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 Romero Public 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.
Lakewood will vote on a property tax increase on Monday. This will be done through the normal budget appropriation and mill levy certification. It is not called a tax increase anywhere. However, the 2025 Budget Book, page 62, explains that a temporary reduction in the mill levy rate will lapse in 2025. As a result, Lakewood residents will pay 6% more property taxes and Lakewood will collect an extra $15.5 million in 2025.
Property tax revenue and % change for 2025 (from page 62 of the 2025 Budget Book)
In 2023, former Councilor Mary Janssen fought to get Lakewood to comply with the Lakewood City Charter and only collect revenues that are legally allowed. That equated to a property mill levy rate of 3.85%. Lakewood Charter has a revenue cap, not a tax rate cap, to protect its residents from windfall taxes, like abrupt property assessment increases. City Council did not agree to Janssen’s original proposal, but they did lower the mill levy to 4.28 mills.
For one year.
Now that year is up.
On Monday, the Council will vote to approve the full mill levy of 4.711 mills, thereby increasing the rate by 0.431 mills from 2024.
Your property taxes will go up again this year.
“Natalie Menten, board director with the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) Foundation, emphasized the importance of TABOR’s protections: ‘According to paragraph 7(c), the maximum annual percentage change in each district’s property tax revenue equals inflation in the prior calendar year plus annual local growth (new construction). That safety cap protects taxpayers and gives very sufficient additional revenue to government agencies. Voters shouldn’t waive any tax revenue cap unless it comes with the 4-year sunset prescribed in TABOR.”
In 2023, then-Councilor Janssen found out Lakewood revenue from property tax was increasing 12.87%. The City Charter only allows for a 7% increase in revenue growth (see City Charter 12.12)
“Growth from projected 2023 to projected 2024 Property Tax Revenue is 12.87%”- Holly Björklund, Chief Financial Officer, Lakewood, 2023
Lakewood will increase property tax revenues over the amount permitted in charter, as they have in previous years, while advocating to keep your TABOR refunds.
Explanation of Overcharging from Bob Adams
Every two years (odd numbered years), Colorado requires all real estate to be reappraised. This was done in 2023 and resulted in a huge increase in property valuations. This reappraisal applied to property taxes paid in 2024. The Assessor uses the newly appraised county real estate inventory to prepare a report of the assessed value which is provided to all county tax authorities. Based on that report, the tax authorities are supposed to calculate the overall mill levy needed to provide services (pay their budget) for the following year. The approved mill levy is then used to calculate individual tax bills.
As published by the Colorado Division of Property Taxation:
“Each year county commissioners, city councils, school boards, governing boards of special districts, and other taxing authorities determine the revenue needed and allowed under the law to provide services for the following year. [In other words, prepare a budget]
Each taxing authority calculates a tax rate based on the revenue needed from property tax and the total assessed value of real and personal property located within their boundaries. The tax rate is often expressed as a mill levy.”
If the law was followed properly, there would be only a minimal tax increase.
However, Jefferson County and nearly all county tax authorities, including Lakewood, failed to adjust the mill levies downward to equal their budgets. Even Governor Polis sent a letter to all tax districts urging them to reduce mill levies. Most refused. Instead, nearly all kept a higher mill levy which resulted in property owners being overcharged and the districts received a huge windfall in increased tax revenue. Now, of course, the city and county have introduced ballot measures to allow them to keep and spend the overcollected tax revenue this year, next year and every future year. and eliminate all other revenue caps so they can freely raise taxes without a vote of the people now required by TABOR.
This is the cause of how tax revenues were overcharged and overcollected.
The Lakewood Advisory Commission (LAC) has proposed changing its ethics rules to allow penalties for misinformation. This rule change is a result of information posted by the Lakewood Informer. As discussed in the public LAC meetings, this change would allow Commissioners to be removed from the LAC if they are found to have violated the new ethics rules.
This piece was not authored by Morgan and made no claims to be from Morgan in an official capacity. It was published under the Lakewood Informer banner, which makes no claims to speak for Lakewood or the Lakewood Advisory Commission in any way. Note: This current article, authored by Morgan, also does not speak for Lakewood, the LAC or Morgan in any official capacity.
Nevertheless, Morgan was asked to censor the Foshag article by changing the content.
