Tag: city-council

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/

From Save Open Space – Lakewood

Kairoi Properties L.L.C., developer of a planned 412-unit luxury apartment building at Belmar Park, sues Lakewood for enacting an environmentally friendly green initiative 

The citywide citizen sponsored initiative requires all developments to dedicate green space in lieu of its 13-year tradition of adding to the City’s coffers

If Kairoi loses the lawsuit, monstrous buildings planned at Belmar Park and at Quail and Colfax will need to be drastically reduced in size 


Lakewood, December 26, 2024—This week we present the latest episode of the 13 year-long soap opera, “Lakewood’s Big Lie,” which depicts the dramatic twists and turns of a city that prioritizes large scale developments over nature and its own residents. During those years, Lakewood has given developments carte blanche to ignore as many of its codes as they desire, including tree canopy, climate change goals, seamless architecture in a neighborhood, and affordable housing.

On Monday, December 23, it became public that Kairoi Properties LLC had sued the city over the Green Initiative that its city council had passed but doesn’t really want.

An explanation of the bizarre turn of events including the political motives behind this unnecessary legal action, is best summed up in the following excerpts from resident Steve Farthing’s email to the savebelmarpark.com group:

“Most city council reps took the position [at the November 4 City Council meeting] that the ordinance, as written, would be ruled illegal if a legal challenge were raised in front of a judge.

“They actually discussed that adopting the ordinance and then inviting the city to be sued would be a prudent course of action!  This was after one of their members even advised they could simply adopt and repeal the problematic ordinance.  That comment fell on deaf ears.

“Is it any wonder our valuable parks and habitats are managed by ignoring science such as the science regarding wildlife buffer zones?  By gosh and by golly, if our council members don’t grasp that they are legislators, we are in trouble.  And so are our parks and natural areas.

“Litigation should be the last resort after best efforts are made at an effective and legal legislative solution or at least a reasoned decision to repeal.

“And don’t forget how much some councilors talked about not allowing the Lakewood voters to weigh in on this ordinance due to the cost of a mail ballot election but they are perfectly OK with the cost of litigation which could be more than an election.

“In reality, the concern about letting voters vote could be that the open space issue in Lakewood would get much more attention once you mail a ballot out to every single voter in the city.  

“If you are trying to get re-elected, you might not want too much attention paid by voters to the open space issue.  When you combine that with the Belmar Park fiasco, it could be political Kryptonite on election day.  Or maybe Mentos and cola.  You pick.

But a mail ballot open space-related election could be a ‘no-no’ to some councilors seeking re-election later in the year.”

Farthing’s comments are supported by the facts that (1) the City rushed the signature counting process and (2) scheduled the special meeting on November 4, the day before elections, and (3) filed a lawsuit after hours on Friday, December 20.  Both dates were likely chosen to avoid media scrutiny.   The lawsuit was submitted so it wouldn’t become public until Monday, December 23, two days before Christmas.

Lakewood’s Big Lie became apparent to many in the spring of 2023 when residents learned that for more than two years the City had secretly planned to approve Kairoi Residential’s massive luxury apartment building that would tower over much beloved Belmar Park. The five and six story building would have more than 80 units per floor, a two football field footprint, and require the removal of 65 mature trees.  It would extend its boundaries right up to the existing park sidewalk. No environmental study was performed in a park known to be uniquely rich with 240 bird species and treasured for its tranquility.

Hundreds of residents pleaded with the City Council for months to do something about how devastating the monstrous building would be for them, wildlife and birds. Council responded by feigning support, falsely claiming they were powerless to act, and later saying but never demonstrating that they had been working on the issue for months.

Kairoi Residential, a billion dollar developer based in San Antonio, Texas, and with an office in Denver, has another project in the works in Lakewood consisting of 850 luxury units that would replace a King Soopers grocery store and create a food desert at Quail Street and West Colfax Avenue.  

Cathy Kentner, a Jeffco school teacher and community activist, who spear-headed Save Open Space – Lakewood (SOS – Lakewood) and the petition, opined, “When elected officials fail to respond to the public’s wishes, the people have no other avenue than to exercise our constitutional right to direct democracy and the ballot box.”

SOS – Lakewood was formed to petition the city council to eliminate the practice of accepting a fee instead of following Lakewood’s land dedication requirements.

The initiative petition, through an historic all-volunteer effort, garnered 6,492 valid signatures — far more than the required 5,862 — to force City Council to either enact the legislation or send it to the voters.

