Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

news

Glennon Heights Elementary Goes to Private Daycare

Information provided by Lakewood resident Anthony Farr. Thank you! Jefferson County School Property Disposition Advisory Committee recommends selling Glennon Heights Elementary to Jacob Academy, a private daycare facility. Jacob Academy hopes to serve 205 children at this location. Lakewood did not offer to buy this for community parkland like it did for Vivian Elementary. Many Lakewood council members feel Ward 4, where Glennon Heights is located, has more than its fair share of parks already. However, the property will utilize the existing school building and space for the new daycare. The final sale approval will be made November 14. There will be no other public involvement. One developer did not pursue buying the property after discussing the situation with Lakewood. The recommended bid came in under appraised value. Newly constructed homes near Glennon Heights at West Exposition Ave and South Oak St remain mostly empty, with steady price drops since they were made available for rent in February, 2024. Those units were not available for sale. The school board briefly discussed whether this daycare would be a direct competitor for state education dollars, since preschool is now a subsidized, guaranteed business model. More research will be presented at the next school board meeting but due to buliding restrictions, such as safety doors, the public schools do not expect to expand preschool at this time. Glennon Heights sale contract details from school board presentation:

No More Gas Fireplaces?

Lakewood City Council Member Paula Nystrom and Jacob LaBure proposed banning gas fireplaces on October, 14, 2024. On the heels of two other proposals that night for increased sustainability measures, most Councilors urged for a deeper discussion of the topic at the council’s annual retreat. Councilor Rebekah Stewart was the only other “yes” vote on moving this ban forward. This discussion will be included again later in the zoning update tentatively scheduled for May, 2025 The city is already moving forward to fund electrification efforts, which include eliminating all gas appliances. As recommended by Lakewood’s Sustainability Committee, funding incentives would be provided for residents to voluntarily change their appliances, after which, mandates would be needed for everyone else. When asked whether Council is advocating for electrification, then-Councilor Wendi Strom responded that Lakewood was just in the research phase. According to the 2025 budget Q&A, Lakewood has moved beyond research without a Council policy vote and without further public discussion. Lakewood will be a part of five different programs to remove gas appliances in residential homes starting in 2025. The theory is that since grants are “free money”, no one could object and furthermore, the city’s Sustainability Plan calls for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 2007 levels by 2025 so no public discussion is needed. As Councilors LaBure and Nystrom point out, Lakewood is behind its goals. To assist in reaching those goals, all gas appliances will have to be replaced with arguably more expensive and less efficient electric appliances. The goal does not address how to power the new electric infrastructure given the grid cannot handle the current load. It also does not address the legal problems caused by similar demands to the commercial property world. There is no word on how to reverse or stop Lakewood’s policy of encouraging high-density growth, which led to more people with more gas appliances over the past decade. Funding programs according to budget Q&A: Scorecard: Banning Gas Fireplaces Strom: Nay Shahrezaei: Nay Sinks: Nay Mayott-Guerrero: Nay Cruz: Nay Stewart: Aye Low: Nay Olver: Nay Rein: Nay LaBure: Absent Nystrom: Aye

