The money for new pallet homes, or transitional housing units, will come from Lakewood’s Economic Development fund. The 2025 budget also shows the city expects to spend $9.5 million on land purchases for unspecific purposes, also from the Economic Development Fund. Lakewood is waiting to start the transitional housing program until land can be purchased somewhere. The city budgets $300,000 for pallet homes. These homes will be a new program that Lakewood will provide funding and support for, but may be owned and run by an outside organization with limited oversight. The Economic Development Fund has traditionally been used to develop economic opportunities in Lakewood, but in 2023, Lakewood re-interpreted the ordinance to include safety and general upkeep of the city. Previous discussion on the transitional housing program did not include a business analysis of any economic growth potential this program would provide.
The $9.5 million for land purchases could be used for transitional housing land (for pallet homes), in whole or in part. By approving the budget, the city will have funds to allocate for purchases as it prioritizes.
State of the Economy
The budget presentation shows that median household income rose by 10% but the Jeffco employment rate is down by 1%, marking the need for more economic opportunities.
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.
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.”
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.
We all rely on our elected officials, both paid and volunteer to do the right thing, work together, and make the best decisions possible for the city, county, and school system. When they aren’t talking, community amenities are put at risk. Our neighborhood, in the north end of Ward 1, is in a position to lose many amenities that can isolate a neighborhood. We are being handed “plans”, then input is received and largely ignored, with a concession here and there. Here are the example of what we are experiencing:
Graham Park & Graham House:
The Graham House and Park were donated to the city for a park with house for meetings and education. Last Autumn, a small group of neighbors and HOAs (in a largely non-HOA neighborhood) were notified of “improvements” to this park. The plan included the demolition of the Graham House. The reason for the demolition plan was the cost of fixing up the building as event rentals had decreased, largely for the reason that the building had not been maintained. According to counts of the responses on at the initial community meeting and on https://www.lakewoodtogether.org/grahamparkimprovements , community members want to keep the building, yet this request was ignored. The new plan after community involvement, is to demolish the building. An open records request response said that there is no record of a legal review by the City Attorney whether or not demolishing the building in respect to our city charter is legal, section 14.3, page 40. Today, I requested of all our city council members a legal review of the plan to demolish the Graham House within Graham Park. If there is an objective lawyer out there reading this who would like to give a pro bono opinion to the community, please do.
Vivian Elementary School:
JJeffCo School District decided to close Vivian Elementary School. The school exists on a parcel of land donated in 1953 by the Larsen family, who farmed the land. The family of the Larsens have indicated they would like the property to remain public. Since the school closed in the Fall of 2023, neighbors say we are not receiving the priority #2 snow plowing around the school, making it more difficult to get out of the neighborhood onto priority #1 streets.
In April 2024, JeffCo Schools held a community meeting at the local library. They were overwhelmed by the number of people from our community who were interested, so many that monitors were set up outside of the room for overflow. Representatives from the school district told the community that the City of Lakewood had turned down the opportunity to purchase the land and building. This municipal process was posted on the JeffCo Schools Disposition web site for how the process was supposed to go. The first step of the process is to meet with city officials, yet no record of this meeting exists.
At the library meeting, the community gave clear feedback that a park was the best use of this land and indicated that the school district should go back to the city and ask again. Instead, Jeffco Schools went ahead with their next steps in the process to sell the land, which could result in up to 70 homes being built on the property. Community members came forward in force with requests of the city to purchase this land for a park and possibly using the building for a recreation or learning center of some kind.
On September 13th at 12:00 noon, the City Council of Lakewood and the Jeffco School Board and Superintendent held a meeting. The only topic discussed was the school disposition process and more specifically, Emory and Vivian Elementary Schools. While the Jeffco School Disposition process has a community notification system in place for anyone interested in one or all of the schools, a notification did not go out about this meeting. The meeting was mostly about how the process didn’t work and Jeffco Schools admittedly said that the municipal process needed to be more “formal”, and that the city would be given more time in the future to respond on whether or not a property was desired for purchase. The additional time would allow the city to discuss plans with the community before giving a formal response on a property.
So, there are now direct negotiations for the city to purchase 3 acres from Jeffco Schools and Jeffco has asked developers to include that in their final plans.