It should be noted that the volunteer signature gatherers began their work months before the State Legislature added wording to HB24-1313 requiring a “fee-in-lieu” option. Lakewood’s city officials were well aware early on of the specifics of the people’s initiative.  At no time did they attempt to collaborate with community advocates to develop a compromise for an ordinance that would address the concerns of all parties. Instead, they waited until the November 4 special meeting to air their harsh criticisms.  

Councilor Paula Nystrom sought to provide constructive advice to her fellow councilors at the November 4 meeting. She said, “Citizens shouldn’t have to protest, gather signatures, hire lawyers, or jump through hoops just to have their voices heard. The question isn’t whether this petition is perfect; it’s about understanding how we got here and how we can prevent this from ever happening again.”

As the lawsuit progresses, it will be interesting to see if the City presents a strong defense of its new law or continues Lakewood’s Big Lie by creating the illusion of support while allowing the developer to be victorious in the end. 


Read other news coverage of lawsuit:


Most of Lakewood City Council is concerned that Lakewood will not reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Although Lakewood has been increasing climate change regulations and spending for over a decade, it’s not enough and the city will be increasing both spending and regulation in 2025.

Are these goals achievable and which programs are most effective?

Lakewood is still developing its model to predict emission reduction. It is almost impossible to attribute which programs result in the best emission reductions because every result is intertwined not only with other programs but with the existing climate, which by definition is changing.

Lakewood has more sustainability goals than surrounding cities. Lakewood is named “one of 119 cities across the globe providing leadership in environmental action and transparency by the Carbon Disclosure Project”, showing Lakewood is more aggressive than most of the world. The city is currently working on a new climate vulnerability study, a new sustainability plan, updating zoning codes and building codes for increased required sustainability measures. Votes on the new codes are scheduled for spring.

Full-time sustainability staff has increased from 2, in 2014, to 12 in 2025. Dozens more part-time staff are employed throughout all city departments. According to Sustainability and Community Development Director, Travis Parker, about 30% of the new comprehensive plan focuses on sustainability.

Despite already doing so much, every Council Member present asked about doing more during the November 18, 2024 Study Session on Sustainability.

The key to City Council goals was to secure more funding. Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei points out that cities like Fort Collins and Denver have a dedicated sustainability budget. She says grants for one project at a time is not a long-term solution. She believes residents want more funding to go to sustainability efforts. According to Shahrezaei, Lakewood played a pivotal role in securing a regional $200M grant because it has the tracking numbers for emissions and workforce.

Council will talk about new revenue generating possibilities at the annual retreat workshop.

Council Member Paula Nystrom asked for a new program and budget for residential greenhouse gas emission reduction for the upcoming revised budget.

Lakewood has not asked residents to support the climate change fight directly with their pocketbooks before. Staffing initiatives often start as “free money” from other sources and continued past the grant’s expiration date without a public discussion. More direct taxing and funding suggestions represent a significant new direction for Lakewood, especially on the scale of new programs at millions of dollars a year.

Councilor Glenda Sinks was concerned about being able to track sustainability spending through the budget. This was a good question without a good answer. According to Director Parker, Lakewood is not showing much in the budget yet because it is in the “enviable place of having more money available than we have plans for yet but that won’t be the case for long.” There was no answer as to where the money is shown in the current budget.

Councilor Roger Low echoes the need for clear spending and goal tracking in the budget. He would like to see more progress on SolarApp implementation.

Council Member Sophia Mayott-Guerrero floated a new idea to expand the greenhouse gas fee and have a larger spending pool to be used for things like sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, park maintenance, road maintenance, climate impact and water impact. All of these could be viewed as “sustainability” measures.

Several Councilors, including Cruz and Shahrezaei, were interested in making sure that money was distributed equitably. They want to make sure that low-income areas were first in line for assistance, as was intended through the federal program that Lakewood receives funding from.

Councilor Jacob LaBure would like to be a national leader in sustainability efforts. LaBure points out that much of the federal money may be lessening under a new administration. As a result, he suggests Lakewood do more internally. For instance, Lakewood may require garbage and waste contractors to only use contractors with EV vehicles. Mayor Strom echoes the benefits of buying or contracting EV vehicles companies. Councilor LaBure would like to mandate new buildings, especially city buildings, be LEED certified through the building code. Director Travis Parker says some buildings could already meet LEED standards but do not want to pay the quarter million dollars to get certified.

