Tag: budget

City Council Members Jacob Labure and Paula Nystrom asked for equal representation on the Budget and Audit Board, January 27, 2025. They were denied. Only three wards will be represented on the Board.

The Budget and Audit Board is vitally important for accountability. Many policies and programs that staff originate are never disclosed to the public. They only show up in funding requests. And as evidenced by the 2024 vote to de-TABOR, city staff is not often turned down.

Councilor LaBure was involved in the last rewrite of the Budget Board. LaBure fought hard to get each ward representation on the Board, saying it was common practice to not only have five Councilors on the Board but to allow any Council Member to come and make comments.

Now the current Board doesn’t even allow comments.

Councilors Shahrezaei and Mayott-Guerrero both said that allowing that many Councilors, as worked for years, would now be unmanageable. Shahrezaei pointed out that at one point, a single councilor made 37 questions to staff and that amount of work was too hard.

There is no general rule for how many questions the paid city staff should answer as part of being publicly accountable for a multi-million-dollar budget.

In 2024, when Mayor Strom downsized committee sizes, then-Councilor Rich Olver was upset to be removed. Strom explained that she thought she was doing him a favor because he often didn’t have time. Olver was not present at the meeting for the initial appointments to protest. But his argument resonated with Councilor Dave Rein who supported increasing representation.

Councilor Low also supported the proposal saying, “Budget is one of the most important things we do. Ward 3 should have representation.”

2025 Council Members on the Budget Board are:

  • Jeslin Shahrezaei, Ward 1
  • Isabel Cruz, Ward 2
  • Dave Rein, Ward 4

Scorecard: Allow Equal Representation

Strom: Nay

Shahrezaei: Nay

Sinks: Nay

Mayott-Guerrero: Nay

Cruz: Nay

Low: Aye

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye


Mayor Wendi Strom suspended normal City Council procedures to have an emergency discussion on January 13, 2025 regarding issues resulting from the new parkland dedication ordinance. Strom says this was time sensitive so it couldn’t wait until the next meeting and most of Council agreed with her. However, even with the suspension of city policies, Lakewood is still bound by the Colorado Open Meetings laws that require public notice for agenda items. Without that notice, there was no public comment regarding the discussion because no one knew it was happening. One issue Strom initially raised was concern that single-family homeowners are being required to dedicate part of their land to parks. However, other Councilors showed that the real issue was overall development. Strom says the city has not issued any permits since December 7, 2024, when the ordinance was approved. Council Member Nystrom, the only Councilor to sound positive about the new ordinance, pointed out that there may be inaccuracies on how the ordinance is being applied. Nystrom’s point of view was echoed by the author of the ordinance, Cathy Kentner.   

    Mile High Web Designs

Mayor Strom did not say how many people were adversely affected by the new ordinance, but this move is extraordinary.  Even in other time-sensitive circumstances, such as when hundreds of Belmar Park residents were begging for emergency intervention, Strom did not suspend the rules. In fact, with her inauguration, she has moved public comment to the end of the meeting in a move that guarantees most people do not stay for comment. The parkland ordinance itself was time sensitive due to the ballot initiative deadlines. Council chose not to address the issue at all.

Strom asked for a vote to direct staff to present some amendments to the ordinance at the January 27 meeting. She also later agreed with Councilor Roger Low’s statement that “it would be incumbent on members of council to proactively draft those amendments and work with the city attorney’s office, presumably to draft those amendments and circulate them [we] will be authoring the amendments and staff merely writing them up.”

It is evident that many processes will still be decided over the next month. No data was presented to demonstrate the problem, but Mayor Strom says that will be coming as staff present real life stories of the harm the ordinance is doing to residents and staff. No one mentioned the residents who were positively affected by the ordinance except for Councilor Nystrom.

Accusations of Bait N Switch

Strom says she does not believe residents knew what they were signing or the unintended consequences of the original petition. This narrative was espoused by several Councilors at previous meetings, including multiple times by Council Member Roger Low. It’s an ironic stance to take coming from the council who approved official ballot language to de-TABOR the city without ever mentioning TABOR.

Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem Shaharezaei went so far as to accuse the resident petition gatherers of pulling a bait and switch. She says they touted the initiative as a way to get more parkland but really it was about reducing density. She says these unintended consequences are something that needs a response.

Shahrezaei did not acknowledge that the parkland dedication initiative was a result of unintended consequences of City Council not being accountable for adequate oversight of the existing ordinance. That issue has been ongoing for over a decade. But Councilor Low ran through some math to acknowledge that resident density and parkland should have some sort of equilibrium.

Parks Versus Development

The ordinance is not about development per se. It is about the fact that more people need more parks in order to sustain the equilibrium Councilor Low spoke of. For decades people have moved to Lakewood for the plentiful parks. So much so that Lakewood Council recently pushed a bill to de-TABOR, partly to fund park expansion.

Many Councilors returned to the original argument from months ago that there was no way to mandate reasonable parkland dedication and still allow development. Those Councilors just want the development. Urban versus suburban development.

Councilor Mayott-Guerrero said that she hears the frustration of residents but there are several projects in her ward that are underway and are affected by this ordinance. She says that she has not heard any objection to developing several large lots in her ward. “Whatever your motivation and your impetus is, I believe that the way that this was written is going to result in a level of cost to the people of Lakewood and to the community that is really irresponsible for us to allow to continue.”

Council Member Cruz pointed out that this is impacting affordable housing developers. Affordable housing developers include Metro West Housing (MWH). Cruz did not discuss the MWH attempt to put 44 units on 1.6 acres, without including enough parking or a wide street, let alone neighborhood parkland for these new residents.

Councilor Sinks clarified that there was not a ordinance rewrite. Councilor LaBure agreed, stating that this would not be a rewrite, but rather tweaking some words.

Willful Misinterpretation

Councilor Nystrom says there are inconsistencies and, in her opinion, inaccuracies around the way the new ordinance has been applied. She also pointed out that there are many positive emails from residents, it’s not all negative as the other Councilors state.

Nystrom’s comments hint that the ordinance interpretation may be being used as a political football. She is the only Councilor to bring up a contrarian view and sound supportive of the resident-sponsored initiative.

Normal City Council procedure requires Councilors to submit a Request for Council Action to start a discussion. In other governments, elected officials can introduce legislation and call for a vote. In Lakewood, instead of Council Members authoring legislation, they must gain agreement from a majority of Members to hold a study session to generate ideas. Alternatively, they can assign staff or a committee to find solutions.

No Time to Think It Through

City Attorney McKinney-Brown says this move is “unusual but nothing illegal.” City Council must work by passing ordinances. She continues, “If the City Council believes they have plenty of time to workshop this and think their way through it, then you can start from a, a less intensive jumping off place.”

Her statement seems to suggest that Council may be acting off gut reactions and hasty conclusions. However, Council Member Low “signaled” that a third reading may be used to add additional time due to the amount of public interest in the topic and Councilor Rein agreed.

Council voted unanimously for the motion to have a first reading January 27.


https://agelesssalonandspa.com/

In 2023, then-Council Member Mary Janssen and resident Natalie Menten brought to light that Lakewood’s City Charter had a revenue cap to protect residents from rapid property tax increases. Most of city leadership said Janssen and Menten were totally wrong and besides, leadership said, Lakewood needed the money. However, it turns out Janssen and Menten were not wrong, and Lakewood is now adjusting the 2025 mill levy to comply with the City Charter. There will still be a property tax increase for residents, but only half of the previously proposed increase. Lakewood did not explicitly state the reason for the change because residents can sue if the city of Lakewood was found to be over-collecting taxes. Instead, staff only referenced a “complex legal issue.”

Per the new slide presented October 21 (below), the original mill levy would have resulted in $1,561,000 more taxes than 2024 ($872k + $ 689k).

Recommendation: 2025 Budget: Mill levy 4.496 mills. Estimated to be $872k higher than 2024 estimated property tax. This will be $689 lower than the proposed budget. General Fund backfill for this change $689k
Slide from October 21, 2024 budget presentation showing new mill levy recommendation

The Budget Book advertised this was a 6.2% increase over the 2024 REVISED BUDGET. However, the revised budget is over $1,000,000 more than the original 2024 budget. The mill levy to collect property taxes was set in the original budget.