A community group met with one of the developers at their request to look at their plan and give feedback. The development plan was for the ballfields, basketball court, playground, picnic areas, parking lot, and school building to be demolished. The plan showed 37 houses leaving 3 acres of park space. Unfortunately, this is the 3 acres on the easement under which a very large Denver Water pipe lies. Likely, homes could not be built on most of this space anyway. We lose our amenities, we gain an easement.
We would like to have a discussion with the city before all the amenities are gone.
10850 20th Street/Quail Street Park:
City Council approved the purchase of this land from Denver Water in the Autumn of 2023. The city website says they have purchased it and will ask for community involvement after the purchase is complete. The portion on which Quail Street Park with a playground sits is a lease held by the city through 2028.
The Assessor’s office shows the owner is still Denver Water. I asked the city for clarification and was told negotiations are ongoing. City Council members have described this land as “passive park space”, which denotes no ball field or space for organized sports.
Removal of 20th and Oak Pedestrian Light:
In addition to these properties, a pedestrian traffic light at 20th and Oak was being reviewed for decommissioning. Kids used it to get to Vivian Elementary School. Neighbors responded to the request for input, saying this light connects the neighborhood blocks, slows traffic on 20th, and was good for the community. The light was removed.
A neighborhood at risk of isolation:
A micro look at each of these decisions and the manner in which they were executed, taken individually, is certainly not palatable. And when looked at from a macro level, they indicate government entities not working together and in doing so, isolating a community from amenities which have been at the center of this community’s mental and physical health.
The City of Lakewood’s own research identified Ward 1 as the ward with the least amount of city park and green space per population. How is more infill acceptable?
We’ve lost a school, the center of community connection. We’ve lost a pedestrian light that assured the safety of community members walking our part of the city. We are losing a second community building through what seems to be intentional neglect with intention to demolish. Now we’re at risk for losing ball fields, picnic areas, and a playground with no assurances to replace these amenities.
With all the focus on mental and physical health, why remove those amenities that keep us mentally and physically strong, placing those budgets and efforts instead on fixing those things later at a higher cost?
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.
The City of Lakewood is looking for a consultant to write new zoning codes to:
densify existing neighborhoods,
improve equity, and
remove parking restrictions.
Current efforts to density have caused Lakewood to develop problems with traffic, stormwater drainage, parking and more. Existing developments have not been designed for high-density.
The city has not offered any solutions to these problems. In fact, parking is such a problem that Lakewood is studying requiring parking permits for residents – paid for by residents – rather than mandating increased parking in development plans. This proposal will intensify that problem and increase the amount of resident-funded parking permits throughout Lakewood.
Lakewood appears intent on exacerbating existing problems by allowing more densification to solve another problem… affordable housing.
It must be noted that parking, traffic and stormwater management are key functions of the city government, whereas housing is traditionally regarded as a market-based function.
There are two citizen-led initiatives in Lakewood news demonstrating that current densification is not in line with the city’s existing ordinance to maintain the existing characteristics of existing neighborhoods: a new development near Belmar Park and on Whippoorwill near Youngfield.
City ordinances are a series of laws that rule Lakewood’s development. However, Lakewood staff can interpret these rules through the lens of the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
The existing Comprehensive Plan states (pg 3-12):
“The City will continue to support the diverse image and character of the community by maintaining the existing characteristics of neighborhoods with existing single-family residential zoning; creating appropriate transitions betweencommercial, multi-family, and mixed-use development and single-family zoned areas; and encouraging contextually appropriate infill and redevelopment projects.”
For the last several years, Lakewood has de-emphasized the existing characteristics of neighborhoods and transition zones in favor of other factors, which has caused conflict with resident groups, such as those mentioned above.
Lakewood is currently developing a new Comprehensive Plan to show the direction of the city for the next fifteen years. The densification proposal coming out before the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is finalized shows that Lakewood anticipates knowing what the results will be, regardless of any input the community provides.
The proposal reads: “The Contractor will identify goals, recommendations, and implementation strategies, to ensure the new code is consistent with the 2040 [Comprehensive] Plan.“
Since this proposal calls strictly for plans to densify, it appears that the Comprehensive Plan may have to be adjusted to match densification, rather than vice versa.
The Planning Commission will serve as the community input for this project.