Councilor Rein would like to see more specificity in the sustainability plan in order to get Lakewood on track for less emissions. He is interested in the city getting a LEED certification. City staff say big new projects under city control, like the new maintenance facility, may not be able to get LEED certification but will be sustainable on some level. Rein asked staff if the current budget has enough funding to improve sidewalk connectivity and make the city more walkable in order to cut down on vehicle traffic. Staff answered there was not enough funding.

Upcoming dates on sustainability
Feb 1, Mar 3 Mar 17, Apr 28, May 12, Jun 9
From Lakewood update on sustainability

By Regina Hopkins

At the Lakewood City Council meeting on Monday, November 4, 2024, council members spent three hours deliberating a new ordinance, O-2024-28, and whether to approve it or send it to a special election, which was expected to cost Lakewood between $175,000 and $350,000. Despite expectations that the council would send it to an election, in an unexpected turn of events, the Council enacted the ordinance itself, arguing that doing so would save taxpayer money and expedite an inevitable legal battle related to the Colorado Legislature’s recently enacted HB 24-1313.

While Lakewood cries foul over the supposed legality of the newly passed ordinance, its longstanding failure to enforce Lakewood’s own ordinances reveals the hypocrisy of the City’s stance. Ordinance O-2024-28, introduced by the grassroots group “Save Open Space Lakewood,” was sparked by the plan to build a massive zero-lot-line luxury apartment complex next to Belmar Park, the city’s crown jewel. This development became the final straw, igniting widespread outrage and drawing attention to the even larger issue of ignoring open space requirements throughout Lakewood and unchecked overdevelopment.

Councilor Paula Nystrom highlighted the issue, saying, “We’re in an untenable situation, but there’s a reason we ended up here. Citizens shouldn’t have to protest, gather signatures, hire lawyers, or jump through hoops just to have their voices heard.” She continued, “The question isn’t whether this petition is perfect; it’s about understanding how we got here and how we can prevent this from ever happening again.”

For the past 13 years developers have exploited loopholes in Lakewood’s ordinances without facing any repercussions, as the City repeatedly sides with developers at the expense of green space. The City’s prior ordinance, which required 5.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for new developments, had been ignored every single time. This raises the question: Since 1983, when Lakewood’s first Park and Open Space Dedication ordinance was adopted as part of the first Municipal Code, and included a “fee in lieu” option, how many acres of land have been sacrificed to development rather than preserved through park dedication? Arguably, a significant amount. The City’s consistent approval of the “in lieu of” fee has undermined the intended balance of the original ordinance, leading to a significant loss of green spaces amid ongoing development. We are losing more and more places every day for plants and animals to thrive without human impact.

Lakewood’s sudden focus on the legality of the new ordinance is a diversion, as the City tries to portray the citizen-led initiative as unlawful. This focus overlooks the fact that, for years, the City allowed developers to use the fee in lieu option without exception, failing to exercise thoughtful discretion in its widespread application across the city.

Had the City exercised better foresight and applied reasonable common sense in enforcing the ordinances already on the books, it wouldn’t be facing this situation today. Instead, by allowing developers to contribute to the City’s coffers while avoiding actual land dedications and now hoping that the newly passed citizen-led initiative gets challenged in court, Lakewood is revealing its true priorities: supporting unchecked development that benefits developers while disregarding the needs of residents, the environment, and escalating larger concerns about global warming.

Councilor Nystrom emphasized, “From all the studies done post-COVID, we know that nature is essential for people’s well-being.” She added, “Every apartment building should include green space… These are fundamental human needs, as well as environmental needs.” Nystrom’s perspective highlights an understanding of both human and ecological needs that is sorely lacking among many of her pro-development colleagues on the Council.

Councilor Roger Low’s claim that Ordinance O-2024-28 would eliminate affordable housing is simply false. In fact, it would likely benefit those residents in affordable housing the most by ensuring access to green space, which is often overlooked in favor of prioritizing density. The real affordable housing issue lies with Lakewood’s failure to meet the urgent demand it has identified. The City has already overdeveloped much of its available land with luxury and market-rate units, leaving little room for affordable housing. Let’s be clear about where the responsibility lies—with the City itself. Lakewood’s overdevelopment has already created a barrier to meeting the community’s needs, limiting its options, while attempting to deflect attention by blaming O-2024-28.