The Foshag article is a well written, thorough rebuttal of the information presented by the LAC in their report to the Lakewood City Council. Foshag presents clear facts and tells the side of the story not presented by the LAC. The LAC proposal makes several one-sided claims about climate change, the benefits of electrification through elimination of gas-powered appliances, and the need for government mandates and incentives.
The LAC proposal includes no balance and no drawbacks to their recommendations.
The Foshag article states:
“Traditionally, governing bodies have found it easier to regulate individuals, as corporations and larger organizations have lobbying groups and funding, and are better equipped to fight back and litigate if necessary.”
According to Morgan, LAC Commissioner Glenn Weadock asked Morgan to remove or alter this sentence because he felt Morgan should know it was not his intention or the intention of the LAC to go after single-family homeowners just because they are vulnerable.
Morgan refused.
It is true that there was no public discussion regarding single-family homeowners being easy targets. But the point is moot since Foshag’s post did not say “Glenn Weadock thinks….” Or “Lakewood thinks…”. The statement in and of itself is not untrue.
Moreover, the LAC proposal does, in fact, recommend targeting existing single-family homes (from pg 10, Recommendation 2):
“Expand to target existing single family homes without square footage restrictions, including benchmarking (baseline energy performance) and free comprehensive home energy audits. Audits can be revenue neutral to Lakewood with IRA/BIL grants.”
The proposal outlines the specific ways it would like Lakewood to affect residences: “Innovative beneficial electrification technology (such as heat pumps) and weatherization are best practices to reduce fossil fuel emission sources from homes under such future programs.”
The proposal goes so far as to cite examples of full gas elimination (from pg 5): “San Jose, CA, like numerous other cities, is outlawing natural gas into new single family homes through their Reach Codes.”
The LAC proposal is not unbiased research; it is a carefully curated set of facts to support an agenda. The agenda, in this case, appears to be to force existing and new single-family homes to eliminate or reduce gas powered appliances, reducing fossil fuel usage and reducing the energy choices for homeowners.
The Informer sentence “Traditionally, governing bodies have found it easier to regulate individuals…” is a fact that was called misinformation because it gave someone the wrong impression.
As a comparison, the LAC gives the impression that the actions presented in their proposal will reduce greenhouse gases, that the action is needed urgently, and that residents will suffer no performance loss when they write: “action to reduce greenhouse gasses must be undertaken urgently. Working to transition Lakewood homes to electricity will move the city in the right direction.”
All of their statement is debatable.
“Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. Misinformation can exist without specific malicious intent; disinformation is distinct in that it is deliberately deceptive and propagated. Misinformation can include inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information as well as selective or half-truths.” – Wikipedia
Karen Morgan, in her official role of Commissioner, is often the sole no-vote to LAC actions, always voting no for the same reason – because the report is incomplete without presenting the other side. Without full information, policy decisions are made that are regretted in the future.
There is not a clear line between misinformation and things people don’t want to hear. As one Lakewood resident said,
“Misinformation is true facts the government doesn’t want you to hear because it will change your perception of what you know is truth”
During the City Council discussion on reducing speed limits, Lakewood Police and Transportation departments did not concur with recommendations from the LAC that reducing speed limits would decrease accidents. Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei said she’d like to highlight the LAC research that did not include any dissenting information. Such an act shows how the LAC proposals are used to justify the actions specific people want to see, rather than unbiased research. As such, the entire green remodel proposal, or speed limit proposal, etc., could be deemed misinformation.
The LAC is scheduled to vote on the new code of ethics in the September meeting. The code is not available for review online. Although no hearing or appeal process is actually included in the proposed rules, Commissioners can be removed on the basis of a misinformation ethics violation.
The Jefferson County Commissioners met at 9 AM on, 9 July, 2024 in a public meeting to vote on a ballot proposal to allow them to keep all the excess funds they overcollected with our 2024 property tax billing. These excess funds would normally be refunded to us because of TABOR. I attended the meeting.