Janssen/Menten Proved Right – Lakewood Illegally Over-taxed

In 2023, then-Council Member Mary Janssen and resident Natalie Menten brought to light that Lakewood’s City Charter had a revenue cap to protect residents from rapid property tax increases. Most of city leadership said Janssen and Menten were totally wrong and besides, leadership said, Lakewood needed the money. However, it turns out Janssen and Menten were not wrong, and Lakewood is now adjusting the 2025 mill levy to comply with the City Charter. There will still be a property tax increase for residents, but only half of the previously proposed increase. Lakewood did not explicitly state the reason for the change because residents can sue if the city of Lakewood was found to be over-collecting taxes. Instead, staff only referenced a “complex legal issue.” Per the new slide presented October 21 (below), the original mill levy would have resulted in $1,561,000 more taxes than 2024 ($872k + $ 689k). The Budget Book advertised this was a 6.2% increase over the 2024 REVISED BUDGET. However, the revised budget is over $1,000,000 more than the original 2024 budget. The mill levy to collect property taxes was set in the original budget. In reality, the original 2024 budget to 2025 budget numbers show a 13.5% increase. Lakewood has been collecting almost double the amount of property taxes allowed by City Charter section 12.12. No one has said that Mary Janssen or Natalie Menten was correct in their original interpretation of the City Charter, as presented to the Lakewood leadership on October 23, 2023. No one even said this change was because of the City Charter provision. Instead, there was only a vague sentence explaining that “a complex legal issue has been identified.” This was a tacit, belated, admission that Mary Janssen and Natalie Menten were right. The city had to lower their mill levy or risk getting sued by the residents for illegally over-collecting property taxes. For three public meetings on the budget, the mill levy recommendation was an increase to 4.711 mills (about $22 per tax bill). On Monday, October 21, 2024, during the fourth and final budget meeting, city staff recommended increasing the mill levy to only 4.496 mills (about $11 per tax bill). Lakewood could only increase the mill levy by about half the amount they wanted because according to the City Charter they can only collect 7% more in revenue than the previous year, not 13.5% as originally proposed. With this change, Lakewood will only collect about half the amount of property taxes in 2025 as originally proposed. Another tacit admission that something was wrong involved the lack of conversation surrounding this issue. Not one Council Member questioned why this lower levy was necessary, even though every Councilor – besides Councilor Olver – has advocated for more spending and higher taxes. The lack of opposition or even discussion was highly unusual and points to legal implications that Council may have been privately briefed on the issue. The entire mill levy reduction discussion and vote took less than one minute (41:49 min mark to 42:42 min mark). Councilor Olver pointed out this was still a property tax increase for Lakewood residents. However, some Councilors disagreed, including Councilors Low and Rein who called the change a tax decrease. Nevertheless, Olver did the math for 2025 from 2024 and stated, “I have to point out that 4.5 is greater than 4.2. That’s my math and I’m sticking to it.“

Janssen/Menten Proved Right – Lakewood Illegally Over-taxed

In 2023, then-Council Member Mary Janssen and resident Natalie Menten brought to light that Lakewood’s City Charter had a revenue cap to protect residents from rapid property tax increases. Most of city leadership said Janssen and Menten were totally wrong and besides, leadership said, Lakewood needed the money. However, it turns out Janssen and Menten were not wrong, and Lakewood is now adjusting the 2025 mill levy to comply with the City Charter. There will still be a property tax increase for residents, but only half of the previously proposed increase. Lakewood did not explicitly state the reason for the change because residents can sue if the city of Lakewood was found to be over-collecting taxes. Instead, staff only referenced a “complex legal issue.” Per the new slide presented October 21 (below), the original mill levy would have resulted in $1,561,000 more taxes than 2024 ($872k + $ 689k). The Budget Book advertised this was a 6.2% increase over the 2024 REVISED BUDGET. However, the revised budget is over $1,000,000 more than the original 2024 budget. The mill levy to collect property taxes was set in the original budget. In reality, the original 2024 budget to 2025 budget numbers show a 13.5% increase. Lakewood has been collecting almost double the amount of property taxes allowed by City Charter section 12.12. No one has said that Mary Janssen or Natalie Menten was correct in their original interpretation of the City Charter, as presented to the Lakewood leadership on October 23, 2023. No one even said this change was because of the City Charter provision. Instead, there was only a vague sentence explaining that “a complex legal issue has been identified.” This was a tacit, belated, admission that Mary Janssen and Natalie Menten were right. The city had to lower their mill levy or risk getting sued by the residents for illegally over-collecting property taxes. For three public meetings on the budget, the mill levy recommendation was an increase to 4.711 mills (about $22 per tax bill). On Monday, October 21, 2024, during the fourth and final budget meeting, city staff recommended increasing the mill levy to only 4.496 mills (about $11 per tax bill). Lakewood could only increase the mill levy by about half the amount they wanted because according to the City Charter they can only collect 7% more in revenue than the previous year, not 13.5% as originally proposed. With this change, Lakewood will only collect about half the amount of property taxes in 2025 as originally proposed. Another tacit admission that something was wrong involved the lack of conversation surrounding this issue. Not one Council Member questioned why this lower levy was necessary, even though every Councilor – besides Councilor Olver – has advocated for more spending and higher taxes. The lack of opposition or even discussion was highly unusual and points to legal implications that Council may have been privately briefed on the issue. The entire mill levy reduction discussion and vote took less than one minute (41:49 min mark to 42:42 min mark). Councilor Olver pointed out this was still a property tax increase for Lakewood residents. However, some Councilors disagreed, including Councilors Low and Rein who called the change a tax decrease. Nevertheless, Olver did the math for 2025 from 2024 and stated, “I have to point out that 4.5 is greater than 4.2. That’s my math and I’m sticking to it.“