In reality, the original 2024 budget to 2025 budget numbers show a 13.5% increase.

Lakewood has been collecting almost double the amount of property taxes allowed by City Charter section 12.12.

No one has said that Mary Janssen or Natalie Menten was correct in their original interpretation of the City Charter, as presented to the Lakewood leadership on October 23, 2023.

No one even said this change was because of the City Charter provision. Instead, there was only a vague sentence explaining that “a complex legal issue has been identified.”

This was a tacit, belated, admission that Mary Janssen and Natalie Menten were right. The city had to lower their mill levy or risk getting sued by the residents for illegally over-collecting property taxes.

For three public meetings on the budget, the mill levy recommendation was an increase to 4.711 mills (about $22 per tax bill). On Monday, October 21, 2024, during the fourth and final budget meeting, city staff recommended increasing the mill levy to only 4.496 mills (about $11 per tax bill).

KEY TAKEAWAYS
The mill levy is a property tax applied based on the assessed value of the property.
The rate of the tax is expressed in mills - one mill is equal to one dollar per $1,000 of assessed value.
The tax is applied by local governments and other jurisdictions to raise revenue to cover its budget and to pay for public services such as schools.
Explanation of mill levy from investopedia.com

Lakewood could only increase the mill levy by about half the amount they wanted because according to the City Charter they can only collect 7% more in revenue than the previous year, not 13.5% as originally proposed. With this change, Lakewood will only collect about half the amount of property taxes in 2025 as originally proposed.

Another tacit admission that something was wrong involved the lack of conversation surrounding this issue. Not one Council Member questioned why this lower levy was necessary, even though every Councilor – besides Councilor Olver – has advocated for more spending and higher taxes. The lack of opposition or even discussion was highly unusual and points to legal implications that Council may have been privately briefed on the issue. The entire mill levy reduction discussion and vote took less than one minute (41:49 min mark to 42:42 min mark).

Councilor Olver pointed out this was still a property tax increase for Lakewood residents. However, some Councilors disagreed, including Councilors Low and Rein who called the change a tax decrease. Nevertheless, Olver did the math for 2025 from 2024 and stated, “I have to point out that 4.5 is greater than 4.2. That’s my math and I’m sticking to it.


In 2023, then-Council Member Mary Janssen and resident Natalie Menten brought to light that Lakewood’s City Charter had a revenue cap to protect residents from rapid property tax increases. Most of city leadership said Janssen and Menten were totally wrong and besides, leadership said, Lakewood needed the money. However, it turns out Janssen and Menten were not wrong, and Lakewood is now adjusting the 2025 mill levy to comply with the City Charter. There will still be a property tax increase for residents, but only half of the previously proposed increase. Lakewood did not explicitly state the reason for the change because residents can sue if the city of Lakewood was found to be over-collecting taxes. Instead, staff only referenced a “complex legal issue.”

Per the new slide presented October 21 (below), the original mill levy would have resulted in $1,561,000 more taxes than 2024 ($872k + $ 689k).

Recommendation: 2025 Budget: Mill levy 4.496 mills. Estimated to be $872k higher than 2024 estimated property tax. This will be $689 lower than the proposed budget. General Fund backfill for this change $689k
Slide from October 21, 2024 budget presentation showing new mill levy recommendation

The Budget Book advertised this was a 6.2% increase over the 2024 REVISED BUDGET. However, the revised budget is over $1,000,000 more than the original 2024 budget. The mill levy to collect property taxes was set in the original budget.

In reality, the original 2024 budget to 2025 budget numbers show a 13.5% increase.

Lakewood has been collecting almost double the amount of property taxes allowed by City Charter section 12.12.

No one has said that Mary Janssen or Natalie Menten was correct in their original interpretation of the City Charter, as presented to the Lakewood leadership on October 23, 2023.

No one even said this change was because of the City Charter provision. Instead, there was only a vague sentence explaining that “a complex legal issue has been identified.”

This was a tacit, belated, admission that Mary Janssen and Natalie Menten were right. The city had to lower their mill levy or risk getting sued by the residents for illegally over-collecting property taxes.

