some Council Members stated that only specific amendments were being changed relative to incentives, important City Manager performance objective evaluation measures were removed (see note 2). Even the head of the negotiating team believed, and stated, that these evaluation objectives remained, although they were actually removed.   In addition, at least two Council Members still believed they remained after votes had been cast. Other items were added without discussion, including a new provision for retirement payout for the City Manager, on top of existing retirement benefits. (see note 3) In the end, the entire 2014 agreement was terminated and superseded, although only specific clauses were rewritten in the final 2022 employment agreement. (see note 4) Brief Recap… Public statements from Lakewood City Council members during the December 19 meeting show that City Council members were not clear on what was being discussed.  These issues include:  City Council’s role is to provide checks and balances related to the financial and executive activities of the City Manager. Checks and balances should begin with implementing a critical review of the proposed City Manager employment agreement.  Without a critical review, the public’s interests are not represented.  The troublesome fact is, without adequate Council oversight, the City Manager could ask for, and receive, practically anything. HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? A healthy Council review process includes information dissemination and review, discussion with multiple viewpoints, position statements, and the ability to vote based on correct and understood information. In the case of the City Manager Employment Agreement review, these processes failed: One result of the discussion breakdown was the apparent misunderstanding surrounding the role of the City Manager’s performance evaluation. Several Councilors made remarks implying that since the evaluation was good, the employment agreement amendments must also good.  One person said we got here because of the performance evaluation and the decision to give her a bonus. Two others commented favorably on performance and referenced similar comments on LakewoodSpeaks. One councilor said that everybody already had a chance to talk about this, apparently during the performance evaluation. In fact, every Council Member who voted for the new agreement and made any comment at all, referenced the performance evaluation more than the agreement. It seems that a majority of Council believed that a favorable performance evaluation meant that the new employment contract could just be “rubber stamped” for approval, with little discussion. Implementation of a “rubber-stamp” process is contrary to the oversight policy inherent in the city charter. It is also evidence of misconceptions about the responsibilities of Council. Does your Council Member know that nothing expired in the City Manager Employment Agreement? Do they know they authorized an additional 3% pay increase over other employees? Did they calculate how much the new incentives cost on top of the existing bonus? Do they know they could ask for redlines or make the argument for additional discussion? Are they willing to have the extra discussion? Please see Dec 19 meeting, Springsteen interview, Olver interview, Able interview, and Shahrezaie interview for reference information. Email comments or corrections. Updated 1/20/23 to remove reference to second defined contribution plan. Footnotes: Note 1: The resolution states “certain incentive provisions that concluded on December  8,  2022” with no other explanation. Inquires to City Council as to what those incentives are have not been answered. The Mayor stated in the meeting that pension benefits expired. However, December 8, 2022, is the date Kathy Hodgson is 100% vested in the City Manager’s defined benefit plan. This plan is unique for City Managers, separate from regular employees and law enforcement. The Manager will get this incentive regardless of the new agreement; “Benefits payable under the Retirement Plan will vest, i.e., become nonforfeitable, in Employee remains employed on the 8th anniversary of this Agreement, on December 8, 2022”. Although “several incentives” are referred to in the Council materials, only this one has a date. “Vesting” does not mean expired. 2014 Agreement below 2014 Employment Agreement Note 2: Below is the new section 5, which completely replaces the previous section 5. Section 5 no longer contains any objective outcomes, shown in the previous contract. Even the mayor, in charge of negotiations, stated several times during the meeting that he believed these measures remained. One Councilor voted for the removal of objective evaluations but later stated objectives were essential, showing the misunderstanding continues. Note 3: This new provision reads: “In the event the Employee elects to become Retired from the City, the City shall pay to employee, in lump sum, an amount equal to the pro-tata [spelling mistake in contract] Total Compensation earned as of her final day of employment.” Existing retirement benefits include being vested in the City Manager Pension Fund, the only defined benefit fund the city manages. If correctly interpreted, that means she shall receive an annuity worth 60% of her annual income. A new provision seems to be for an additional 2 years of income but the terms remain unclear, while also investing in the regular defined contribution, City Employees Pension Fund. Note 4 In fact, the 2022 agreement reads, “This amended Agreement shall supersede and terminate the Employment Agreement dated December 8th, 2014”. This clause by itself is a