When the petition was initially drafted, it fully complied with existing ordinances and laws. However, the ballot initiative process takes several months, including time for gathering signatures, to move forward with a petition of this kind. As citizens gathered signatures in April and May 2024, their grassroots group gained significant momentum. In response, state lawmakers introduced a last-minute change to pending legislation. A paragraph provision slipped into HB 24-1313, a 62-page bill addressing Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities, in the final days of the Senate legislative session mandated that municipalities offer a “fee in lieu” option to bypass preserving open spaces. It’s no coincidence that the fee in lieu “amendment” passed as the ballot initiative was gaining traction—its success threatened the development industry’s profits by closing a longstanding loophole. This is a pattern of behavior we’ve seen before from the Lakewood City Council, driven by their ties to state representatives and developers, and it’s this pattern that has raised significant public awareness of the City’s disregard for community concerns.

The City seems to believe Lakewood residents will happily and willingly sacrifice their green spaces in favor of overcrowded, high-density developments that prioritize profit over quality of life. But Lakewood residents love their open spaces, and for many, it’s why they choose to live here. They don’t want it to become just another extension of Denver’s metropolitan sprawl. The City’s push for new development, prioritizing growth over the well-being of residents, has failed to balance the needs of both current and future residents it claims to serve. The ballot initiative sends a clear message: Lakewood residents have had enough of overdevelopment and will no longer stand for it.

This petition is a victory for preserving open space, reflecting the community’s desire to protect Lakewood’s character and environment. When City Council ignored the issue, citizens exercised their constitutionally reserved right to petition for change that their elected officials were failing to address. The City urgently needs councilors who listen to their constituents and prioritize green spaces and open areas over developer profits. We must continue this grassroots effort and send a clear message: we will not let this progress be undone. Make your voice heard—email City Council at [email protected].

A photo of Belmar, highlighting the area at risk from encroaching development proposed directly adjacent to it.

Regina Hopkins bio:

Regina is an environmental advocate from Lakewood, CO, with a lifelong passion for preserving the natural world. Her deep connection to plants and animals has grown over the years, fostering a profound appreciation for the planet’s ecosystems. Dedicated to safeguarding the habitats of wildlife and plants, Regina works to protect all living creatures—especially those without a voice. She advocates for sustainable practices and policies to ensure the environment is preserved for future generations.

A Different Perspective

By Lenore Herskovitz

On November 4 the Lakewood City Council reluctantly voted to pass the Citizens Initiated Ordinance pertaining to park and open space dedication rather than send it to a special election. How and why did we arrive at this point?

Citizen activism has existed almost since Lakewood’s inception in 1969. “The True Story of How Belmar Park Came into Existence” by Stuart MacPhail tells how Lakewood citizens were able to override the wishes of most of the early Lakewood elected leaders and administrative staff regarding the establishment of Belmar Park. A multi-year conflict culminated in a citizen initiated public vote where they were victorious by a 2 to 1 margin.

In 2003, the mid-Lakewood residents banded together to prevent university incursion into their neighborhood. Through their perserverance they were able to get City Council to pass an ordinance prohibiting university uses in low density residential zoning. That ordinance was challenged in a lawsuit filed by Colorado Christian University in 2021. Prior to that filing, our own City Attorney told the public that the ordinance was discriminatory and unconstitutional and would not be upheld  by the Courts. Yet when forced to defend our law, the City won in both the District and Appellate Courts.

In 2017, a grassroots movement promoted the Strategic Growth Initiative (SGI). In addition to inclusion of a 1% growth cap, the SGI established an allocation program and oversight for projects of 40 units or more. This initiative was stalled in the Courts until 2019 when the judge ruled in favor of the petitioners. In July of that same year, the SGI was passed by voters. In August 2023, the Colorado Congress passed HB23-1255 which repealed existing growth caps enacted in Lakewood, Boulder and Golden. These municipalities were given 24 months to develop a plan moving forward. The Lakewood City Council passed legislation one day before the House Bill took effect to sundown the SGI by August 2025.  Since  the Initiative had a severability clause, the Council could have easily removed the provision pertaining to the growth cap and retained the rest. Such a move would have honored the will of the voters and satisfied the state requirements. Interestingly, the Save Open Space(SOS) petition also includes a severability clause so if one part of it is determined to be illegal by a judge, the other parts could still remain intact.

The repetitive statements claiming “We hear you” become meaningless when it doesn’t translate into action.