For three public meetings on the budget, the mill levy recommendation was an increase to 4.711 mills (about $22 per tax bill). On Monday, October 21, 2024, during the fourth and final budget meeting, city staff recommended increasing the mill levy to only 4.496 mills (about $11 per tax bill).

KEY TAKEAWAYS
The mill levy is a property tax applied based on the assessed value of the property.
The rate of the tax is expressed in mills - one mill is equal to one dollar per $1,000 of assessed value.
The tax is applied by local governments and other jurisdictions to raise revenue to cover its budget and to pay for public services such as schools.
Explanation of mill levy from investopedia.com

Lakewood could only increase the mill levy by about half the amount they wanted because according to the City Charter they can only collect 7% more in revenue than the previous year, not 13.5% as originally proposed. With this change, Lakewood will only collect about half the amount of property taxes in 2025 as originally proposed.

Another tacit admission that something was wrong involved the lack of conversation surrounding this issue. Not one Council Member questioned why this lower levy was necessary, even though every Councilor – besides Councilor Olver – has advocated for more spending and higher taxes. The lack of opposition or even discussion was highly unusual and points to legal implications that Council may have been privately briefed on the issue. The entire mill levy reduction discussion and vote took less than one minute (41:49 min mark to 42:42 min mark).

Councilor Olver pointed out this was still a property tax increase for Lakewood residents. However, some Councilors disagreed, including Councilors Low and Rein who called the change a tax decrease. Nevertheless, Olver did the math for 2025 from 2024 and stated, “I have to point out that 4.5 is greater than 4.2. That’s my math and I’m sticking to it.


Including explanation from Bob Adams

Lakewood will vote on a property tax increase on Monday. This will be done through the normal budget appropriation and mill levy certification. It is not called a tax increase anywhere. However, the 2025 Budget Book,  page 62, explains that a temporary reduction in the mill levy rate will lapse in 2025. As a result, Lakewood residents will pay 6% more property taxes and Lakewood will collect an extra $15.5 million in 2025.

Bar graph of property tax revenues 2020-2025
Property tax revenue and % change for 2025 (from page 62 of the 2025 Budget Book)

In 2023, former Councilor Mary Janssen fought to get Lakewood to comply with the Lakewood City Charter and only collect revenues that are legally allowed. That equated to a property mill levy rate of 3.85%. Lakewood Charter has a revenue cap, not a tax rate cap, to protect its residents from windfall taxes, like abrupt property assessment increases. City Council did not agree to Janssen’s original proposal, but they did lower the mill levy to 4.28 mills.

For one year.

Now that year is up.

On Monday, the Council will vote to approve the full mill levy of 4.711 mills, thereby increasing the rate by 0.431 mills from 2024.

Your property taxes will go up again this year.

“Natalie Menten, board director with the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) Foundation, emphasized the importance of TABOR’s protections: ‘According to paragraph 7(c), the maximum annual percentage change in each district’s property tax revenue equals inflation in the prior calendar year plus annual local growth (new construction). That safety cap protects taxpayers and gives very sufficient additional revenue to government agencies. Voters shouldn’t waive any tax revenue cap unless it comes with the 4-year sunset prescribed in TABOR.”

In 2023, then-Councilor Janssen found out Lakewood revenue from property tax was increasing 12.87%. The City Charter only allows for a 7% increase in revenue growth (see City Charter 12.12)

“Growth from projected 2023 to projected 2024 Property Tax Revenue is 12.87%”- Holly Björklund, Chief Financial Officer, Lakewood, 2023

Lakewood will increase property tax revenues over the amount permitted in charter, as they have in previous years, while advocating to keep your TABOR refunds.


Explanation of Overcharging from Bob Adams

Every two years (odd numbered years), Colorado requires all real estate to be reappraised.  This was done in 2023 and resulted in a huge increase in property valuations.  This reappraisal applied to property taxes paid in 2024.  The Assessor uses the newly appraised county real estate inventory to prepare a report of the assessed value which is provided to all county tax authorities.  Based on that report, the tax authorities are supposed to calculate the overall mill levy needed to provide services (pay their budget) for the following year.  The approved mill levy is then used to calculate individual tax bills.