Guest post by Lenore Herskovitz A Planning Commission Study Session was scheduled for January 18, 2023 but because of a failure to post in a timely manner, this meeting was canceled. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated occurrence. According to Resolution 2023-3 which designates the places for posting public meetings pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402, there is a requirement of “full and timely” notice to meetings. The places for such postings are the lobby/atrium of Lakewood Civic Center and the city’s official website (Lakewood.org). There was no publication of the Planning Commission meeting on the city site until late morning of January 18. The exact manner and means of posting is to be implemented by the City Manager or a designee. Someone clearly dropped the ball. The agenda for the Study Session included  a discussion of Planning Commission priorities and the topic of attached housing. When Commissioner Kentner spoke with the Clerk of the Planning Commission about rescheduling the meeting, she was told that the clerk had been directed to offer the dates of February 8 or February 22. There was no explanation as to why earlier dates were not provided. The Planning Commission last met on November 30, 2022. More delays and postponements are described in my previous article “A Look Back”. ~Corrections and Updates ~Corrected 1/22/23 from “The Planning Commission last met on November 2, 2022.” to “The Planning Commission last met on November 30, 2022.” Follow-up from L. Herskovitz: Previous to the canceled study session on January 18, the Planning Commission last met on November 30, 2022.  (See here:  https://lakewoodspeaks.org/meetings/467)  The blog post incorrectly originally stated that the Commission last met on November 2. I would like to apologize for the inaccuracy in my article but I was relying on information provided on the official City website (Lakewood.org) which did not show that the Planning Commission met on November 30, 2022. It is difficult to provide the facts to constituents when the official City site fails to do so. Perhaps it is time to consolidate Lakewood.org, Lakewoodspeaks.org and Lakewoodtogether.org into one site to prevent such confusion. I value the truth and strive to avoid misinformation in my articles.

Lakewood’s City Manager Employment Agreement is publicly available. A comparison below shows some of the employment agreement changes throughout the current City Manager’s tenure, along with some considerations that may be taken into account when evaluating a public servant contract. A quick glance at the chart below shows that the City Manager’s base salary has risen by $93,000 in 13 years, an almost 50% raise or 3.7% per year. Paid time off, health benefits and retirement have also risen. Retirement benefits started with the same benefits as regular employees plus one year of severance, and have risen to all of that plus a defined benefit from the City Manager’s Retirement Pension Plan plus maybe more. (The money purchase pension benefits may be continued through 2014 agreement, unclear.) *Stated during Dec 19 City Council meeting **The extra retirement benefit is ambiguous. Read the highlighted section below and see what you think. There seems to be a new benefit in the event of retirement (which the City Manager now qualifies for). Comments from council during the meeting indicated that the item of most interest was length of tenure of employee and population of city. Analysis of duties included, such as city-wide waste and/or water, was not included. Other items of interest shown in the chart below include that the City Manager makes at least 4x the base salary of the average Lakewood resident and city employee. At the same time, the community survey shows resident satisfaction with city services is decreasing. Sources: Overall satisfaction with city services Average city employee salary $56,000 (2022) $65,000 (2022) **The extra retirement benefit is ambiguous. ~Corrections: 1/19/23 to remove salary increases were mostly due to salary surveys.

Lakewood City Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei joined us on January 6, 2023, to discuss a variety of issues. Starting with her views on the Moms Demand Action meetings, meeting disruptions, and how the process should work. Thank you, Councilor, for continuing through an especially bumbly interview – I won’t quit my day job. Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei Interview Part 1: Moms Demand Action, Lakewood City Council meeting disruptions December 2022, and proper processes Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei Interview Part 2: Continuation of meeting process, Lakewood City Manager agreement amendments, future goals and DRCOG Highlights from Lakewood City Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei (loose transcription): (Regarding muting) it’s not as black and white as people’s free speech being dismantled through muting …. Ultimately everyone has the right to their opinion, and they should be able to speak, and I don’t know that I necessarily agree that that’s not what we’re seeing We were asked to renew a contract because earlier in the year we had found consensus. The staff member was doing a job that was well enough to continue their service to the community. I trusted the ability of the mayor and the mayor pro attempt to sort of operate that process What the agenda was requesting of us was to vote yes or no on the extension of the city managers, contract and that’s what we did I did not see a single counselor come prepared to bring an amendment…. We were at the point where you needed to be able… to post an amendment to this….that work hadn’t happened.