The previous three examples of successful community activism can be categorized as David vs. Goliath battles. City officials and big money opposing residents. Citizens mobilize when they feel their representatives are non-responsive to their concerns. The repetitive statements claiming “We hear you” become meaningless when it doesn’t translate into action. For years there have been rumblings about how to balance open space and housing. Residents are justifiably upset because major decisions regarding developments are made behind closed doors and by the time the public is informed it is too late for their input to affect any change. These issues resurfaced last fall when details were revealed about Kairoi Residential’s plan to build 412 luxury apartment units adjacent to Belmar Park. Citizens began showing up at Council meetings on a regular basis to raise questions about traffic, safety, and environmental impact. The feedback they received was the typical “go away”. Although Councilors  were sympathetic, there was nothing they could do. A fee-in-lieu policy allowed developers to buy out of land dedication and that’s exactly what they did. It was discovered that the Director of Community Resources was supposed to re-evaluate the amount of the fee on an annual basis. She had not followed through since 2018 – a major oversight which needed to be rectified. To the public’s knowledge, no one was held accountable for this.  The citizens, frustrated by the lack of Council action, decided to organize and try to resolve these problems. The result was the formation of the SOS Green Initiative. Over the next 6 months community members volunteered to collect thousands of signatures on the petition (eventually close to 6500 were verified after submission to the City Clerk). In April 2024 Council held a Study Session to try and make modifications to the park dedication and fee-in-lieu policies. The meeting included recommendations from Norris Design and Duncan & Associates who had been hired by the City in the fall of 2023 to do an assessment of our fee-in-lieu and parkland dedication policies. No ordinance was proposed. There was a comment submitted on Lakewoodspeaks by Marianne Nagel and several others which introduced specific recommendations regarding calculation of fees, etc. that were less extreme than those in the SOS petition yet Council expressed no interest in adopting them. It is unfortunate that our elected officials and staff didn’t meet with the organizers of the Initiative and Marianne Nagel and her group to collaborate on creating an effective ordinance that incorporated the best of each plan. It should be noted that in June, the Director of Community Resources finally increased the amount of the fee-in-lieu (effective July 1 this year).

The Council members were aware of the contents of the Initiative for months before the November 4 meeting and could have addressed their concerns before it was submitted. Instead the Council waited and used the special meeting to denigrate the efforts of their constituents. Two of the most vocal opponents were Councilor Rein and Councilor Low. Their hyperbolic vitriol was egregious. Councilor Rein was the only representative who stated definitively that the ordinance was”illegal”. This was surprising because he is an attorney and should be well aware that legality is not determined by City Councilors or even City Attorneys, but by judges in a court of law.

Councilor Rein felt the public would lose trust in their elected officials if they  sent an “illegal” ordinance to the ballot box in a special election. Actually, misleading constituents increases the distrust that is already prevalent. Councilor Stewart stated that the Initiative could be in violation of the recently passed HB24-1313. That piece of legislation could also be challenged in Court just like any other law. It is perfectly legitimate for Councilors to raise their concerns about the legality of this ordinance but it appeared that they were inviting a lawsuit by declaring its inevitability.

Councilor Low’s opening statement was that the SOS was “bad on so many levels”. He continued to spew criticisms without ever offering any alternate solutions. He offended the petitioners by suggesting that the signature gatherers had purposely misled the public to gain their support for the Initiative. Not long before he made this unsubstantiated claim, one of the volunteers had spoken about his experiences while collecting signatures. He stressed how he explained the content of the petition to signers before they put pen to paper.

Council was also worried about the potentially detrimental impact the Initiative would have on building affordable housing. Many citizens were unhappy with the number of high density market rate apartments that will dominate the area  from Westland to Quail St. Councilor Shahrezaei stated that there are some areas that are meant to absorb some density. She failed to acknowledge that the criticism addressed specific developments which combined would contain more than 1000 units without including any affordable residences. Even more disturbing, a proposed project from Kairoi that offered 850 market rate units would displace a King Soopers creating a food desert.

This part of Colfax does not have a park within a 10 minute walk. It is surrounded by endless rows of apartments. Does this represent Lakewood’s plan for strategic housing?