As published by the Colorado Division of Property Taxation:

“Each year county commissioners, city councils, school boards, governing boards of special districts, and other taxing authorities determine the revenue needed and allowed under the law to provide services for the following year.  [In other words, prepare a budget]

Each taxing authority calculates a tax rate based on the revenue needed from property tax and the total assessed value of real and personal property located within their boundaries. The tax rate is often expressed as a mill levy.”

Source:   (https://spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc811internet/loc8112022internet.pdf)

If the law was followed properly, there would be only a minimal tax increase.

However, Jefferson County and nearly all county tax authorities, including Lakewood, failed to adjust the mill levies downward to equal their budgets.  Even Governor Polis sent a letter to all tax districts urging them to reduce mill levies.  Most refused.  Instead, nearly all kept a higher mill levy which resulted in property owners being overcharged and the districts received a huge windfall in increased tax revenue.  Now, of course, the city and county have introduced ballot measures to allow them to keep and spend the overcollected tax revenue this year, next year and every future year. and eliminate all other revenue caps so they can freely raise taxes without a vote of the people now required by TABOR.

This is the cause of how tax revenues were overcharged and overcollected.

See more from Bob Adams on nextdoor.com


The 2025 budget presentation included a sales pitch to keep your TABOR refunds. Each department made note of which projects would be funded by TABOR and made a simple statement along the lines of “Without the additional TABOR revenues, the city will have less revenue.” Lakewood’s Chief Financial Officer, Holly Bjorklund, dedicated extra slides detailing how TABOR retained tax funds were used, by the specific project and by the department, to make an impressive list of accomplishments. Staff did not note which projects would go away if sales tax revenue decreased. There was no note detailing ways to increase sales tax revenues through economic development. No Council Member asked to spend less.

TABOR retained funds accounts for 1.23% of all funds. In contrast, sales tax is the biggest source of revenue at 41%. Sales tax is also used for parks and police and all other city functions. It would be normal to focus on the bigger percentage of funds to present a clear budget picture. Instead, Lakewood focused on the single-digit, smaller source of funds. Coincidentally, Lakewood initiated a ballot vote to retain these funds permanently into the future.

Pie chart showing TABOR is 1.23% of Lakewood's funds
Graph from page 75 of the 2025 Budget Book.

TABOR is the most mentioned fund but among the least significant.

All this focus on TABOR by the city is to influence the upcoming vote that the city sponsored. If you have any doubts about Lakewood influencing your vote, see the list of TABOR-funded projects that the city has thoughtfully provided on its website.

On October 7, City Council will vote on a resolution to urge residents to give up their TABOR refunds forever. This action comes after Council Member Olver was not allowed to print additional facts on the issue at all. It appears as if Lakewood is only presenting one side of the issue.


There would be no need to focus on one, little, over-collected fund if the city would:

  • Spend within budget limits
  • Maintain a balance between residential service expenditures and incoming revenues
  • Maintain business growth to residential growth proportions

Note the jump in retained TABOR fund in 2017, coincident with the city’s ability to retain. “Through the ballot measure in 2018, Lakewood voters approved lifting the TABOR limits on the city’s budget from 2017 through 2025” – Lakewood 2025 Budget Book


Repost from Bob Adams on NextDoor.com

Dear Mayor Strom:

As Mayor, you and the City Council are asking us (in the November ballot measure) to allow you to permanently keep and spend all the extra tax dollars you over collected, not just this year, but next year and every year after that, as well as asking blanket permission to raise taxes anytime without a vote of the people. We know these extra tax dollars were not an accident, but deliberately over collected – in anticipation of your ballot measure. 

How are our tax dollars being spent? As a taxpayer, I was shocked to learn we pay Lakewood City Manager, Kathy Hodgson, $368,137 in base salary per year – nearly as much as the President of the United States at $400,000 and much more than the vice president and governor. This seems really high for a town the size of Lakewood. The city Manager in Ft. Collins (slightly larger) is paid $97,232 and Colorado Springs (much larger), $104,517. Please advise and explain the total compensation package currently being paid to the city manager. Please include additional fringe benefits, any bonus amounts paid, deferred compensation, expense accounts, retirement benefits and any other benefits. As you know, all of this is public information. 

