Tag: Lakewood

Guest Post by Bill Foshag

Lakewood City Council held a regular business meeting on February 12, 2024 to discuss a number of items including a resolution on the Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan and adopting an ordinance to accept a DOLA (Department of Local Affairs) grant to purchase and renovate a property on West Colfax that will house a Navigation Center.  The meeting was well attended by a number of residents who were interested and concerned about these two issues. 

Migrant Concerns

One of the main concerns that many expressed during the public comments, as well as an earlier town hall meeting on February 6th, was that recently closed public schools, the Navigation Center, and possibly city facilities would be used to house migrants being relocated to Denver, which would make Lakewood a de-facto sanctuary city.  The basis for these concerns stemmed partly from the City Council meeting in January in which the City Manager, Kathy Hodgson, was instructed to meet with leaders of the City and County of Denver to “discuss all feasible options for Lakewood to do more to support our region’s response to the growing migrant crisis and influx of our new neighbors, and to report back to us (City Council) with options”.  Language used by council members during the meeting, words such as “our new migrant neighbors” and “welcoming”, seemed to indicate sanctuary status for Lakewood was the direction in which council was headed.  At the February 12th meeting, Ms. Hodgson reported that she and her staff had met with Denver officials, and no request was made of Lakewood for hotel, motel, or congregate facility support for the migrants. She also noted that “Denver is actually winding down the program related specifically to housing migrant newcomers”.    Some suggestions for assistance from her meeting with Denver officials include hosting migrant families in willing resident’s homes, donating food, clothing, and cash to the organizations in Denver that are providing assistance, and volunteering with organizations in Denver that are providing aid.

Strategic Housing Plan

The resolution on the Strategic Housing Plan and the ordinance on the Navigation Center were both approved, with Ward 4 Councilman Rich Olver casting the lone “no” votes on both.  Although both measures passed, there are still questions and concerns that remain.

The resolution to adopt the Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan calls for the plan “to (be) use(d) as a framework for future housing policy and for the development of strategies and action steps for increasing affordable housing options in Lakewood into the future”.  The plan was prepared with input from City Council, City Planning staff, the 2023 Housing Advisory Policy Commission, a number of housing professionals, and Gruen Gruen + Associates, a consulting firm compensated with funds from a DOLA grant.  Under “housing professionals”, the plan’s acknowledgements list a number of other individuals not affiliated with City government, two of whom are identified as “active citizens”. No homeowner associations are noted in the acknowledgements of the plan. The plan includes selected comments from members of the community. 

 The plan, as described by several council members, is a framework or pathway for future planning to provide more affordable housing to Lakewood residents to help alleviate the problems of increasing housing costs and homelessness. According to the final report, “The foundation of this Plan is to strengthen policies that assist Lakewood’s most vulnerable residents, including low-income households, working families and individuals, older adults, and Lakewood’s unhoused population; and improve the functioning of the housing market to meet a diverse range of housing needs”. 

A common remark from the neighborhood associations was a feeling they were not included in the preparation of the Strategic Housing Plan. 

At the Lakewood City Council meeting, several people spoke up during the public comments, representing themselves or neighborhood associations.  A common remark from the neighborhood associations was a feeling they were not included in the preparation of the Strategic Housing Plan.  They believe that community associations need to be included and recognized as stakeholders in the planning process.  One of the representatives also listed off a number of non-governmental organizations in their community that are already providing services to the needy and homeless.  The implication being that perhaps we already have the resources in the community to address the housing issues.   Of particular note along these lines is that aside from the two “active citizens:” noted in the acknowledgements of the plan, are nine others who are associated with non-governmental (i.e. for-profit) real-estate development or brokerage firms. This raises serious questions about whose interests this report represents, the residents of Lakewood or the real estate businesses that possibly stand to profit from the plan.  While the importance of input from real estate professionals is not being entirely dismissed, more representation from residents and neighborhood associations whose communities will be impacted by actions taken from this report must be considered and should receive at least equal representation.

