LAKEWOOD INFORMER

The Lakewood Advisory Commission (LAC) was established to provide research on local issues to City Council. The questions of “how much research?” and “what for?” came up when City Council voted to update the LAC Ordinance. One resulting change was that the LAC can initiate their own research projects, for a grassroots, bottom-up approach instead of top-down. This change has also resulted in the rise of dual presentations to Council, one from LAC and one from city staff, which is a side effect of removing the top-down approach and a demonstration of who controls the flow of information. The top-down approach was driven by the need for Council, as elected representatives, to initiate projects, to limit projects to manageable levels, and not to duplicate work that city staff is already doing. There are not many projects the city staff is not already working on. Therefore, the LAC started initiating its own projects. During the April 24 meeting, Council Members stated the need to keep LAC Commissioners occupied because Council had heard of members leaving due to lack of purpose. So the bottom-up approach is driven by the need to satisfy LAC Commissioners. In fact, Commissioners are told when recruited that a perk of joining is that they can work on projects that interest them. The disparity between these two approaches was on display while discussing the proposed ordinance change and the ramifications may not be fully understood for some time. For example, Council Member Olver asked for the LAC to...

Lakewood City Council Members have decided to oppose several state legislative efforts: Land Use bill, Right of First Refusal, and Regulating Local Housing Growth Restrictions have now all been officially opposed or strongly opposed by Lakewood. This is almost a reversal of where Lakewood started on these issues, with only two Councilors wanting to oppose and the others in support or monitor positions. One other notable change was the increasing number of people attending committee meetings. Regarding Local Housing Growth Restrictions, this bill would have overturned Lakewood’s Strategic Growth Initiative (SGI), which was voted on and passed by the people. Since that time, Lakewood has been accused of using blight to go around SGI and not listening to the people. Council Members Vincent and Stewart have identified problems and unintended consequences with the SGI. Vincent has heard from constituents for years and recognized they stood behind SGI. Both Members publicly wrestled with the decision to vote their own personal views (against SGI) or the views they believe a majority of their constituents hold (supporting SGI). Councilors Janssen and Olver had no such conflict; they supported the will of the voters from the beginning, in other words, supported the results of the SGI vote. The legislative sessions were closely watched this year, with few residents attending in the beginning and several showing at the April 24th meeting. At that meeting, all four Members voted as they believed constituents would want – to support SGI and strongly oppose HB23-1255, the bill regulating...

The Jefferson County Legislative meeting on April 24 revealed many different viewpoints and issues, ultimately leading the county to take an amend position on the governor’s land-use bill, SB23-213. Commissioner Kraft-Thorpe brought up many reasons to oppose SB23-213, including that the county should show support for all the cities within the county that have officially opposed the bill. That was not reason enough for the other Commissioners. One person heard from city representatives in their personal capacity that they supported SB23-213, even though the official city stance was that of oppose. From the county’s point of view, SB23-213 impacts municipalities more than the county, although rumors exist that the local control concepts in SB23-213 may be expanded to the county level next year. The amendment for increased Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) evinced the most concern, especially because provisions for infrastructure were not addressed. That means an ADU could be build without a septic system, draining right into the aquifer. Citing California, who passed a similar bill last year, not many ADUs are not built, so that may not be a real consideration for Jeffco. Reason to support the bill was that local control is “not solving the problem” of affordable housing, so something must be done. Commissioner Kraft-Thorpe addressed this directly by saying that the bill does not address affordability, only density. She also expressed concern over the elimination of public process in this bill. Commissioner Dahlkemper said that the county already had processes in place for public input, and...

At the April 5 Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) meeting, Lakewood City Council Member and DRCOG Representative Jeslin Shahrezaei expressed support for DRCOG taking the leadership role over regional pollution reduction grant. The grant is newly available through the EPA called the  Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG). These grants are a part of the Inflation Reduction Act, announced as “the most significant climate legislation in U.S. history”. As such, the grants make money available to municipalities and local governments. Lakewood is not currently seeking a grant itself but is signaling its aim to be included in available efforts. As one of the 67 most populous Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), the Denver-Lakewood-Aurora MSA can receive $1 million as part of Phase 1. The grant needs a leader for the application and management. DRCOG may seek to serve as that leader. In this way, DRCOG may play a pivotal role in Lakewood’s climate decisions, much the same way they did in choosing to eliminate funding for commuter routes without a formal discussion or vote by Lakewood Council. Money from this grant can be used for staffing, modeling, and studies to reduce climate pollution. Climate studies are a controversial issue. From pewresearch.org: “The credibility of climate research is also closely tied with Americans’ political views. Some 55% of liberal Democrats say climate research reflects the best available evidence most of the time, 39% say some of the time. By contrast, 9% of conservative Republicans say this occurs most of the time, 54%...

The recent loan agreement for the removal of 995 Sheridan Blvd sparked questions about the finances and handling of the loan. Further reading into L.M.C. 3.26.030, shows another provision which states: “…the city shall never be a joint venture in any private entity or activity which participates in the economic development fund” The traditional interpretation of this clause is that the city shall not receive profits from a joint venture, but a loan agreement is a new construct for the city. This agreement is instigated for city purposes, more than the business. One Council Member raised concerns that Lakewood was not set up with loan officers and other traditional bank operations which made for safe financial practices. That concern was dismissed with the explanation that the city was not making loans to people but making an investment in the land, which is guaranteed. The loan will be made to Ten Sheridan, LLC, enforced by a lien on the property. Council Members asked how much money was available in the fund but no clear answer was possible because the 2022 financial report is not yet available. The current estimate is the fund holds over $9 million but that is not the full answer. Lakewood counts about $5.5 million in investments as of the 2021 financial report. There was about $3.8 million in cash. So the current loan represents one-quarter of the remaining cash available unless significant changes have occurred in 2022.

At the April 10, 2023 Lakewood City Council meeting, Lakewood has taken the unprecedented step of authorizing money from the Economic Development Fund to demolish and remove a vacant building at 995 Sheridan Blvd for non-economic reasons. The building, the old Holiday Plaza shopping center, has been deemed a public safety concern. By paying for the demolition and removal of this building, Lakewood will gain an estimated 18-24 months of time that the community will not have to deal with the eyesore and associated criminal complaints. The money for the loan will come from the Economic Development Fund, which is restricted by code for the purpose of promoting economic development within the City, but in this case will be used for public safety. The property is intended for mixed-use development. Residents of the area spoke overwhelmingly in favor of this proposal. Although the city had previously granted the property a blight status to facilitate redevelopment, that development has been slow to occur. The property has been mostly vacant for over 10 years and the number of service calls has grown to almost 130 a year. The new owners of the property have plans for demolition and removal. However, the typical construction loan is tied to building permits and permits take a long time to obtain. That’s why vacant buildings are left standing until new building permits, and the associated construction loans, are obtained. That timing may change now that Lakewood has devised this method of using the Economic Development Fund...