There was much consternation about the lack of affordable housing and accusations that the Green Initiative would be detrimental to future development. However, City Council itself has inhibited the creation of affordable housing by delaying the advance of inclusionary zoning for 2 years. In 2022, the Development Dialogue Committee was set to discuss inclusionary zoning which would have required developers to include a certain percentage of affordable units in their residential  projects. The committee was disbanded by a vote of Council. Councilor Shahrezaei said this committee was redundant because the Housing Policy Commission (HPC) would be dealing with this topic. But the HPC  chose to prioritize short term rentals for more than a year. They finally started addressing the issue at the beginning of this year. How many  affordable units were lost during the period of the delay? On November 4 Councilor Mayott-Guerrero asked Travis Parker, Chief of the Sustainability and Community Development Department, how many affordable units we have in the City. He was unable to answer, saying he would look into it. The messaging seems to be that there is a housing shortage, but it is more accurate to say that there is a shortage of housing that people can afford. Yet we continue to cater to developers who only provide market rate residences. The huge building at 1221 Wadsworth went into foreclosure. It contained more than 300 units. Did the City or Lakewood Housing Authority attempt to buy this at its reduced price before someone else did so? This property is adjacent to the light rail and a perfect location for the type of housing we so desperately need.  Perhaps another  missed opportunity. There is only a finite amount of land so how we use it is critical. We need open space, parks and trees. We also need the kind of housing opportunities that people want. This extends beyond apartments.

Councilor Nystrom offered suggestions moving forward. She said the City should be consulting with environmental engineers to do assessments. She suggested xeroscaping for property enhancement. Councilor Nystrom actually spoke in support of the citizens saying they “should not have to protest, put petitions out there or hire lawyers. “ She encouraged  her fellow councilors to engage with their constituents to resolve these problems and acknowledged that they needed to do better keeping the public informed about developments.

Residents “should not have to protest, put petitions out there or hire lawyers.“ – Councilor Nystrom

The City uses distraction to cover for their inaction. What is sorely absent is any attempt to coordinate and collaborate with the public to create meaningful legislation.

Rather than obliterating the entire Initiative, they could have worked with community representatives to improve it. Modify what is too extreme. Make additions to soften the impact on affordable problems. Insert buffer zones. Instead of demonizing the petitioners, learn from them. They were delivering a message. Build what is wanted and needed, including a path to affordable ownership in addition to rentals. Residential developments must include some open space or parkland.

A final plea to City Council: Replace condemnation and condescension with collaboration and cooperation. Learn from prior mistakes. An Italian proverb says: Each time history repeats itself, the price goes up.


From Applewood Heights Community Organization

Despite a 5 1/2 hour Subdivision Public Hearing on 8/21, regarding the development site and both the community and the Planning Commission sharing the same concerns surrounding the safety of the access through W. 15th Place, lack of street connectivity, and making our driveway unsafe to access/unusable in winter, the developer (Metro West Housing Solutions) submitted their 5th rendition to the major site plans to the City without addressing the safety concerns that the community and the Planning Commission had. The City has returned their redlines to the developer without addressing the concerns of the Planning Commission or the Community.  

On October 14th, we filed a formal request with the City Attorney to have the Major Site Plan review to be turned over by the planning commission as today the City doesn’t have a public hearing for major site plans and it does not go before the Planning Commission. Site plans are simply approved by the Director of Planning. Attached is the letter that was sent by our attorney to Travis Parker via the City Attorney. We are still waiting to hear back from Travis Parker to see if it will be approved to go before the Planning Commission. We will keep pressing on this as we feel that with this being a complex site location, this should be put in front of the Planning Commission. 

We also attended the City Council meeting which helped us to gain some traction with the Mayor and City Council. After the meeting, the Mayor and a number of City Council members have reached out directly to us. Below is the email written to us from Mayor Strom. While we don’t know what changes they are proposing, it is a step in the right direction. 

“It has become public knowledge that City of Lakewood staff have provided design services to Metro West [Housing]. This kind of interaction only exacerbates the existing conflict of interest between the City of Lakewood and Metro West, which is the housing organization of the City of Lakewood.” From MST Evaluation Letter above


On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 12:26 PM Wendi Strom <[email protected]> wrote:

Jonna and team,

Thank you for staying in touch on this, and for everyone’s time spent in reaching out to your Councilors and coming to speak to City Council recently.

Though I’ve not lived in your area of Lakewood, I’m aware of some of the history and safety concerns surrounding this stretch of road and agree with you that the added the number of vehicles (and trips) to this space as a result of this project would likely only make things worse for your neighborhood (and the new residents that would ultimately be moving in). 