Guest Submission from Toni Riggio, sent to City of Lakewood Planning, Engineering, Traffic and Ward 1 members
This letter is in response to the Subdivision Notification Letter received by mail by the City of Lakewood on 5/3/24. There is a multi-family development that is proposed at 1515 Whippoorwill Dr (Ward 1) with the Ingress/Egress at Youngfield St, 15h Pl and Youngfield Dr and I am writing in opposition to that access point based on the following reasons:
Concerns and Comments for Case# FI23-0016 and S23-0025/1515 Whippoorwill Dr
Proposed Ingress/Egress is where 3 streets come together
1- Youngfield Street: is an increasingly busy corridor. Traveling South requires a full stop at the blind curve to see oncoming traffic before turning onto 15th Pl. Traveling North has low visibility as you turn right onto 15th Pl.
2- 15th Place: Per Aldridge Transportation Consultants recent memo in etrakit, is “a steep 10% grade” uphill as you turn in. This street is a no outlet/ not a thru street that serves 13 homes.
3- Youngfield Drive: is currently a narrow dirt road, not a through street with limited width to expand to the required 36’ for Mixed Use zoning. Lakewood has made an exception for 28’ which makes the entirety of the Road a fire lane per Metro West Fire Dept.
The neighbors have proposed the Ingress/Egress to be at Colfax Ave for a myriad of safety issues and concerns which are highlighted in this document. The ongoing meetings the neighbors and Applewood Valley Assoc have had with both the developer and the City of Lakewood to have access at Colfax Ave have yielded little results to date. This plot of land was originally zoned Residential (R-1A) and in 2012 rezoned to Mixed Use Suburban, because it backs Colfax Ave. We were given a few reasons why the entrance and exit can’t be on W. Colfax; however, the 2014 plans from the City of Lakewood mandated the access to the site to be at W. Colfax Ave, for the same developer and site. In 2023 the City of Lakewood allowed a Multi-family Residential unit to have access from W. Colfax. This site is across the street from this proposed Williams Point site. Further, based on the CDOT referral, it appears that CDOT is not opposed to the development to be accessed through W. Colfax Avenue as they note in their referral “No access is being proposed on Colfax. If access to Colfax is proposed in the future, the City of Lakewood is the Issuing Authority, so the discussion for access will need to begin with Lakewood.”
This 1.6-acre plot has challenging topography, is crammed with utilities; electric, gas, water, sewer and communications. It has been owned by the current Developer for over 20 yrs. It wasn’t until they received a 9% tax credit from CHFA that they were able to get green lit for max density housing. The CHFA funding was approved based on half-truths of being adjacent to a bus stop and community outreach and acceptance, both which were requirements. None of the immediate 13 homeowners to the proposed project were ever notified prior to this grant. Also, the bus stop, while adjacent to the property, has no direct access from the development without walking/biking .8 miles down a 10% grade on W. 15th Pl, without sidewalks or street lights, out to Youngfield St up to W Colfax Ave which has high traffic, steep grades and no sidewalk, creating safety, ADA concerns and other complexities. Further, employment opportunities, schools and parks are between 1 to 1.5 miles away There is a proposed retaining wall and infrastructure to hold up Colfax Ave which will prevent direct access to and from the public transportation from the proposed development site. (Note: Per CHFA requirements the access to public transportation needs to be within a half mile.)
A traffic study by Aldridge Transportation Consultants, estimates a daily 300+ car trips entering and exiting. The proposed project will have (44) 1- 3-bedroom units with 70 parking spaces. This will result in overflow parking on the fire lane and existing neighborhood, where little enforcement will be available or take even place. The Aldridge traffic study does not take into account the addition of Lutheran Hospital employing 2200 people and many other high-density housing going in nearby. Also, traffic is re-routed to Youngfield St whenever there is an accident on the parallel I-70 highway. This creates bumper to bumper traffic on Youngfield St. each time. The most recent memo from Aldridge fails to address traffic approaching 15th Pl travelling South on Youngfield St and turning left onto 15th Pl.
We are extremely concerned about emergency access back to our neighborhood, as we have had two fires within 10yrs. We are in a special high wind district, which was recently cited by Metro West Fire Dept to be the leading cause of dry brush fires, that is no longer seasonal, but year round.
The existing neighborhood was built in the 50’s. The 2 roads 15th Pl a cul-de-sac and Whippoorwill Dr. a dead end. In most sections, the widths are 21-22’ no curb and gutter and drainage ditches on both sides and each with roadside mail delivery and trash pickup. This is where overflow parking will occur but is not adequate to receive the additional cars and would make it very difficult for emergency or fire crews to reach the existing neighborhood.