Thank you in advance. This information will help us evaluate your Ballot Measure. 

Sincerely, 

Bob Adams 

Lakewood. 

Further information: As an addendum, I’ve just learned that our Lakewood city manager also has a deputy city manager who is paid $207,000. 

This letter was sent to the Mayor by email. If I receive a response from her or the Council, I’ll share it here.


Repost with permission from Bob Adams, Nextdoor

The Jefferson County Commissioners met at 9 AM on, 9 July, 2024 in a public meeting to vote on a ballot proposal to allow them to keep all the excess funds they overcollected with our 2024 property tax billing. These excess funds would normally be refunded to us because of TABOR. I attended the meeting.

Why overcollected? For several years, the County Commissioners have failed to produce a sound budget. Instead, they spent more than their revenue and drained reserve funds to make it APPEAR they had a balanced budget. This year, they ran out of reserve funds and accounting tricks. The County Assessor did a reappraisal in 2023 as required by State law. Overall, the appraised value of all properties increased by about 37%. By State law, the commissioners were supposed to adjust the mill levy downward to adjust the overall revenue to equal the County budget. Governor Polis even sent a letter asking them to reduce the mill levy. They failed to do so. Instead, they intentionally kept the previous year’s mill levy knowing full well they would collect millions of excess dollars.

The Commissioners then contracted to spend $340,000 of our tax dollars with a politically connected company, The Bighorn Company – Democrat Brittany Pettersen’s husband’s company, to write a ballot proposal (read more about Jeffco and Lakewood lobbying).

I attended the 9AM meeting and it originally seemed all sides of the issue would be heard fairly. I was wrong. The commissioners gave no serious consideration to budget cuts and didn’t mention wasteful spending (such as the County Clerk’s holiday party). They politely listened to all public comments, then IGNORED all comments against or to improve the ballot proposal, and quickly voted to approve it with little discussion and no changes.

This proposal is sneaky and deceptively written:

“WITHOUT INCREASING ANY TAX RATE OR MILL LEVY RATE, AND TO FUND:

● TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE (BUILDING, MAINTAINING, AND REPAIRING ROADS, BRIDGES, POTHOLES, AND OTHER COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE); AND

● PUBLIC SAFETY (WILDFIRE AND FLOOD MITIGATION AND RESPONSE, ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS, CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES, AND OTHER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY FUNCTIONS);

SHALL JEFFERSON COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN, AND SPEND THE FULL REVENUES FROM AUTHORIZED REVENUE SOURCES BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND IN EACH FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER; AND SHALL RESULTING REVENUE AND EARNINGS BE TREATED AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW; AND SHALL RESULTING REVENUE AND EARNINGS BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE?”

Why is it deceptive? The ballot provision does away with ALL current and future TABOR protections – but doesn’t say so. It also does away with the annual 5.5% property tax cap. It implies there would be no tax increase. In fact, it’s a major tax increase. It says no increase in the tax rate or mill levy which is a half-truth. With the huge increase in the 2023 property appraisal, the mill levy was supposed to be reduced. Instead, they kept it at the previous high level resulting in a windfall increase in revenue. As a result, it allows the commissioners to INCREASE future tax rates without any taxpayer control.

Looking at and analyzing the facts and events that led to this ballot proposal, it certainly appears this is a deliberate, planned effort by the Commissioners and county to keep and spend the excess property tax revenue they collected this year (2024) and eliminate TABOR and all other legal restrictions on increasing property tax in the future.

Don’t be fooled. The commissioners want us to vote to approve a huge property tax increase now and into the future with a clear attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.

People who don’t own real estate in the County may think this won’t affect them, but it will. Landlords will pass along the tax increase in higher rental rates and businesses must pass along the tax as higher prices on their goods and services. This ballot proposal will increase inflation even more.


Guest Post by Mary Janssen

Here we are again! The city of Lakewood is sending out a $73k survey to test the waters if the public is ready to De Tabor again and give up your over paid tax refunds so the city can spend it on their pet projects that they deem important.