Implications taxpayer money would be paid to developers

The plan includes four strategies and action items: invest in affordable housing, expand overall affordable housing supply, expand housing choices and services for residents, and keep residents stably housed. Under “invest in affordable housing”, wording is included “would provide financial support for housing programs and incentives to encourage the production of more affordable housing units”, and “voluntary program that encourages private developments to build affordable units by offering a range of incentives”.  This wording implies taxpayer money would, in some way, be paid to developers as an incentive to build affordable housing.  What other options did the preparers of this plan consider to encourage development of affordable housing without the use of taxpayer funds?  The plan also includes discussion of small lot zoning, smaller housing units and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).  Does this mean the city will consider allowing developers to purchase existing homes, remove the existing structure, subdivide the property, and build small homes on the subdivided lots? What is the impact on the community of increasing population density resulting from small lot zoning? Do our residents really want more high-density housing?   The plan also states “the city could deploy local funds to supplement down payment assistance programs”.  City Council needs to consider that someone needing a subsidy for a down payment may not have sufficient income to support the mortgage, and perhaps those funds would be better used to subsidize rent until the individual can afford the down payment and mortgage (while home ownership and building equity, is a generally a good thing, it may not be the best solution for everyone).  We should also consider what kind of housing do we want – how do we arrive at a comfortable balance of rental units versus privately owned condos/townhomes and houses? 

To what extent should governments be subsidizing housing in Lakewood?  Are there any instances that demonstrate that government subsidies have actually decreased the cost of anything, or do government funded subsidies actually increase costs for everybody? These are some questions that community members raised that City Council has not yet fully addressed.  More community input and participation from neighborhood associations is necessary before moving forward with the housing plan. 

Navigation Center

The second major news topic discussed at the February 12th City Council meeting concerns accepting and moving forward with the $9.5 million funding to purchase, renovate, and operate a Navigation Center on West Colfax.  The funding in large part comes from a DOLA grant, with a smaller amount funded from other sources.  According to Lakewood’s website, “the city will serve as a pass-through agency for this grant to allow RecoveryWorks to provide increased and immediate access to services for those without stable housing in a central location at 8000 W. Colfax Ave.”  RecoveryWorks was founded in 2019 and had been operating for a couple of years at 7011 West Colfax before moving to the 8000 West Colfax location late last year.  According to RecoveryWorks website, “we provide and facilitate access to comprehensive and integrated medical respite, recovery, housing and employment services for those who have few or no resources”.   James Ginsburg, executive director of RecoveryWorks, was present at the City Council meeting and provided additional information about the center and how the funds from the grant will be spent.  According to Mr. Ginsburg, approximately $5 million of the grant will go towards the purchase of the building at 8000 West Colfax, Lakewood, Colorado (currently, the space is being rented).   An additional $4 million of the grant will go towards significant rehab of the building, including building out office space, and adding shower and restroom facilities.  He also mentioned the facility would ideally provide 100 beds as a 24/7 transitional housing shelter, with no time limits on how long those being sheltered could remain at the facility.  Annual operating expenses are estimated to be in the $2 million range. Responding to comments from a council member, Mr. Ginsburg said that the target groups for the center are the elderly, veterans, disabled, and the medically frail. In addressing the concerns that migrants will take advantage of the facility, he stated that of the 350 individuals they have served in the last 2-1/2 years, only 9 have identified themselves as immigrants, and they were referred to immigration services.  He also commented that 95% of the people they serve are Jefferson County residents, and 80% grew up in Lakewood.

Resident comment on the navigation center

A number of citizens came forward during public comment with questions and concerns they feel have not been addressed by City Council on this ordinance. Many remarked the city should be spending funds on what they see as more pressing needs. They said that the services in Lakewood are already stretched thin and the city should not be taking on more obligations, but needs to focus first of those in need already in Lakewood, particularly the elderly, poor, and veterans. Others expressed fears the Navigation Center would become a magnet for other municipalities, including Denver, to send people in need from their communities.   Several others suggested the police department needs to strengthened, and focus on enforcing existing ordinances, particularly laws dealing with vagrancy, sex and drug trafficking, street side soliciting (panhandling), and compliance with Federal ICE protocols.  Concerns about personal safety and a general feeling of lawlessness in the city were expressed by a couple of residents.  One person mentioned cost overruns at other similar service centers that were in the news and questioned how Lakewood would be able to handle such a situation if and when it arises here.  Another resident suggested RecoveryWorks be accountable to the City, providing information on success rates on substance abuse recovery and getting people placed in permanent housing.  Most of these pressing concerns were not addressed during City Council’s discussion following public comment.  

The role of other governments

During City Council’s discussion, there were some brief mentions of other municipalities (Jefferson County and some neighboring cities) providing support for the annual operating expense of the Navigation Center if they refer their residents to Lakewood. There was no additional discussion at the meeting on details of any cost sharing proposals.  Because it was briefly mentioned (and in the context in which it was mentioned), this is something that apparently has been previously discussed among City Council members and others. Lakewood needs to know what to expect in terms of people coming in from outside of Lakewood seeking services provided by the Navigation Center. Are they residents of Arvada, Littleton, unincorporated Jefferson County, or elsewhere?  What kind of services will they be seeking at the Navigation Center in Lakewood – mental health, addiction recovery, housing assistance, or something else? How much will the referring municipalities reimburse the city for the cost of the people they send here?  These are questions that should have been addressed and answered before moving forward with accepting the DOLA grant.

