So this morning 2/8/24, I went to the Lakewood City Council Building to attend the Lakewood City Council legislative meeting. I made an error as to the time so I showed up at 8:30 and the meeting had started at 8:00 am. I am not my best at early hours.
The legislative committee is made up of one member of each ward and they look at bills from the 2024 legislature that is considering issues/consequences that would impact the city of Lakewood.
2024 Committee Members Council member Glenda Sinks – Ward 1 Council member Isabel Cruz – Ward 2 Council member Rebekah Stewart – Ward 3 Council member David Rein – Ward 4 Council member Jacob LaBure – Ward 5
Rebekah Stewart (Ward 3) is the chair of the legislative committee.
When I walked in there was a discussion about a bill about occupancy. I believe it was HB24-1007. But could not confirm that was the bill they were discussing. They decided not to put it on the list because the target city was Ft. Collins and college towns and did not apply to Lakewood so they would just watch it and add it to the list later.
There was a little discussion lead by Councilman LaBure as to the need to define the role of the legislative committee.
And then Councilwoman Stewart asked if there was any other business and Adjourned the meeting.
I arrived at 8:30 and the meeting was adjourned at 8:36.
I went to speak to the Deputy City Manager about how they had not stated when the next meeting would be and he said “in two weeks if it was not canceled.”
So stay tuned.
Meanwhile ColoradoTaxpayer.org is a great resource for what is happening at the Legislature
Two weeks ago, Lakewood Informer opened a survey to find out what residents were thinking about supporting the homeless and migrants. Lakewood doesn’t ask IF or HOW you want to support these communities. Residents are generally presented with fully implementable plans. See the Navigation Center for an example. This survey was an attempt to bridge the gap in asking the residents what they thought. It had as much turnout as many city surveys (100-200 respondents).
Thank you for your feedback!
Key Findings
Most respondents did not agree with the cities current plan for a low-barrier shelter
If people were to provide homeless assistance, the most favored alternative was a shelter that would require sobriety, self-help or responsibilities (there was no survey option for doing nothing)
Most respondents don’t want “free money” assistance
Homeless and migrant assistance are intertwined, or at least support by the same people
There were more people interested in answering a survey if anonymity was possible
Perhaps the most interesting finding was the strong correlation between free-money advocates and their personal spending. In simple terms, a person who would use free money, would also pay the most themselves (over $500). And exactly the opposite was also true, a person who wouldn’t use free money also wouldn’t pay it for themselves (0-$100).
So some people would take any amount of money or pay any price for homeless or migrant assistance.
Does this indicate that there are big spenders out there who could finance this project through their own philanthropy? Or does it suggest that the people who support the use of free money think it’s WORTH that much but really don’t expect to pay for it? Does it suggest that one group understands that free money isn’t free while the other does?
There is an apparent disconnect between the need for free money and the availability of funds.
Results:
Note: This survey was closed before the emergency citizens’ meeting which includes about 100 respondents.
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).
(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.
Did the Mayor really go to Harvard?
What’s really happening since the City says misinformation?
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.”
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.
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.
Reader Recommended Business: Go With the Flow Plumbing
Jerad Knight, Navy spouse in Lakewood Colorado has been nominated for the 2024 Armed Forces Insurance Military Spouse of the Year (AFI MSOY). Jerad Knight is an active military spouse in his local and nationwide military spouse community. He has worked with local organizations and global military spouse networks to bring awareness to issues within the military community ranging from Mental health, suicide awareness, food insecurities, and housing issues.
A full review of his accomplishments and nominations can be viewed on his candidate profile at:
To vote all anyone would need to do is create a user profile and they can vote daily each day of voting by logging in and casting their votes. Base winners (first round) will be announced February 13, 2024.
A second round of voting will occur February 27 – 28 2024 and the public voting will happen the same way as the first round. Branch (Second Round winners) will be announced March 4, 2024.
After the two rounds of public voting Branch winners will be judged for the overall Military Spouse of the Year 2024 award and announced at the AFI MSOY town Hall in Washington, D.C. on May 9, 2024.
About AFI MSOY
About the Military Spouse of the Year Program
The Armed Forces Insurance Military Spouse of the Year® (AFI MSOY) award was founded in 2008 to honor military spouses from all branches of service. More than one million military spouses support and maintain the home front while our service members defend this great nation.
The AFI MSOY award recognizes military spouses’ important contributions and unwavering commitment to the military community and our country. Nominations for AFI MSOY are made by both the civilian and military community. There are four rounds of advancement, culminating in the announcement of the overall AFI MSOY in our nation’s capital in early May. AFI MSOY is so much more than an award!
City Council passed up another opportunity for an open discussion on a homeless policy for Lakewood. Instead, on January 22 Council approved a “supplemental appropriation” to the budget which will implement the strategy they decided on internally. Accepting this grant for a Navigation Center represents a multi-year fiscal obligation about how to serve the unhoused and Lakewood has not so much as set a committee or a study session to talk about best practices. Final vote to accept the grant will happen on second reading.
