Lakewood Informer wants to hear from you at a community potluck
Is Lakewood on the right track? What events triggered you to get involved in Lakewood politics?
Do you think Lakewood city management listens to you?
And the big question – can you MAKE THEM listen?
Join us for a potluck dinner at Addenbrooke Park on June 26, 5:30-9 pm and meet others who are concerned about the city. Bring your stories to share through the Lakewood Informer.
Meet Lakewood Informer authors to get the latest information and meet your fellow residents. Discuss actions to get Lakewood’s attention on critical issues.
–Karen Gordey on selling out neighborhoods –Lenore Herskovitz on affordable housing –Nancy Pallozi on Emory Elementary –Issues like sanctuary cities, The Bend, home rule, and getting organized –We don’t all agree on any of these items but it’s a starting point for discussion
Tickets are free but a $10 donation would help defray costs for shelter rental and make future events possible. Hot dogs provided.
Bring shareable food dishes at 5:30 for a meeting start time of 6 pm. Small group discussions start at 7 pm Wrap up with solutions at 8 pm Capture your stories with video for sharing all night! Must be vacated at 9 pm Will be held rain or shine
Tickets are limited, so please reserve asap. Maximum 2 tickets per person. Ticketing will be enforced to ensure park capacity limits do not prevent the meeting from happening. Summaries and videos of the event will be posted to the Lakewood Informer afterwards.
There is a $10 suggested donation to cover costs (like park permit).
As you may or may not have heard, Kairoi—the Texas developer behind the 777 S Yarrow Street project—cut down more than 60 mature trees on May 12th. The community response was swift and emotional. That evening, a large group from the Save Belmar Park movement filled the back of Lakewood City Council chambers and voiced their outrage during public comment. Many echoed the same call: every sitting councilor—save perhaps one—needs to be voted out.
The next day, I drove to Belmar Park to see the damage for myself. As I pulled up, I noticed two current council members chatting nearby. I spoke with one of them off the record for about 25 minutes. When I said, “Isn’t this what you voted for?” the councilor quickly replied, “No, I didn’t vote for this.”
Skeptical, I went home and reviewed voting records for the past two years. And they were right—technically. The 777 S Yarrow project didn’t come before City Council. It went through the Planning Commission and the City’s Planning Department.
But that wasn’t the end of the story.
When I tried to dig deeper, it became clear how inaccessible the City’s meeting records really are. Minutes from meetings are supposed to be approved during the Consent Agenda at every regular council meeting. But finding the actual minutes? Nearly impossible. For instance, during the May 12, 2025 meeting, Council approved minutes from March 24, April 14, and May 5—but none were linked or attached. On February 24, they approved minutes from December 9, 2024. Again, no actual documents.
The Consent Agenda, meant for quick approvals of non-controversial items like meeting minutes, ordinances on first reading, or ceremonial resolutions, is often a catch-all for measures that go unscrutinized. Councilors can ask to remove items for discussion—and did so multiple times in 2024. But here’s something you may not know: residents can request that items be removed too. Once passed, the items removed from the consent agenda are discussed and voted on, then the rest of the agenda is addressed in order.,
2024 City Council voting record shows mostly agreement (in green)
Here’s what I found:
Nearly every vote over the last two years has been unanimous or nearly so.
Even when councilors express opposition during public comment or in off-the-record conversations, their votes often say otherwise.
In 2024, five councilors voted against a one-year moratorium on raising the business and occupation tax.
When it came to putting a TABOR refund question on the ballot, only one—Councilor Rich Olver (who has since resigned)—voted no. Another councilor didn’t even show up.
Also included in that spreadsheet is a tab for study sessions and workshops. These are arguably more important than council meetings themselves. That’s where councilors hear presentations on major issues—always from city staff or invited parties that support the city’s position. No opposing views. No residents. By the time a topic comes up for public hearing (on second reading), the council has already made up its mind.
Is it any wonder residents feel ignored and angry?