The neighbors in this area have witnessed pedestrians falling in the street while walking out of Youndfield Dr onto 15th Pl steep grade next to Youngfield St in winter conditions. There have been a multitude of cars getting stuck and/or sliding down 15th Pl to Youngfield St with snow and ice conditions. This has also included delivery/mail trucks, City of Lakewood snow plows getting stuck in the ditches at the intersection of 15th Pl and Youngfield St When approaching entrance to 15th Pl in the snow, you need momentum and speed to get up the 10% grade requiring 4-wheel drive vehicles to be successful. While having this grade may not be uncommon in our mountainous State, this is a contentious intersection with the convergence of these three streets. 2 with steep grades, 1 an increasingly busy street with questionable visibility in both directions.
We have documented the above stated events with videos and photos over the recent 2 years, some but not all are attached here, which have been shared and or provided to City Planning/ Engineers/Commission, City Council members, Developer, AVA, and many residents. I would add that as a resident of this neighborhood for 30 years, I have witnessed these occurrences many times over each and every year, including a head-on-collision at the Youngfield St curve a decade ago. These incidents and accidents will only rise with the addition of this Subdivision development.
Reference Lakewood Title 16.3.1, 16.3.2 Subdivision Standards, 16.3.8 1-4Street andtransportation patterns and connectivity and 16.3.9, this Subdivision does not meet the City’s own Ordinances unless many exceptions, variances or different interpretations are made.
While this only represents a partial detail of concerns, my hope is you will strongly consider these life, safety and ADA issues and concerns brought forth in regards to the Access point for this Subdivision Plat going forward and require the Ingress/Egress to be at Colfax Ave.
Safety First!
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Toni Riggio
Applewood Heights Resident
Photos and Videos below to account for the issues brought to your attention regarding the Subdivision Plat Case # FI23-0016/ D23-0025
15th place demonstrating our narrow roads are not equipped to handle overflow parking and hampering the ability of emergency and other vehicles to access our neighborhood. West Metro Fire Dept responding to a Fire on Whippoorwill Dr. 2yrs ago. Thankfully no cars parked on either side of the street.raffic jam on Youngfield St. and 15th Pl intersection, when traffic is rerouted due to accidents on I-70. A common occurrence.City of Lakewood Snow plow stuck at intersection of Youngfield Dr. and 15th Pl.
Links to vehicles without 4WD trying and failing to get up the 15th Pl steep grade in the snow. (Copy and paste link to view)
Link to Prime driver unable to come up the 15th Pl grade, parked at the blind curve to deliver packages, forcing cars to go around into oncoming traffic.https://photos.app.goo.gl/o2TRfw9B8UYMkMWm6
Lakewood has approved construction of Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) that are up to 1400 square feet large, bigger than the original house in some areas, in an effort to “remove barriers” to affordability. ADUs are sometimes known as “mother-in-law” suites, a separate apartment that can be rented out on your primary residence. Councilor Stewart made the original request to research increasing ADU use in Lakewood, over a year before the motion passed on June 10, 2024. The two main barriers are the concept of single-family zoning (R1 vs R2) and infrastructure costs. By passing these revisions, Lakewood has densified single-family zoning into dual-family zoning, for every property that can fit an additional dwelling unit onto the land. According to research conducted by the Planning Commission, most people say they do not build an ADU after they find out they would need to pay more for additional water and sewer infrastructure. There seems to be a common belief that because there is room on the land, there should be extra room in the pipes, which is not true. Rather than acknowledge that water districts set those infrastructure fees, Planning Commissioner and Chair Kolkmeier suggested doubling the size of an allowable ADU, from 700 sq. ft. to 1400 sq. ft., so that the infrastructure cost would be a lesser percentage. So overall costs would go up in the name of affordability.
Custom-built ADUs are already expensive compared to commercial apartment buildings that are mass produced. However, an economic analysis of construction costs or rental profits was not researched. Among the ADU proponents, including Councilor Stewart and Shahrezaei, there seemed to be an understanding that someone who went to the expense of building an ADU would be happy to rent the unit at- or below-market price, to a family member or friend.