Ward 4 Report with Police Chief and Venezuelan Gang Activity

Guest post from Joan from Lakewood On Wednesday, October 14, Ward 4 residents met with City Councilmen David Rein and Rich Olver in the fellowship hall of the Lutheran Church of the Master at Alameda Parkway and Jewel Street. This meeting was to have Lakewood Police Chief Philip Smith address some of the concerns that have been expressed at a previous meeting about shoplifting and auto property crimes. Police Chief Philip Smith gave some personal background. He has been in law enforcement for 41 years, serving in both north Boston and Roswell, New Mexico. He stated that he had a PhD. (His PhD is in Global Leadership with a concentration in Organizational Leadership). His dissertation was Bahamian Police Leadership and Organizational Culture Through a Transformational Leadership Lens. Chief Smith’s expertise lies in Transformational Leadership Theory, Organizational Leadership, and Organizational Culture. He received the degree from the Indiana Institute of Technology (confirmed by John RomeroPublic Information Officer Lakewood Police Department) and is confident in his leadership and staff. He expressed how many service calls that the police handle and how often the police service is not recognized because the citizens in general do not interact with the police on a day to day basis. He noted he is putting more police presence out into the community which has lead to a decrease in crime (I can attest that I personally witnessed this as often during the day I note a police car parked in the parking lot between the Walgreens and the Key Bank on the NE corner of Wadsworth and Alameda) Police Chief Smith then gave a narrative of the incident that happened near the Home Depot parking lot near Alameda and Pierce on 10/14/24 at approximately 1:15 pm. There were shots fired and one man was shot in the finger. Chief Smith also confirmed that one of the people involved was a Venezuelan gang member with tattoos and clothes identifying him as such. The shooter was arrested and taken into custody. Chief Smith went on to say that only .007% of Denver’s migrants were of Venezuelan origin but were responsible for 30-40% of the crime. Chief Smith stated that most of the service calls were in the northern and eastern boundary regions of Lakewood and a large number were domestic violence calls. At this point Chief Smith’s main message became “Don’t tolerate the Crime. Call Us.” Which led to an interesting discussion about the 911 dispatch system. This system seems to be overwhelmed from time to time and calls are being “lost.” If this is happening Police Chief Smith needs to know. Police Chief Smith shared some of his vision for the future including the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and drones to help make the department more efficient. He talked of a pilot program called Draft One which is connected to the body cameras and makes a hard copy report from the tapes. Hopefully this will reduce the paperwork that agents do by 66%. The drone program is still in the planning stages but his hope is to have a drone do a first response assessment allowing the police on the way to a call to see what is needed. This should minimize some of the over-response in some situations. Lastly, he addressed some of the problems with the camping restrictions and the window washing vendors in the streets of Lakewood. He stated that recently the ban for camping had been toughened from 72 hours to remain in the same spot to 48 hours. He also stated that the city attorneys are concerned about ACLU lawsuits with removing the window washers. On the whole Police Chief did a nice presentation although there was a question regarding UCR vs NIBRS and how that was affecting the crime rates and officers (Frankly this was a bit over my head) that was left unaddressed. Thank you Councilmen Olver and Rein for keeping your promise to bring the Police Chief to a public forum.