I am working closely with Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei and city staff to address these concerns and with the hope of coming up with a solution that will not pose heightening these risks upon your neighborhood community.  While I do not have any solutions to report right now, I want to let you all  know that we hear you, that I agree that safety is the number one issue, and that work is being done to try to improve this project. 

Thank you for advocating so tirelessly for your neighborhood, I know this has been a long road.  We’ll share more when we have it.

Warm regards,

Wendi Strom

Mayor, Lakewood Colorado


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.


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.


Lakewood City Council amended the building code to allow transitional housing for homeless on September 9. There were no defined programs, no defined projects, no defined locations, no operational guidelines and no defined structures. City Council Members spent most of their comments defending the lack of specificity by saying this is just the first step. They pointed to the housing crisis as evidence of need. Council positions are summarized below. The vote was 10-1, with Councilor Olver being the sole no vote. Programs can start as soon as the city acquires land, which was not approved in the 2025 budget.

Councilor Rein proposed a contentious amendment that would require the city to own or control the housing programs. There was push back from Council Members Shahrezaei, Mayott-Guerrero, Stewart, Cruz, Low, Nystrom, and Sinks. The feeling seemed to be that Lakewood should buy the land with taxpayer money and allow the programs but essentially give it to private actors to use for the homeless. An interesting note is that many Council Members frequently mention their work for non-profits while advocating like they are soliciting donations, rather than legislating from a government responsibility standpoint.

There is a homelessness crisis and if we don’t do anything we are complicit…. People have a right to shelter. – Public Comment, Amber Varwig

Rein eventually removed his owned or control language. That means any non-profit can control the program. As Council Member Shahrezaei pointed out, this includes faith-based programs. Once approved, the city will have no control over the program.

“It is irresponsible to change this ordinance for plans that you are not willing to be transparent about.” – Public Comment, Wendy Shrader


There is no defined project, policy or process for a city approved project so staff was unable to answer many of the City Council questions, which was awkward because City Council obviously had specific things in mind and they struggled to figure out how to get their base assumptions resolved.

“How far from the usual do you want to go in amending this building code” …Transitional housing is not within in the purview of the building code to begin with. – City staff response upon being questioned on whether it is even possible to put “own or control” definitions into the building code.

Without a defined “City of Lakewood Transitional Housing Program” , and without a defined approval process, this discussion could morph into anything in future.


Council Member Comments and Positions

Stewart: Asked questions so that staff can reiterate that these units are safe. Clarifies that City Council asked for this ordinance before other pieces come forward. She says that when they tried to do safe parking they had a vendor lined up and then had to wait because the city hadn’t changed the ordinance first. She clarifies with staff that the word control and approved is not defined in the ordinance as passed, which she agrees to.

Mayott-Guerrero: Says we’ve been working on getting this housing ability for two years. Now that there is a code they can work on a specific project. She says there are already homeless here and so taking care of them prevents problems later on. This is a local solution to a national problem. Rejects using the building code to try and control a program and does not try to define what a program means in the ordinance.

LaBure: Questions if garage door mechanisms are included in the amendment. Sees the need to address the affordable housing crisis but half the city is zoned R1 so we need to change the building code.

Low: The city needs to provide housing so that people can get the help they need. Says LA and Denver crime went down around pallet homes. Reiterates that the proposal is a result of council request, not a specific project and asks how the specific project would be approved. Answer is that the approval process has not been set but there have been conversations about what is needed. There may need to be a permit review involving public hearing.

Sinks: Clarifies that these new units will not be going into parks or open space.

Cruz: Asks whether a non-profit could partner in these projects. The answer is that it is only city approved, does not need to be city controlled. She says there is a human cost in not taking action.

Rein: Next step is for staff to provide a framework to answer all these questions, such as does it need a special use permit, which is an option but not certain. Rein motions to add language “owns (in whole or in part), or controls, or both” to the projects. so that the city always has “skin in the game”. He later removes this language.

Shahrezaei: As to the amendment, she approves the subcontractor relationship, (rather than the having the city own or control). City staff answers that this is a policy decision and that control could come from the permitting process.

Nystrom: Strongly states that City Council has nothing specific planned, they are just getting ready. Lakewood has a homelessness problem. People who are living on the streets need our help. Naysayers should consider being more compassionate.

Strom: Thank you to everyone working on this for the last couple years. This aligns with our priorities.


Scorecard: Amend Building Code for Transitional Housing

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Aye

Stewart: Aye

Low: Aye

Olver: Nay

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye


Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info


Subscribe


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