After asking how things are going… snow plowing, police response, pot holes, the money spent on new parks (a new majority in Ward 5). They ask you if you would reject them taking more of your money.

One of the questions made me laugh. The one about the Mill levy. If you didn’t know I made a motion last October to decrease the mill levy from 4.7% to 3.85%. This would have decreased the revenue collected by the city to within the charter rule (12.12) which says clearly that property tax revenue must be below 7% growth from previous year.

12.12 LIMITATION ON PROPERTY TAXES. (a) The City Council shall not levy an ad valorem tax on taxable property in the City that provides revenue from such levy in an amount greater than was levied in the preceding year plus seven percent, except as hereafter provided.
From Lakewood City Charter

At a budget meeting I attended The city financial officer Holly Bjorklund was projecting a valuation number that she guessed was going to be the new property valuations. We do property taxes in arrears.

After doing some research on what the city was collecting on previous years since the last De Tabor we found the city was over collecting property taxes one year alone was 18%. Based on this information I thought the citizens deserved a real decrease so that’s how my team and I came up with 3.85. It would have decreased the revenue to around 5%. The city would still be collecting a fair amount and provide the citizens the relief so desperately needed since the other districts i.e. school, Fire, etc. did not decrease their mills.

My team did some calculations and found that based on Holly’s projected valuation number the city would be increasing property tax revenue by 12%.

After getting the real certified valuation number from the Jefferson County Assessors in August the city would have made a whopping 24.5% increase in revenue. That new certified number was never brought up, so I made some papers to inform the rest of council, the mayor and the city manager and the budget committee about the new certified valuation numbers and why we must decrease the mill levy to provide relief to our Lakewood citizens. The only other councilor that contacted me about this was Rich Olver and he decided that based on the research and the facts he would co-sponsor my motion.

I had to announce my motion by council request and was denied the first time so I had to wait till the end of October at the budget approval council meeting, when I was allowed to bring my motion forward, as reported in Lakewood news. I had already provided the other councilors the mayor, the budget committee city manager and staff my findings and why we need to decrease the mill. I put my motion forward and councilor Olver seconded my motion, when out of the blue councilor Barb Franks made an amendment to my original motion to raise my mill levy number of 3.85 to 4.28% in an appearance to make it look like the revenue was neutral. I have an email from Holly Bjorklund the chief financial officer admitting that the city will be indeed increasing the revenue by 12.5% , not neutral.

During discussion about the amendment I cited the charter 12.12 and was told by the city attorney that we were talking about the mill levy reduction not the charter rule about the revenue cap. I was told that in order for the city to go back and look at the interpretation of 12.12 the city would have to be sued.

The 4.28% mill levy amendment was voted on 10-1. I declined to vote for the amendment because #1 it was based on an estimated valuation number not the certified valuation number and #2 I knew that the increased revenue would be above the charter cap.

So based on facts do you think its safe to let the city take your TABOR Refunds?

Mary Janssen

Previous Lakewood City Councilor Ward 5

Guest Post by J.T. Johnson – Lakewood Ward 4

If you missed the last two Lakewood City Council meetings, you missed… Well, let’s put it this way, if my Mom had caught me doing what I saw at the meeting, I would have been sent to my room without any dinner.   Let’s start with the February 12 meeting

Perhaps the most disconcerting and substantive financial part of the meeting came about as a result of questions posed by Councilor Rein to the City Planning Office and the State’s representative providing the grant.  According to the City Planning Office, the taxpayers are on the hook for $2M – $2.5 of operating expenses each year.  (The City’s own financial documentation indicates the operating costs will be much higher, but let’s use the Planning Office numbers for now.)  He went on to say that any decision of the Council to accept the $9M grant would “not be binding on future Councils.”  I believe most legal scholars would disagree with the City Planner and state that future Councils will be bound by grant conditions and the “strings” attached to the grant.  A future Council could elect to breach – but that always comes with a price tag.  Query:  Where was the City Attorney while the City Planning Office was providing legal advice to the Council?  She sat there and didn’t say a word.

Following the Planning Office comments, the grant representative from the State said that a contract would be negotiated with the City identifying the City’s obligations.  This contract would only be negotiated AFTER the City accepts the $9M grant.  She pointed out that the contact obligations would be for a 30-year period of time.