$466,000 for Weather Sheltering

Lakewood has budgeted an ongoing $466,000 for Severe Weather Sheltering. This is a separate initiative from the Navigation Center but for now, the Severe Weather Shelter operates out of the Navigation Center. Once remodeled, the Navigation Center will have full-time sheltering capabilities. The Severe Weather Shelter is only for times when the temperature reaches below 32 degrees. In Colorado, there are about 153 days a year below 32. Lakewood leadership has not yet reached a consensus on sheltering options for the very hot days, but that discussion is happening. These are two separate discussions, weather sheltering and everyday sheltering, to serve different needs for the homeless population. The result is more homeless sheltering options and an increased budget. Money will come from the city General Fund. A decision on where to have a permanent Severe Weather Shelter has not yet been disclosed. Lakewood has also set aside $300,000 from the Economic Development Fund to donate to unhoused non-profits, as well as $9.5 million to buy property for potential homeless initiatives.

Resident Fights Against the City Machine – TABOR

Lakewood resident Wendy Purcell has formed an issue committee to fight against Lakewood’s ballot initiative 2A to keep your TABOR refunds. This is a David vs Goliath story. What makes someone step up when the entire city government is against her? Lakewood Informer asked her. *Updated with links to previous articles below What made you decide to start an issue committee against the city’s TABOR initiative? We are so lucky to have Natalie Menten as our TABOR watchdog all these years in Colorado. I am a handful of concerned citizens that want to keep TABOR refunds for Lakewood residents. Thanks go to Mary Janssen & Lynnda Gies to help get the word out about the city of Lakewood’s TABOR constant requests to take our refunds away forever. Do you think you can compete with the big money the establishment has raised? Stevinson gave $10,000 and the majority of City Council has contributed. Yes we can Why do you think Lakewood can survive without your TABOR refund money? Every department is making statements about how dire things will be if they don’t get more money. Are they believable? No. The city needs a balanced budget to expand the city as quickly as possible without any pushback from the residents the city depends on.The city is lobbying through through taxpayer-funded communication agents and established facebook channels. How does an everyday resident like you get your message out? We had a few posts on a some websites. Lynnda Gies & I canvassed the intersection of Alameda & Garrison on 10/20/2024 & got a positive response from the drivers for voting NO on Lakewood 2A. Further Reading: City Uses Budget Presentation to Push TABOR Retention TABOR Will Be on the Lakewood Ballot City Seeks to De-Tabor but Over Collects Property Tax Give us your TABOR refunds, says Lakewood Lakewood Lobbies for Your TABOR Refund Lakewood and Jeffco To Spend Money To Keep Your TABOR funds Lakewood Budget Board Recommends Keeping Future TABOR Refunds

Public Support Requested for Whippoorwill Development

From Jonna Helm We will be at the City Council Meeting tomorrow (10/14/24) at 7pm and need your support and strength in numbers! There will be an opportunity to provide public comment for anyone interested. Address: 480 S. Allison Parkway, Lakewood  Public Comment and to attend online: Lakewood Speaks – Item 1 – Call to Order The City of Lakewood’s Housing Authority, dba Metro West Housing Solutions (“developer”), has submitted their 5th revision to the major site plans for the development at 1515 Whippoorwill (Williams Pointe Apartments) and the City has provided their redlines back on the revised site plans. Despite multiple City of Lakewood Planning Commissioners concerns on the lack of connectivity for this development and the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission’s plea to the developer and the City of Lakewood’s Planning and Engineering Departments to revise the major site plans for the safety of the intersection and the driveway redesign during the subdivision appeal, the developer did NOT submit any changes in their 5th revision of the Major Site Plans that would improve the safety or connectivity for this development and the surrounding community.   City of Lakewood Planning Commission Commentary regarding Williams Pointe 8-21-24 The City Planning Department has provided their redlines on this 5th version of the major site plans and is NOT requiring the developer to address any of these safety or connectivity issues. Major Site Plans do not have to go before the Planning Commission and are approved by the Director of Planning. Please ask City Council to recommend that the plans be turned over to the Planning Commission for review given the amount of public concern surrounding safety and connectivity. A formal request will be submitted to the City Attorney by Monday.  Major concerns still exist surrounding the development at 1515 Whippoorwill that Metro West Housing Solutions and the City are not addressing:  Car unable to get up W. 15th Place in Winter Please join us tomorrow and voice your concerns and /or show up to show support!  We will also be attending the Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday in which Metro West Housing is requesting to rezone a Single-Family Residential lot to Multi-Family Residential. This is along Alameda and adjacent to 2 additional apartment complexes. Unlike 1515 Whippoorwill, this seems to be a much more logical location for apartments given that it is adjacent to public transportation routes, employment opportunities and would be between two apartment complexes.  Hope to see you tomorrow and/or on Wednesday!  Thanks,  Jonna