Is there a pattern of success?

The question of efficacy is essential to understanding the degree of success of any program like what the Navigation Center is undertaking.  Some additional questions to help with this are “what are the success rates of other similar programs in similar metropolitan areas” and “where have programs like this succeeded (and failed) in the past, and why”.  Programs in cities like San Francisco, Portland, Baltimore, and elsewhere, have not been successful and those cities are now struggling with serious homeless and substance addition issues.  We would not want to model our programs based on programs that have not worked in other cities.  City Council should ensure the RecoveryWorks program is actually following the pattern of successful programs and is achieving its goal of preventing homelessness and getting people into stable and permanent housing.  Progress should be monitored at least quarterly and reviewed to see if changes are necessary to improve efficacy. Residents should be informed of the success rates quarterly and apprised major changes to the program that would affect the city or the communities in the vicinity of the facility.

Not a solution, only a first step

One other comment Mr. Ginsburg made which was repeated by a supporter during the public comments, was that the Navigation Center is not a solution to the city’s housing problems, but only a first step. Obviously, the challenges of homelessness, substance addiction, physical and mental health currently facing Lakewood are complex, and will require more resources than the Navigation Center can currently provide.  A couple of residents touched on this in their public comments.  The concern here is if the Navigation Center is only a stepping stone to solving the housing problem in Lakewood, what is the solution (or what are the solutions)?  Is City Council planning to expand the Navigation Center in the future?  Is City Council planning to bring in other programs and organizations to supplement the work of RecoveryWorks?  To arrive at a final solution for homelessness, what will the impact be on our neighborhoods, what will the costs be, and where will the funding come from?  The Strategic Housing Plan does not address problems of substance abuse and mental illness, both of which impact Lakewood’s housing needs.  So simply following the Strategic Housing Plan is not sufficient to fill in the gaps to eliminate the housing problem – something more is still needed.  City Council will need to address this and let the community know what their plan is and ease the concerns of residents and assure us they are moving the right direction. 

Were existing non-profits considered?

During the public comments and the discussions of the City Council members during the meeting, a number of other non-profit organizations operating within Lakewood were named.  These include the Jeffco Action Center, Jefferson Center for Mental Health, Mean Street Ministries, as well as several others.  These are all organizations that are trying to help people in need, including homeless, in our community.   Has City Council considered if partnering with one or more of these organizations could possibly achieve a lot of the same goals of easing the homelessness problems in Lakewood?   Or, possibly, do we have overlap of efforts among any of these organizations that could provide more assistance to those in need if they share or combine their resources (staff and facilities)?  These question were not posed during the meeting, but are things that City Council should consider.

Law enforcement considerations

Finally, City Council needs to consider the roll of law enforcement plays in this.  As pointed out by several residents in the public comments, there are valid concerns that laws governing sex and drug trafficking, drug possession and use, vagrancy, street side solicitation, and ICE compliance are not being enforced.  As a republic, we are governed not by people but by laws.  The laws are in place to protect people’s safety, property and well-being as a base for a stable society.  A number of residents in their public comments noted concerns for their own personal safety – some people no longer feel safe living and working in Lakewood.  Certainly panhandling and washing windows from the medians at Colfax and Wadsworth (or any other intersection) is not safe and should not be (and by statutes is not) allowed.  It is not up to City Council, law enforcement, judges, or prosecutors to decide which laws will be enforced and which ones won’t, especially laws that affect the safety and well-being of the community. City Council needs to review the needs of the Lakewood Police Department to see if additional officers are needed to ensure laws are properly enforced. If additional funding is needed, perhaps DOLA (or other) grants are available to provide the needed funds.

An informed government

Lakewood citizens need to continue using the City of Lakewood website to keep themselves informed about what is going on at City Hall. We also need to clearly communicate our concerns back to City Council by email, the LakewoodSpeaks website, telephone, at informal meetings the ward representatives periodically host, and at public comment at City Council meetings.  City Council and those working on these large scope plans need to consider all options with the resources currently available with more consideration of the concerns of the residents and neighborhood associations than went into the measures that were approved at the February 12th City Council meeting.  The city needs to carefully consider the impact (and possible unintended consequences) their decisions have on our communities and neighborhoods as a result of the plans they make.  It is also important that the City clearly communicate their plans and avoid wording that obfuscates their intentions. These issues currently facing Lakewood are no doubt complex.  We want to ensure the voices of the residents are heard, their concerns are addressed, and that future programs and plans undertaken by the City are effective, beneficial to all the members of the community, and are run in a fiscally sound manner.