Others, including Councilor Nystrom and Olver, questioned whether these units would be available for investors, therefore not guaranteeing it would be “affordable”. Nystrom said she was in favor of creating more ownership situations, not rental situations. Olver quoted the real estate mantra “Location location location” and said that creating more supply will not lower housing prices in a desirable location such as Lakewood. Olver’s point has been proved because Lakewood has excess supply yet housing costs have not come down.
Councilor David Rein proposed an amendment to make owner-occupancy required. The motion failed on a 5-5 vote, with the ayes being Councilors Rein, Olver, Nystrom, LaBure and Mayor Strom. The nays were Councilors: Shahrezaei, Low, Mayott-Guerrero, and Sinks. (Councilor Cruz absent).
Without this amendment, the ADU and property can be used for two, full-time rental properties, making them attractive to investors.
Planning Commission Chair Kolkmeier explained that even though these revisions might not increase ADU construction, our current ordinance strangles growth and our residential development is in a death spiral but did not offer evidence. He argues the changes are one way to bring back families and possibly schools but he did not explain how if he believes the changes would be largely ineffective. No one offered evidence, just beliefs that some kind of change by someone was necessary.
Even though housing may be more expensive with these changes, the goal of “liberalizing” the code was achieved.
Councilor Sinks pointed out that these revisions seem like a work around to getting a property subdivided. The property could not be subdivided for separate ownership. A property with two houses would be much more expensive to sell.
If these changes are successful in increasing ADUs, the Councilors who voted for ADUs will be responsible for increasing property prices.
The other barrier, infrastructure costs, was discussed at some length during Planning Commission and Council meetings. The infrastructure fees are set by water districts individually and are not under city control. Rather than acknowledging this fact, Planning Commission Chair Kolkmeier and Councilor Roger Low enlisted the help of State Representative Chris DeGruy-Kennedy to change state law, asking to restrict a district’s ability to set infrastructure costs. This would make existing customers responsible for paying for necessary capacity increases to accommodate new building. That proposed legislation, HB24-1463, was largely defeated. No one at the state or city level explained, or even seemed to know, what the infrastructure fee would pay for, despite explanations available from resident water districts (see below).
Councilor Jacob LaBure picked up the gauntlet of problematic costs by suggesting the creation of a housing fund that the city can use to pay for people’s infrastructure costs. This suggestion was heard before during meetings on Strategic Housing. Lakewood has already subsidized tap fees before through the Community Grant Program.
The State of Colorado also passed new legislation regarding ADUs this year. That bill, HB24-1152, will require that Lakewood remove owner-occupancy provisions. However, as a home-rule city, Lakewood always has the option to challenge state law for the right to local government. As Lakewood attorney Lauren Stanec said, “if the city decided they wanted to comply with the state ADU bill….”, presumably meaning that as a home-rule city, Lakewood always has the option to fight for its right to local government. The city could remove the owner-occupancy provision now. Lakewood did not, and passed all changes as originally proposed by the Planning commission.
Scorecard: Expanding Additional Dwelling Unit Possibilities in all R1 zones
Denver and Colorado are being sued for rules on climate goals and greenhouse gas emission standards that the City of Lakewood is considering adopting. Denver and Colorado both approved a building performance standard that would force builders, landlords and homeowners to meet emission goals through green remodeling and electric appliance retrofits. Lakewood also has building performance standards through its Article 13. Lakewood takes four times as many climate mitigation and adoption steps as other cities, leading to Lakewood being named a leader in climate action. Lakewood is one of only 119 cities around globe to take steps like building standards. Rule 28 in Denver and Colorado goes even further by requiring “benchmarking” performance since 2021. Based on building performance, it is now time for required cuts, leading to a lawsuit by the Colorado Apartment Association, the Colorado Hotel and Lodging Association and others. The cuts will require costly remodeling. In August of 2023, Lakewood staff recommended the city join Denver and Colorado in the benchmarking program, described below, that only about 30 cities throughout the nation have adopted. However, these policies are not market-tested and they are extreme enough that Denver and Colorado are being sued. If Lakewood leadership adopts the additional staff recommendations, or agrees to recommendations from the LAC on Green Remodeling, the city may find also find itself in the news and in legal jeopardy.
State and local governments don’t have a right to require expensive renovations and appliance swaps to cut greenhouse gases, group suit says – by Michael Booth4:08 AM MDT on Apr 25, 2024
Is Being a Leader a Good Thing?