City staff have let you know they received a grant. Council has taken no other public vote but brief mentions throughout the year indicated something was being researched by staff, not Council. It seems reasonable that if the city is researching something for a year, that maybe the public be brought into that conversation at some point before the final vote.
The public may want to contribute or may be interested to see how Council will represent them on questions such as:
Does Lakewood want to serve as the only Navigation Center in Jefferson County?
What type of shelter would residents support (i.e. low barrier or self-help based)?
Should migrants be integrated into the shelter system?
Are there other ways to help that are more government-appropriate?
Definition: Navigation Center is “This is a centralized location that provides residents easy access to a variety of supportive services to help with basic needs, medical and behavioral services and housing resources for residents without stable housing. The facility serves as a “one stop shop” for anyone in need of resources and provides a day shelter to our unhoused residents.” – Lakewood.org
There are many options to solve this problem and Lakewood seems to assume it has the answer with the most public support. Lakewood also assumes it knows the problem when even the problem is controversial.
For example, the Director of RecoveryWorks, James Ginsberg, says this is absolutely an economic problem. His non-profit, RecoveryWorks, will be running the Navigation Center. He says that people just need a place to stay, housing first. Housing first is a “low barrier” strategy that does not require people to address their problems to receive help. He says that although you want people to be able to be responsible for their own payments, “around 90% of the unhoused have suffered trauma.”
Experts from cities with longer histories of homelessness disagree and say homelessness is mostly an open-air drug use problem.
“Homeless is a propaganda word” because it also describes the open-drug scene. Because when you say homeless you think it’s a housing problem and people who only have housing problems are the easiest populations to help. The overwhelming problem with the homeless is street addition and untreated mental health crises. – Michael Shellenberger
Is Lakewood ignoring the lessons learned by other cities? Perhaps. But what are the options?
“How do we protect our society while at the same time showing compassion to those sick and struggling…. We can’t ignore or arrest our way out” –Dr. Jennifer Clark during KOMO News Documentary.
One option found in Rhode Island was to strictly enforce all laws, with a specialized, voluntary, medical treatment program in jail to impose physical stability. This approach has pros and cons.
Aurora (Colorado) just found another option, which was a work-first shelter, including sobriety testing for guests. They too reject the Denver “housing first” model that Lakewood embraces.
Lakewood may have the right answer, but did residents know this discussion was held since it wasn’t public? Do they know what values their City Council member was standing for? How can residents vote for public officials with no public discussion on policy?
If you have been listening very carefully to City Council meetings over the last year, you would have heard several mentions that a Navigation Center was being researched by staff. But even as of August 2023 it was unclear to the public and Jefferson County what was going on. What role did City Council play?
There will be discussion and a public vote on second reading to receive the grant, presumably February 12, 2024.
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.
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.
Council sets goals that could apply to many applications
Council is not allowed to direct staff so technically no Council Member can say “please do this project to fulfill this goal”
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)
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.
Footnote: then-Counselor Janssen did not receive any answers to her questions before Council voted to approve this budget.
Despite cities across America seeking to reduce the flow of migrants, Lakewood is moving ahead to officially welcome more. On January 8, 2024, Lakewood City Council voted unanimously to move as quickly as possible to figure out how to help with Denver migrants (Note: Councilor Olver absent). A separate motion was passed for a study session on increasing service of the extreme weather shelter for the homeless, acknowledging that this will serve the migrant community as well.
Unless the recommended actions impact the municipal code, further actions could be taken as soon as February 12. For example, mention was made of Lakewood being a “good neighbor”. Denver is seeking to make “good neighbor” agreements with surrounding cities to agree to take their migrant population. Lakewood’s former Mayor, Adam Paul, plays a key role in these agreements with Denver.
These are unusually speedy decisions for Lakewood City Council. Generally, Council Requests for Legislative Action generate discussion and get deferred to another committee. It’s rare to have to direct action scheduled at all, let alone so quickly. Residents supporting Save Belmar Park have been asking City Council to take action for months with no results. One City Council Legislative Request was denied by the Council majority because no action was possible until new objectives were set at the annual retreat. In this case, the Council has not set ANY objectives for the year and it already has major policy decisions scheduled to be made in the February 12 meeting. The quick passage shows Council can act, direct staff, and schedule study sessions, when it wants to.
As a result of these motions, the February 12 meeting will include a study session at 5:30 pm on increasing shelter options. During the Executive Report in regular meeting on the same night, Lakewood City Manager Hodgson will relate what immediate actions can be taken to help migrants, and what actions may need further study.
Council Members expressed their belief that the majority of Lakewood residents would support both of these measures. Councilor Mayott-Guerrero said she believes “…progress is possible now in a way that it wasn’t even three years ago.”
Lakewood city staff report they can find no proclamation that Lakewood is a sanctuary city. However, Jefferson County is a sanctuary, so an official offer to help or house people, would increase the migrant population, as seen in other cities like Denver.
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.
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:
“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.”