Reader recommended business: Foothills Acupuncture

City Council Member Rich Olver was the only nay vote for the Strategic Housing Plan, which passed on February 12, 2024. He claimed it was a poisoned pill because it contained provisions that did not have public support, such as using abandoned school buildings for homeless services. Neighborhood associations came to voice their concern that stakeholders were not included. The associations were more concerned about the development strategies than the unhoused strategies. The associations’ comments show that although the plan was billed as affordable housing, there were two distinct pieces: more high-density development and plans for the homeless. Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero said the Housing Plan will work “hand-in-hand” with the Navigation Center. These items are all interconnected to give Lakewood the same framework that cities like Denver use to deal with the unhoused.

The message from February 12 was that a majority of Council want the plan passed; however, there was no clear consensus as to what the plan means.

Councilor Sinks said it would be good to have a roadmap to follow. Others spoke of discussions still to come. Councilor Low promoted strategies for eviction protection, Additional Dwelling Unit expansion and directly funding housing.

Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei said, “The action at this point is to adopt this framework. Nobody is agreeing tonight to all these strategies.  We are agreeing that there is a need for affordable housing.”

Agreeing to a need for affordable housing does not require even one page. The Strategic Housing Plan is 156 pages of strategies. Which strategies Council did not agree to was not discussed.  Instead of approving all strategies in one motion, each strategy could be adopted by separate motion after further discussion. In fact, many strategies will need to be adopted by modifying ordinance to implement.

Olver said this plan is not making more affordable housing, it is not stopping corporate land speculation, or increasing home ownership possibilities. He asked for more time to study, but no other Councilor agreed. Other Council Members had agreed to pass the plan at a previous study session.

Shahrezaei pointed out that the Strategic Housing Plan was funded by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), the same department that funded the navigation center, and that Lakewood could not even change the name of the product DOLA had paid for.

How much of Lakewood’s policy does DOLA fund?

Is accepting all this “free money” from DOLA leading Lakewood to take the steps the state wants, rather than the steps the local residents are asking for?

Olver went on to explain that housing migrants in the schools would not happen because that requires a public process to rezone an abandoned school into a residential area. Just like operating a shelter requires a special use permit that requires a public process, unless there is a very good reason. In the case of the navigation center, the city planned for it to be used as an emergency shelter but didn’t get a permit because it was an “emergency”. Now the city has accepted a grant requiring the land to be used as a shelter so there is an argument that there the city cannot NOT approve a shelter permit, regardless of how many people show up during public process. Experiences like these may have been in the minds of the people laughing at the words “public process” during the meeting.


Scorecard: Approve Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Aye

Stewart: Aye

Low: Aye

Olver: Nay

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye


Read previous articles about the Strategic Housing Plan:

Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan Update

Residents Will Pay for Development

Migrants and Housing

Not Affordable: More Market-Rate Housing Coming to Lakewood

Correction: Services, not shelter, to Move to Jeffco School


According to the article below, Recovery Works has completed the purchase of a motel in Lakewood. The motel will be an additional Jefferson County shelter and service center for the unhoused. Recovery Works is the same organization that will be running the new Navigation Center in Lakewood. Lakewood Council will vote on appropriating funds for the project on February 12, 2024.


Cross post from Mile High CRE

IMPACT Commercial Real Estate has announced the recent sale of a former motel that will now serve as the future home for a nonprofit organization, Recovery Works. This was not only a significant milestone for the community but a testament that commercial properties can transform into something that will make a positive impact on the community as well. 

The newly purchased 10,000-square-foot building is strategically located at 14825 W Colfax in Lakewood and will serve as a bridge center and resource for the unhoused in Jefferson County by referral. It will help people get back on their feet and find permanent housing for those in need. Recovery Works locations provide additional services, including meals, laundry capabilities and job programs for employment placement.

Read more….


Recent park land dedication discussions show that the policy is used for more than just adding parks for new residents. The policy could be used to extract fees from developers for other park services. The policy could also be used as a tool for preferential development. Or the policy can determine whether the city increases the number of parks or level of services. The review for this policy is overdue, but thanks to a motion from Council Member David Rein, it may be discussed soon.