City Council workshop session date and topic
Let’s talk transparency. The Budget & Audit Committee—tasked with overseeing your tax dollars—hasn’t met once in 2025. Back in January, Ward 5 councilors proposed expanding the committee to represent all five wards. That proposal was shot down. Only three wards are represented. Two wards remain unheard.
And all this under a City Manager pulling in over $400,000 a year.
When government struggles with the basics—recordkeeping, transparency, fair representation—it often fails on the big things too.
Isn’t it time for a better way? If you’re tired of a council that listens to developers more than residents, tired of unanimous votes that ignore dissent, and tired of a system where transparency feels like an afterthought—then do something. Start asking questions. Email your councilor. Demand meeting minutes be posted, ordinances be published, and your ward be represented. Government works best when it’s held accountable. And in Lakewood, it’s time we started holding ours to a higher standard.
On Monday, March 24 the City Council will hold the first of 2 Special Meetings regarding the Annual Review of the City Manager, Kathy Hodgson. Residents are not privy to the standards or metrics that are used to evaluate the job performance of our most powerful and most highly compensated city officials. At one time, the City of Lakewood Community Survey was issued every 2 to 3 years which included approval ratings for the city’s performance. In 2010, when Kathy Hodgson took office this approval rating was 67%. By 2022, this had dropped to 38%. Since then, this survey has not circulated. Until 2022 these survey results were included in the evaluation process (See Lakewood Informer news report from 2022). On Dec. 19, 2022, the City Council met to amend the City Manager’s 2014 Employment Agreement and establish the 2022 Employment Agreement. This was supposed to be discussed on Dec. 5 in an Executive session but 4 Councillors (Able, Springsteen, Olver, and Janssen) opposed the session because they felt they had not been provided enough information in advance of the meeting.
Screenshot of the Dec 19, 2022 City Council meeting video
At the Dec. 19 meeting there was confusion about whether the representatives were voting solely on the amendments or on the new contract because the packet that was presented only included a staff memo and the resolution containing the proposed amendments. There was no redlined version showing what had been removed from the 2014 contract or any copy of what the new contract would be in its entirety. One thing that had been eliminated was any use of the community survey results when determining the City Manager’s compensation. Only City Council would make that determination moving forward. In spite of the fact that no complete copy of the 2022 contract was provided, the majority of council members voted to pass it. Those voting in favor included our present mayor then Councilor Strom, Mayor Pro Tem (then Councilor) Shahrezaei, and Councilor Mayott-Guerrero. Those opposed were the same 4 who voted against the Dec. 5 executive session which forced the public hearing on the 19th. As a result, the determination regarding the City Manager’s review and compensation rests in the hands of our elected council members. How often do these individuals hold the City Manager accountable? Is there really any oversight when department heads fail to comply with city codes or ordinances? For example, when the previous Director of Community Resources failed to evaluate fees-in-lieu on an annual basis from 2018 to 2023 as required by ordinance, were there any consequences? The City Manager appoints this and other directorial positions and is responsible for supervising them. Recently, it was discovered that perhaps the Chief of Sustainability and Community Development and his staff had not been following the 2018 Parkland Dedication ordinance, which can be seen in a letter dated October 23, 2024 on page 2 of this document under Item 11 Parkland Dedication, the developer, who had not yet been issued a building permit, was being charged the old fee of $254,545 an acre as opposed to the $432,727 fee that went into effect on June 1, 2024.
Are ordinances mere suggestions rather than laws to be followed under this City Manager? Is discretion to reinterpret the law acceptable now? Who, if anyone, is providing oversight and accountability from department heads, or do mistakes just get scapegoated or buried altogether?
After years of complaints, meetings are still posted on the wrong site. There still is no consolidated, easily accessible City Directory to identify employees by department and their city contact information. At the annual planning session, councilors have requested better communication between themselves and staff. The City Manager was supposed to provide in-person quarterly updates on goals set at the retreat. Instead, there are updates on the city dashboard in addition to a workshop that was held in person (with no recording available to the public who couldn’t attend). For years, City Council has seemed willing to overlook these shortfalls.