Lakewood Will Not Deter Panhandling or Window Washers

Lakewood City Council stopped efforts by city staff to put up signs that would discourage panhandling or window washing. In July, Lakewood City Manager Kathy Hodgson proposed draft language that would ask residents not to give money to panhandlers. After getting feedback from Council Members in August, all efforts were put on hold. City Council apparently would not support putting such signs up. An online community discussion, summarized below, shows Lakewood residents are frustrated with Lakewood’s lack of action. Lakewood implies permission by continuing to deny action against it. The proposed signs would not be a solution by itself. In fact, it would have blamed the givers rather than addressing the panhandlers. Other cities post signs similar to those below. Douglas County has claimed to have “nearly eradicated its own unhoused population with a simple message to its citizens: “Handouts Don’t Help.”” A recent discussion on nextdoor.com started with one Lakewood resident wishing that Lakewood would follow Arvada’s example by posting signs discouraging window washers. From the discussion, it is clear that most residents are frustrated with the presence of window washers in Lakewood. The key sentiments include: Overall, the general consensus leans toward a desire for stricter regulation or a complete ban on window washing at intersections, driven by safety concerns and the negative experiences of many residents. (Note: discussion summary and conclusion by ChatGPT)

No Increase to Crime Enforcement in Budget

Lakewood Police Department continues to try to reduce crime through methods other than increased law enforcement. Crime reduction is not mentioned as an expectation or result-benefit to any department goal in the 2025 Budget Book. For example, to meet the goal of “preserving a safe and peaceful community“, the police department will “encourage residents to use alternative reporting options for non-emergency incidents“. This will allow police to respond to emergencies faster, but does not increase response time to all calls or increase number of calls responded to overall. Average response time and number of calls were not given. Lakewood Police have been critiqued for not responding to calls in Lakewood news. Presumably crime reduction will follow some of these initiatives. Other goals include “enhancing the public’s perception of safety“. For this goal, the police department will work with Human Resources to make sure police employees meet diversity standards, and ensure prompt completion of internal affairs cases. This assumes the public is aware of the results of internal affairs cases. To “provide the highest possible level of customer service to the citizens of Lakewood” the police will disperse grant funds in low- and moderate-income areas for code enforcement. There is no mention of enforcement targets, statistics, or crime enforcement priorities. For example, will drug use continue to be de-prioritized? Recently enacted new speed limits and traffic cameras are not mentioned. Lakewood Police are not asking for additional staff in 2025. Instead, they will take advantage of Artificial Intelligence to streamline police report writing by using new software from Axon called Draft One. Some initial reviews of the software are very positive while others call out controversial points. “One of the most pressing concerns is the well-documented propensity of AI models, particularly those based on large language models like OpenAI’s GPT-4, to “hallucinate” facts and perpetuate biases present in their training data. In the context of police reports, which carry significant weight in the criminal justice system, even minor inaccuracies or biases could have devastating consequences for individuals’ lives and liberties.” –Felipe Chavarro, Tech Ethicist

Scroll to top