The new development at 777 S Yarrow St did not require any land dedicated for parks for the new residents. The land dedication would have been of particular public interest since it is near Belmar Park. Instead of land, the city accepted a fee that will be used for undisclosed park services. The fee was set in 2018 so it may seem low in todays market. This so-called “fee-in-lieu” of park land dedication is the policy under discussion.

See more at savebelmarpark.com, including how this property does not pay taxes on full acreage

Paying a fee in lieu of dedicating land was made possible in a time of slow growth for Lakewood, when Lakewood officials decided there was enough park land. That is no longer the case but developers are accustomed to being able to pay a fee in order to maximize their land development. This pushes new residents into existing parks, putting strain on those resources.  Ironically, fees collected today are supposedly going to buy parkland.

During periods of slow-growth, cities try to incentivize growth by setting fees that are more palatable to developers who want to maximize the small, in-fill projects that occur after the initial urban sprawl. The next phase, the one that Lakewood is currently in, is where the city returns to high-growth, except this time the growth is high-density. Dense growth still requires the same amount of park land, including parks close to home. This is especially true of dog parks for apartment residents.

Does the city repeal fee-in-lieu of land that was meant for slow-growth times of incentivizing development? Not usually, as shown in this article of park policy over time.

Discussions have not evolved to making land dedication easier for high-density developments. The fear is that returning to land dedication would slow development. However, land dedication may be the only way to serve neighborhoods. As Council Member Mayott-Guerrero points out, the city has had problems purchasing land in high-density areas.

Neighborhood Parks versus Other Parks

The problem is partially of public perception. Providing open-space for a new development has historically included a neighborhood park within the development. That way of thinking also aligns with the modern-day vision of a 15-minute city, with everything in walking distance. Clearly neighborhood parks are still highly desired but that is no longer being considered for high-density growth, as the public would define park space.

High-density growth packs more people into less space, meaning there is less space for parks as well. “Open space” does mean green space or park space. In fact, “open space” requirements can be fulfilled by garbage dumpster areas, or in a pinch, access to the roof.

And when was the last time parking was expanded for regional parks like Hayden Park on Green Mountain?

Per Municipal Code 14.16.020, Lakewood's park standards shall be a minimum of 10.5 acres of park per 1,000 people.
Lakewood Municipal Code

Taking

Park land dedication is intended to provide park services to the new residents of the development. Courts have upheld passing these costs through developers to new residents. This is different than if a city would demand land or fees to pay for unrelated costs or services, which would constitute a “taking”.

A taking is “is when the government seizes private property for public use.” For example, when former Mayor Paul stated that he wanted to use the fee in lieu of land for equity, to look at parks in other neighborhoods, there is no longer a direct link to services for the new residents and could constitute a taking. (see more about the Westword article at savebelmarpark.com)

“Realizing that there’s a lot of other parts of our city that don’t have a lot of parkland, especially in some of our lower-income areas, it was really an equity thing for me,” Paul says. 

Excerpt from the Westword

However, it gets tricky. It is only taking if the city admits they are using the fee for other residents or the developer can prove intent. It is not taking if the city says the policy is to use fees to increase parks in some other space for new residents to drive to. Lakewood’s official policy is that dedications “shall be reasonably related to the needs of the residents of the proposed development.”

Development Tool

Council Member Jacob LeBure  pointed out that past park dedication policies involved leveraging the policy to control or incentivize development.

For example, if Lakewood enforced the policy of neighborhood parks, the Yarrow Street project would have required 3 acres of land dedicated to parks. Enforcing land dedication might cause this development to stop.

Councilor Mayott-Guerrero says these fees are “barriers and leverages for how to better encourage affordable housing.”  For that reason, she encourages the park discussion to be part of the Strategic Housing Plan.

Is the Government Providing Parks or Controlling Housing?

The question is, is this policy about providing parks for new residents or affordable housing.

History shows that when government officials try to leverage their power for outside purposes, they may be outclassed. As pointed out by parks expert Dr. John L Crompton, “Developers frequently are represented by specialist lawyers and consultants whose expertise typically far exceeds that of local city planners, so taxpayers are disadvantaged.”

As LeBure says, evaluating different developments is a cumbersome process and you don’t always get the outcome you want.

If City Council’s priority is to enable housing development, they would necessarily have to sacrifice some neighborhood open space and endure the fall out of the new residents asking for more parks.

Council Member Rein explains his motion is actually simpler than all this. He would like to listen to staff suggestions, not discuss or make Council decisions, which will come later.