YIKES!  The City will not know its contractual obligations with the State until AFTER it accepts the money. 

What entity takes $9M without knowing what “strings” are attached??  The answer to that probing question is, your City Council.  A simple remedy to this problem would have been to negotiate the terms of the grant contract PRIOR to accepting the money.  Finalization of the contract could have been contingent on the City accepting the grant.   At least the citizens of Lakewood would have known what their City Council had signed them up for if the terms had been negotiated in advance.  But, No!  The councilors were so eager to get their hands on more of your money that they apparently didn’t even want to know what the additional strings would be.  And don’t forget, “he who controls the purse controls the “strings.”   Other than the two councilors from Ward 4 (Olver and Rein), no councilor expressed ANY concern over the uncertainty of the “strings” attached to accepting the $9M. 

Now, fast forward to the February 26 Council meeting.  The issue consuming the most time at this meeting dealt with the Head Start program in Lakewood.  Due to possible overlapping resources and the very high per capita cost of the program, Lakewood wants to eliminate the Head Start program from its provided resources. The City favors passing this opportunity to Jefferson County or a private entity.  All of the councilors seemed to agree with eliminating the program from the City’s budget.  However, there was some uncertainty over which entity (if any) might take on the Head Start responsibilities so as not to have a disruption of services. 

NOW, here’s the dichotomy – because of the “uncertainty” the Council would not move forward to allow the City to notify the Federal Government (DOE) that the City of Lakewood would no longer be responsible for the Head Start program.  The councilors wanted the City to informally probe other Head Start providers (private entities and Jefferson County) to ascertain their interest. 

Here’s the problem:  the councilors were told by the City representatives that the Federal Government cannot seek other providers UNTIL the City removes itself as the Head Start provider. 

Only one of the councilors expressed an opinion that acquiring another provider would not be a problem, given the City’s support for the program.  Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty (though likely small), the Council voted to delay notifying the Federal Government.  Apparently, the councilors – even if they are well-intended – have little knowledge about Federal Government contracting.  They may think that the Federal Government can move at light speed and such delay would have no impact on continuing the Head Start program.  In reality, the timeframe between now and the City’s proposed schedule to withdraw from the Head Start program may be insufficient to allow the Federal Government to meet its contracting requirements.  Council’s failure to allow the City to give timely notice to the Federal Government may result in contracting deadlines being missed.

Later in the meeting, one of the councilors recounted some of the events from the February 12 meeting.  He specifically stated that the February 12 meeting included a “robust” discussion relating to the finances at the Navigation Center and the $9M grant.  I must have attended a different City Council meeting because I heard no “robust” discussion about funding.  Unfortunately, he misses the bigger issue.  While there were brief comments about the current finances and how a portion of the grant could fund some of the operating expenses, there was no discussion about how the City would fund the long-term operating costs and no discussion about how to fund any of the “strings” the State will attach to the grant… and how could there be any discussion about those “stings” since the City Council has no idea what they will be.  We heard no discussion about contents of the thirty-year contract required by the State, when those contract negotiations would occur and whether the Council would even review/approve the contract.

Editor’s note: Email received 2/29/2024 from Lakewood states “The contract you are referring to has not been drafted or finalized at this point.  Planning expects that this will take place over the next couple of weeks.  Thank you.

Bottom line – Uncertainty over “strings” attached to $9M and saddling taxpayers with $60M – $100M+ of future obligations is not a problem for this council.  ($60M if you use the Planning Office low number and likely more than $100M if you use the City’s internal numbers.)  But a bit of uncertainty over the Head Start program caused the Council to delay timely, Federal notification and potentially destroying the Head Start program. 

Even if you assume the Councilors are all well-intended, both meetings were a display of naivety and inexperience.  In fact, Councilor Olver may have made the most poignant and accurate observation:  He said the Council is suffering from “self-inflicted” wounds.  That statement is indisputable!  With the exception of Councilor Olver, maybe they should all be sent to their rooms without any dinner.



  • 1
  • 2

Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info


Subscribe


© 2022 Lakewood Informer | All Rights Reserved
Designed by Mile High Web Designs