Council Passes Metro District Ordinance

Lakewood voted unanimously to pass a new ordinance for metropolitan districts on January 13, 2025. The overwhelming feeling was that Council truly believes that this ordinance is better at regulating metro districts than the basic state law. Almost every City Council Member spoke of the multiple meetings they held to work on the ordinance, which was started years earlier when a metro district was expected. In fact, former City Council Member Dave Skilling was apparently advising current Council Members, according to publicly made comments.   The new ordinance included an underlying assumption that cities had to allow metro districts. This belief was voiced by city attorneys and Councilor Rein. Several other Councilors deferred to Rein’s contributions on crafting this ordinance. Only Councilor Cruz voiced the opinion that Council could still vote “no” on a metro district application, but even she voted to approve this new ordinance.

Councilor Rein led the charge to prove Lakewood was not able to “ban” metro districts. He started the discussion by asking city attorney Lauren Stanek about banning metro districts. Although Stanek said that it couldn’t be done, there are several mechanisms other cities have used to “ban” metro districts.  Any of these mechanisms below, or none of them, allow the city to vote against metro district creation.

1. Commerce City passed a moratorium on metro districts.
2. Longmont passed a bill limiting metro districts to non-residential development (the vast majority of metro districts are for residential development)
3. Westminster passed a policy of opposition.

Lakewood staff never presented any of these options, or even just the option of voting no, to City Council. However, Councilor Cruz pointed out that this ordinance does not bind Council to approving new metro districts.

As attorney Stanek* advocated, the Lakewood ordinance has some extra provisions that Lakewood hopes will provide extra safety to future residents. However, as Lakewood Informer news pointed out previously, many of those protections are limited.

*It is difficult to confirm any Lakewood staff title. In response to a request for an org chart, Lakewood Informer was told that the city didn’t have one because “it is all embedded into our HRIS system and doesn’t print out in a org chart manner“. No substitute was offered. Very few names, titles or phone numbers are located on the website.

Most Council Members agreed that these extra provisions made passing the ordinance worthwhile. They all seemed very cognizant of the dangers that metro districts pose. The hope is that future residents will do their own homework and discover anything they might object to before purchasing a home (ex. terms of extra taxes). This is more difficult than Lakewood disallowing objectionable items, but the information will be there.

Councilors Shahrezaei and Rein offered changes for additional transparency including:

1. Hosting copies of annual reports on the city website
2. Eliminating the possibility of a study session before approving a metro district
3. Disclosure requirements for any board candidate that has ties to the developer

Mayor Strom said she is very supportive of this new ordinance. She says, “This is really an opportunity for the city to make sure that development is paying their own way so that our newer residents are paying and it’s through a financing mechanism that allows a developer to not have to sell a house with an extra $30,000 on top because of the sidewalks that they had to put in.”

Strom’s base assumption – that metro district housing is more affordable – has been proved untrue overall by the Anderson Economic Group. They “found that issuing bonds to finance metropolitan district infrastructure costs reduces the typical home buyer’s down payment by an average of 4% relative to a scenario in which that same home is built outside of a metropolitan district. We further projected that a homeowner’s long-term housing costs will be 2% higher over the course of a 30-year mortgage due to the debt service property taxes levied in metropolitan districts. Additionally, we found that a metropolitan district’s housing costs may be even higher…”

So they found that a metro district adds at least 2% more total costs than traditional development but developers can say the cost is 4% lower at time of sale. Someone has to pay for the sidewalks but that will ultimately be the homeowners, not the developer. This metro district bill has nothing to do with making developers “pay their own way.”

A cheaper alternative would be for the city not to demand improvements like extensive sidewalks and bike lanes. There may be people who would like to have homes with fewer infrastructure amenities in exchange for a lower cost. Or if tens of thousands is the true cost and extensive infrastructure is universally desired, telling people upfront what the cost of total home package is might allow them to finance it themselves at more favorable prices. But those options were not presented either.

Councilor LaBure echoed the “affordable housing” narrative by saying that without metro districts, Lakewood would not have any development. Other Councilors have made similar statements in past meetings. This is the official talking point of the developer-run Metro District Education Coalition (MDEC). MDEC was the only outside expert invited to City Council study sessions last year.  Competing grassroots organizations who know the dangers of metro districts were not involved.

These statements show that at its base, metro districts help developers and all Lakewood can do is try to minimize the harm to residents. Public comment online was unanimously against the creation of metro districts.

---

Scorecard: Regulating Metropolitan Districts

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Aye

Low: Aye

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye

---