Correction: The Denver7 article said that migrants were causing enrollment to go up and enrollment at Slater went up by 50 students. The two statements were apparently unrelated to migrant enrollment. 12 February, 2024

Several new migrant families have started attending Foothills Elementary school in Lakewood. This information comes after the Denver7 report that 50 migrant students were attending Slater Elementary in Lakewood, indicating that the migrant influx continues. Jefferson County Schools have not yet replied to official requests for information (made only late on 2/9/24). An accurate head count may not be possible as the number of migrants attending school continues to change.

A large, sudden influx of students this late in the year will present challenges for the entire school community. Denver is currently dealing with the issues inherent with a large influx of non-english speaking students this late in the year. According to the Denver Post:

“DPS, which has a $1.3 billion budget, also has drawn from reserves to help make up the difference, district spokesman Bill Good said. The district is now working to hire more Spanish-speaking teachers and other support staff.”

“Our system was never built to handle this kind of challenge,” said Rob Gould, President of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. “You’re taking an already stressed system and applying more stress to it.”

From Migrant influx leaves Denver Public Schools short $17.5 million in funding as students keep enrolling

According to the article, Denver has needed more bus routes, more furniture, more teachers, and more classrooms. New York schools ran special classes for processing and assimilation.

There is no indication that Jefferson County Schools have enough licensed teachers or had public assimilation workshops. However, teachers are generally dedicated professionals who do their best in challenging situations. The children are in good hands.

Jefferson County is listed on some sites as being an official sanctuary county.  Records show that Jefferson County has not detained a single person for ICE in over a year.

Migrants find access to Lakewood resources through the non-profit network set up to help homeless. This at a time when Lakewood is set to approve the largest homeless assistance appropriation in it’s history, on Feb 12, 2024. Almost all homeless resources are available without an ID required.


When Lakewood voted to take the first step in helping with Denver’s migrant crisis, residents interpreted that as Lakewood becoming a sanctuary city. Lakewood immediately cried misinformation. At the emergency citizens’ townhall of February 6, 2024, several speakers addressed concerns over Lakewood’s sanctuary status, saying that Lakewood is not using the word “sanctuary” and is not discussing that issue. However, by a show of hands at the meeting, attendees thought the current role of Lakewood Police and Lakewood’s offer to support migrants would match both the proposed support and the definition of a sanctuary city. Both set of words applied to the same actions. Yet Lakewood still spent tax dollars and energy on a campaign to cry “misinformation.” Resident comments show that the meeting was useful to talk to each other, as much as it was useful for gathering information.

Lakewood has a taxpayer funded PR department that can respond instantly to crises. In this case, the crisis was the residents’ concern over the possible “sanctuary” status of our city. Within a couple days, Lakewood had a new website that included a public statement which was also widely circulated (see below).

Lakewood migrant information website

(above) Lakewood also had a flyer circulating on social media sites that most residents would not even know existed so would have a hard time advertising on. At the same time, residents had difficulty on Nextdoor.com, which kept stripping posts of the meeting and discussion on the matter.

Despite the problems, residents came by the hundreds to learn about Lakewood’s plans to support migrants. Speaker Karen Morgan (disclosure: this author is Karen Morgan) said,

“We all operate with different ears. I might say one thing and you hear another. For example, it’s absolutely true that Council is not discussing anything using the word “sanctuary”. They use words like good neighbor, welcoming, inclusive, supporting, sheltering…”

The audience laughed as they recognized that all these words meant the same thing. One resident commented after the meeting, “thank you for making that point, I was going to say the same thing.”

An interesting note is that in the city’s flyer above, “sanctuary city” and “being a good neighbor” are in quotes, as though even Lakewood recognizes these are just words with fluid meaning. At the same time, they imply one is right and the other is wrong.

Other resident comments:

One resident said they understood Lakewood was just taking the first step, but this was opening the door and the time to stop it was now.

Yet another resident said he will be at the February 12 Council meeting to show support. He said that the Citizens’ Meeting was a great way to reconnect with some old friends.

Another asked for the address to City Hall. He has never participated before but he will be there.

Several people commented that the problem was the lack of accountability of the City Manager, Kathy Hodgson who has the ability to work behind the scenes.

At least a dozen residents told this author personally that the meeting was needed, they wished the city had done something like this.

Other residents were interested in information and the Citizens’ Meeting was an opportunity to find answers.

  1. Did the Mayor really go to Harvard?
  2. What’s really happening since the City says misinformation?
  3. What can we do to stop this?

Was there misinformation?