In a “you say potato…” moment, the lawsuit in Denver shows that one person’s leader is another person’s extremist. Not everyone agrees that going where these climate policies lead is worth it. While the debate rages over climate science, policy makers rarely point out that there are two sides to the story, in order to promote their narrative. Climate policies have real-world economic consequences that could make housing even more expensive.
Lakewood already has an Enhanced Development Menu that requires new development to meets a point scheme, based on the Menu options, that achieves climate goals of rolling back emissions in compliance with state goals. Development is thereby prohibited unless it meets climate goals. The policies Lakewood is currently advocating align with Colorado’s Rule 28 that monitors energy usage for buildings not already covered by the state. This process is called benchmarking, which Lakewood staff describe as “the regular monitoring and reporting of an individual building’s energy consumption to track changes over time and monitor progress towards increased efficiency and decreased GHG emissions.”
While the process may sound routine and innocuous, this program must be put in place before the government can have access to private energy-use data.
Once in place, the data can be used to set the bar and start imposing usage limits, incentives, conversions, etc. Lakewood is specifically talking about the switch from gas-powered to electrical tools and appliances.
Excel energy use from customer bills. This monitoring could be shared with the city for benchmarking.
The Colorado and Denver rules currently only apply to commercial and multi-family units but the policy puts them to the left of cities like Boulder, as seen in the map below. In fact, Denver is second in the nation only to San Francisco. Being on the forefront of the climate change debate gets Denver in the news but it also attracts lawsuits. And Lakewood is recommending these same actions.
Lakewood is taking things a step further and seeking similar solutions for residential homes, the details of which can be found at the city website, with more from the Lakewood Informer news site.
Back in August, Lakewood staff were enthusiastic about Lakewood becoming another purple dot on the map below, which would show their leader/extremist tendencies, depending on your viewpoint. Will that change once the lawsuits start?
A city that for over a decade has not only refused to do economic development (in a true sense), but has lost jobs and is now planning to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize developers, under the guise of “economic development.”
A city that, for over a decade, has done nothing to improve the path conditions along Alameda Avenue, in Ward 4. Nor have any improvements have been made to alleviate the traffic increases at Union and Alameda.
To be fair, the city did spend an untold amount of money to add “roundabouts” on Green Mountain Drive. Perfectly placed to create a road hazard with any amount of snow.
A city that has been lecturing the citizens about how the citizens should be planting trees, to cool the city, you know? The same city that is now allowing an-out-of-state developer to destroy a much-beloved park at Belmar, while chopping down dozens of decades-old trees.
A city where for years now the recreational fields at Carmody Park are in an awful shape. Fields where parents actually pay a fee to have their children play.
They “fixed it” this year:
And this is a park that has favorable political sunshine on it.
A city, where instead of maintaining the hiking and biking trails damaged by runoff, a sign is placed, telling you to be careful. You should see what the head of parks gets paid, though.
A city, where the City Council goes in to executive sessions, to decide on even more perks for a City Manager, while the needs of thousands of residents are ignored and the city is millions over budget:
A city, where the citizens are lectured about how they should not be driving, to save the environment and stuff. While the city has failed to champion any sort of real economic development, so that thousands of people would not have to drive out of the city for work.
A city, where the citizens are told not to drive, while the aforementioned City Manager gets paid for mileage, just to go to work. A City Manager that lives in the city. Gets paid to drive to work. Do you?
Here is an exert from City Manager’s contract:
Source: Lakewood City Manager Contract
The taxpayers, it seems also get to pay for the privilege of the department heads using the medical benefits, after they leave. Do you get a perk such as that with your employer?
The City Manager also has a retirement perk that seems more geared for a CEO than a “public servant”.
In just one year, the city spends about $100,000,000 just on staff alone. To be fair, some of that is police, which the city’s council has been hamstringing from even enforcing the laws that exist.
Here are the compensation numbers, just for the “department heads” (as of two years ago – you may want to see the updated ones for 2024):
As you walk around the neglected parks and drive on Kipling where the road surface has been in need of repair for years and most of the lights are out on some of the sections, may be think about asking the city what has it done with the tens of millions it receives every year, before even getting to the TABOR refunds? Perhaps start off by looking at the expenditure trends of the planning and city manager’s departments?