In today’s world, one persons misinformation is another persons’ fact. No matter what, an important discussion is taking place and residents are participating in their government. Council Member Isabel Cruz stated in the January 8 meeting that “This is important to step up to our responsibility as good neighbors…This [approved motion] is only the first step.” And now, more Lakewood residents are engaged in discussions about what, if any, steps will follow.

One meeting organizer said, “This was about the citizens. They all pulled together, it wasn’t about the organizers. This was about everyone.”

It seems hundreds of attendees agreed with that.

In June 2023, the Lakewood Budget and Audit Board voted to recommend keeping future TABOR funds. To do that, they recommended finding a specialist to help find out what would make residents agree to this proposal. That decision seems to be proceeding, although requests for status have not yet been answered.

As this CBS News article points out, governments cannot spend money on political campaigns. Although keeping TABOR refunds will be a ballot issue, it is not now. Therefore, there is a loophole to be taken advantage of in order to craft a political message before announcing the ballot measure.

Jefferson County is doing the same so-called pre-campaigning for tax refunds. However, in the case of the county, they were very careful not to say that a decision had been made to keep the funds. Jeffco said they were just researching, which will include ways to craft ballot language.

Lakewood has already made the decision to keep the TABOR funds by a vote of the Budget and Audit Board. So a ballot issue is pending but is not yet announced. The Board discussed using the specialist to find out what residents would be willing to pay for so that they could use that language. Former Mayor Paul pointed out how successful that strategy was the last time.

Jefferson County was in the news for hiring a personal connection of Rep. Brittany Pettersen to research this TABOR issue.

Lakewood did not have to suffer this scrutiny because they reached out for three quotes that did not go over the limit which would require a public Request For Proposals. The decision did not come to Council as a separate policy decision that would require public discussion. The expense would have been included in the 2024 budget and approved at that time.

There is no word on the current status of this project. No Council Member responded to questions for status or where in the 2024 budget the funds were included.


Update 3 February 2024: Council Member Olver responded that the current Budget Board Council Members would be more likely to have answers. Currently that would be Councilors Rebekah Stewart, Jeslin Shahrezaei, Isabel Cruz.


Lakewood Informer banner

Reader Recommended Business: Go With the Flow Plumbing

Go With the Flow Plumbing logo

Fixing the bridge lights for RTD on the 6th Avenue overpass is an $800,000 budget item for Lakewood… to fix RTD property. The large line item caught the attention of Council Member Olver at the time. How did this get to be in the budget with no prior public discussion?

Why isn’t RTD paying for their own repairs?

A series of open-records requests reveal not a single communication in 2023 between RTD and any city official discussing the details of how the project came to be. Not who would pay or for what, not what they think the problem is, or why RTD cannot pay for it…. Nothing.

As seen in the highlighted screenshot below, open-records requests revealed an email between the RTD point of contact and Council Member Shahrezaei. Shahrezaei responded that she would speak over the phone. Phone conversations increase communication but cannot be provided through open records requests.

Email from RTD representative asking Counselor Shahrezaei how to proceed. Shahrezaei responds she will call.

As the Council representative to DRCOG, Councilor Shahrezaei is in frequent contact with regional boards like RTD.

The city shared that this project was submitted to the budget by the Public Works Department during the 2024 budget process. No communications came up between staff and RTD on this topic but the city says they have been in discussion about the project for years.


No Council Discussion but Presumed Permission

According to the city, this budget item aligns with City Council Goal 3, “Beautiful and Sustainable City.” Normally, setting goals is admirable but this statement reveals the public policy disparity with the City Council setting goals.

  1. Council sets goals that could apply to many applications
  2. Council is not allowed to direct staff so technically no Council Member can say “please do this project to fulfill this goal”
  3. Council can claim credit for staff achieving specific goals even when there has been no apparent public decision. (For example, the Navigation Center was not a specific goal)
  4. Throughout the year, staff can justify many new projects without public discussion thereby leading to conspiracy theories about Point #2. (Can you find RTD lights under the stated goals?)

Public and City Choose Different Bridges

These bridge lights will be beautiful – if they can stay lit. Unsubstantiated sources suggest that the lights cannot remain functional through the train vibrations that displace electrical wiring.

In the bigger picture, there was public outcry in 2023 for a different bridge. Public wanted to keep the use of a pedestrian bridge in Ravines Open Space park. 290 residents signed a petition to keep a bridge that will now be lost. For the price of the lights that are RTD property, the city could have kept the city beautiful a different way. Now those park users will have an unusable pipe-hanger while RTD gets bridge lights that will, certainly, be enjoyed by all.

Picture of existing bridge compared to possible trestle design replacement with no walkable surface

Footnote: then-Counselor Janssen did not receive any answers to her questions before Council voted to approve this budget.


Putting someone in jail for a low-level municipal offense is an unsatisfactory answer for people who believe jail is ineffective or harsh. Since jail is often the mandated penalty, Lakewood may take the “compassionate” route and dismiss the case if the alleged offender visits Community Outreach Court. The de facto penalty is then talking to housing and job providers, which isn’t a penalty but a helping hand. The result is dismissing all warrants for Failure To Appear in court, and often dismissing the original charge as well.

Charges that are often dismissed:

  • Having an open container
  • Sleeping in a public park
  • Shoplifting
  • Trespassing
  • Simple assault
  • Possession of drug paraphernalia
  • Indecent exposure (public urination)
  • Failure to Appear in court

Lakewood is working to reach out to the homeless community to bring them to Outreach Court. Lakewood homeless navigators and community members spread the word that if you come to court your warrants will be forgiven and your original case may be dismissed.

Is the law effective if Lakewood forgives all the cases?

Having a law that everyone knows will be dismissed is not an effective deterrent. In one case, an offender admitted to ongoing trespassing but because she talked to resource providers, thereby fulfilling the terms of the original trespass case, everything was dismissed.

Jail may be viewed as unreasonably harsh for unhoused individuals because they could lose their meager possessions with one overnight stay. There are arguments that jail is ineffective for anyone and low-level offenses are not worthy of jail. Another argument is that if you are trespassing (for example) because you are homeless, are you really committing a crime or being punished because you are homeless?

Being homeless is not a crime but dismissing these “crimes of homelessness” has consequences such as:

  • Effectively making the city a homeless sanctuary
  • Changing the public perception of how Lakewood enforces its own laws
  • Lowering effectiveness of law enforcement and justice system, as judged by cutting crime

There is opportunity for discussion here.

  • Do Lakewood residents believe that low-level offenses should not be punished? – Repeal the law
  • Is jail too harsh? – Modify for alternatives (For example, community service)
  • Is community service too hard to find? – Extend opportunities outside of non-profit service

Whether penalized with jail or having the case dismissed, the court is not responsible for an individuals housing. However, that is a role the court is taking on by acting as resource coordinator. The Court continues to work for grants for homeless and housing.

Community Outreach Court is presided over by Municipal Judge Nicole Bozarth, who was the only candidate for Municipal Judge on the 2023 ballot. She was previously appointed to the position in June 2022.


Reader Recommended Business: a SAFE HOME Gas Fireplace Service

The development near Belmar Park, on 777 S Yarrow, has brought into focus the “fee in lieu” provision of Lakewood, Colorado’s Municipal Code L.M.C. 14.16.010. These fees have not been reviewed, or changed, since 2018, resulting in potential under-compensation to the city. Historically developers have had to provide park land for their residents to use. The fee was instead of park land. Existing Lakewood parks would provide park services for the new development.

In light of the confusion regarding the fee in lieu of land dedication/policy the following was sent out to Council and staff on Dec. 31, 2023: 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lenore Herskovitz <[email protected]>
Date: December 31, 2023 at 2:56:12 PM MST
To: Wendi Strom <[email protected]>, [email protected], Kathy Hodgson <[email protected]>, Travis Parker <[email protected]>, [email protected][email protected]
Subject: Fwd: land dedication fee in lieu

“I don’t know if you’ve seen this before but this is the fee that was set by Director of Community Resources in 2018. The fee is determined by the Director. The ordinance was supposed to have been reviewed by Council no later than Dec. 31, 2023. Also, the fee is due at the time of site plan approval or can be delayed by the Director (Kit Newland) until building permit issuance. The amount to be paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of payment (although it is interesting to note that the fee mentioned in the document expired on Dec. 31, 2019). As far as I know, the fee has not yet been paid. There has been misinformation sent out by the planning department stating “the city staff cannot change this valuation without an act of Council”. However, 14.16.07B of the 2018 document says that the Director shall set the fee equal to fair market value…The only job of Council right now is to review this ordinance. Why was this not placed on the agenda months ago? Staff should have been well aware that this needed to be addressed before the end of the year and it should have been posted. Former Councilor Springsteen mentioned this in October and no action was taken. Why are we updating fees so rarely? Prior to 2018, the only ordinance addressing this was passed in 1983. Obviously, property values fluctuate greatly and fair market values should reflect that. How much potential revenue have we lost over the years due to this antiquated system of determining fees? Council should review this ordinance at the next scheduled meeting and alter the terms as needed.”


See ordinance and policy letter below:

Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info


Subscribe


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