So when Lakewood asks for your TABOR refund (for parks and police of course), ask the city – why are millions spent on just the planning and the city manager’s offices alone and why is the city millions over budget every year? The cuts should have happened years ago, with money saved then be used for the parks, police, economic development and road and infrastructure maintenance. But, instead, the city is now spending thousands of dollars of your money for marketing research to see how to manipulate the residents in to allowing the city to keep millions more from the TABOR-mandated refunds.
Lakewood citizens are becoming increasingly frustrated over the amount of shoplifting, vandalism, and “less important” crimes that are not being pursued by the police. And rightfully so!
Not long ago, my wife and I watched a man, pushing a shopping cart full of items at Home Depot, breeze through the self-checkout area – bypassing the opportunity to pay for the items – and head to the parking lot. We looked at the cashier/attendant with stunned expressions on our faces, as we watched the Home Depot personnel do nothing. Her response was, “The police won’t do anything, so we just let them go.”
For a fleeting moment, I thought about canceling my purchase and just loading the items in the cart and heading to my car… Remember, I said “for a fleeting moment.” I wonder if I would have been treated in the same manner as the thief who had the shopping cart full of items. Chances are good that Home Depot would have alerted the police if I tried to steal the same merchandise.
If I had been pursued by the police and the other person wasn’t, it would be a case of “Selective Prosecution.” Selective prosecution should be distinguished from “Prosecutorial Discretion.” Historically, prosecutors have had broad discretion to pursue those cases where the facts support a conviction and elect not to pursue matters where the facts are less clear. However, as we read the news the lines between “Prosecutorial Discretion” and “Selective Prosecution” have become blurred – perhaps intentionally.
“Prosecutorial Discretion” has been in the news recently when a federal prosecutor elected not to charge Mr. X in a matter relating to stolen classified documents. Mr. X kept those documents in his garage next to his Corvette. In electing not to indict Mr. X, the prosecutor noted that he was an elderly man with a poor memory and those facts made it problematic in obtaining a conviction. Many legal authorities believed this prosecutor’s decision was far more political than legal, thereby removing this case as a matter of traditional and historical “prosecutorial discretion.” After all, the prosecutor had the individual “dead to right.” The facts were indisputable. In reality, the results of this case amounted to “Selective Prosecution” rather than “Prosecutorial Discretion.” Don’t think for a minute that you or I would not be indicted if Top Secret documents were found in your garage next to your Ford station wagon… even if we were old and had a poor memory.
The City provides disparate treatment to different classes of individuals.
Therein lies a big problem for the City of Lakewood (or any municipality). The City provides disparate treatment to different classes of individuals. The City seems to rely on some form of “prosecutorial discretion” for its diversionary programs that elect not to charge certain classes of individuals with crimes even though the facts of the crime are indisputable. Or, in the alternative, dismissing or reducing charges for those classes of individuals. In reality, it is “Selective Prosecution,” and it is only a matter of time before Lakewood citizens decide they are fed up with being treated this way. Based on current practices ANYONE can load up their cart at any store, and exit the store with the cash still in their pockets, knowing they won’t be prosecuted.
In other words, in the Home Depot scenario above, if the police elected not to charge the vagrant pushing the cart full of stolen property out of the Home Depot store, they cannot charge anyone pursuing the same activities. To do otherwise is “selective prosecution” which the courts have said violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. (The 14th Amendment is often referred to as the Equal Protection Clause.)
Some might suggest that a law that isn’t enforced should be removed from the books, or in the alternative, in the case of shoplifting, making it legal if it is under a certain dollar threshold. The “theory” is that people who need items like food to survive would have this resource. There again, legal authorities have said that you cannot prosecute only certain classes of people. If a vagrant can’t or won’t be charged then no one can be charged. That is the essence of the prohibition of “selective prosecution.”
Lakewood City Council seems to think that shoplifting by anyone who can say they need the items for food to survive, should not be prosecuted. Likewise, other “low-level” crimes like panhandling/washing your window at the stop light, and public urination/defecation are not worthy of attention by the police. But remember City of Lakewood – if you allow one group to get away with something, you must allow all.
Most honorable citizens believe that all crimes should be pursued and pursued equally. As parents, we know that if you don’t enforce the small stuff, it becomes impossible to enforce the big stuff. This isn’t rocket science but it is a matter of fair treatment of all citizens and all businesses. If everyone started pushing their shopping carts out of Home Depot, King Soopers, or Walmart, without paying, those stores would be closed and Lakewood’s tax revenue would be in the toilet.