Why overcollected? For several years, the County Commissioners have failed to produce a sound budget. Instead, they spent more than their revenue and drained reserve funds to make it APPEAR they had a balanced budget. This year, they ran out of reserve funds and accounting tricks. The County Assessor did a reappraisal in 2023 as required by State law. Overall, the appraised value of all properties increased by about 37%. By State law, the commissioners were supposed to adjust the mill levy downward to adjust the overall revenue to equal the County budget. Governor Polis even sent a letter asking them to reduce the mill levy. They failed to do so. Instead, they intentionally kept the previous year’s mill levy knowing full well they would collect millions of excess dollars.
The Commissioners then contracted to spend $340,000 of our tax dollars with a politically connected company, The Bighorn Company – Democrat Brittany Pettersen’s husband’s company, to write a ballot proposal (read more about Jeffco and Lakewood lobbying).
I attended the 9AM meeting and it originally seemed all sides of the issue would be heard fairly. I was wrong. The commissioners gave no serious consideration to budget cuts and didn’t mention wasteful spending (such as the County Clerk’s holiday party). They politely listened to all public comments, then IGNORED all comments against or to improve the ballot proposal, and quickly voted to approve it with little discussion and no changes.
This proposal is sneaky and deceptively written:
“WITHOUT INCREASING ANY TAX RATE OR MILL LEVY RATE, AND TO FUND:
● TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE (BUILDING, MAINTAINING, AND REPAIRING ROADS, BRIDGES, POTHOLES, AND OTHER COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE); AND
● PUBLIC SAFETY (WILDFIRE AND FLOOD MITIGATION AND RESPONSE, ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS, CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES, AND OTHER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY FUNCTIONS);
SHALL JEFFERSON COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN, AND SPEND THE FULL REVENUES FROM AUTHORIZED REVENUE SOURCES BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND IN EACH FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER; AND SHALL RESULTING REVENUE AND EARNINGS BE TREATED AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW; AND SHALL RESULTING REVENUE AND EARNINGS BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE?”
Why is it deceptive? The ballot provision does away with ALL current and future TABOR protections – but doesn’t say so. It also does away with the annual 5.5% property tax cap. It implies there would be no tax increase. In fact, it’s a major tax increase. It says no increase in the tax rate or mill levy which is a half-truth. With the huge increase in the 2023 property appraisal, the mill levy was supposed to be reduced. Instead, they kept it at the previous high level resulting in a windfall increase in revenue. As a result, it allows the commissioners to INCREASE future tax rates without any taxpayer control.
Looking at and analyzing the facts and events that led to this ballot proposal, it certainly appears this is a deliberate, planned effort by the Commissioners and county to keep and spend the excess property tax revenue they collected this year (2024) and eliminate TABOR and all other legal restrictions on increasing property tax in the future.
Don’t be fooled. The commissioners want us to vote to approve a huge property tax increase now and into the future with a clear attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.
People who don’t own real estate in the County may think this won’t affect them, but it will. Landlords will pass along the tax increase in higher rental rates and businesses must pass along the tax as higher prices on their goods and services. This ballot proposal will increase inflation even more.
Editor’s Note: Lakewood has a survey about changing the speed limit. However, the introductory information is incomplete and misleading. The concept of lowering the speed limit has supporting research from the Lakewood Advisory Commission, as they say, but also information showing it will be ineffective from police and traffic control. The survey does not link to that opposing research. Lakewood Informer is grateful for this resident article to bring you the news that Lakewood is not highlighting.
Lakewood City Council is considering proposals from the Lakewood Advisory Committee to increase safety and reduce traffic speeds throughout the city. The plans include reducing speed limits on residential streets from 30 mph to 25 or 20 mph, and the use of red-light and speed monitoring cameras. While well intentioned, the approach taken and comments made by Council members at a recent meeting seem to question if the recommended solutions will actually be effective.
The actions being considered originate from a request by Council Member (now Mayor) Wendi Strom in August, 2022. The request cites areas of concern in Ward 5, particularly the vicinity of Kendrick’s Lake Elementary school, and the Jewell/Kipling area. The request notes that she has received complaints from Ward 5 residents about speeding traffic in these areas. The Lakewood Advisory Committee (LAC) prepared a report addressing the request, presenting their findings to Council in June, 2023. In their report, the LAC recommends re-striping and repaving to narrow lanes and reduce speeds, use of funding to increase the use of multi-use off-street paths, reducing speed limits city-wide, and installing cameras.
Lakewood’s Public Works department also looked into the matter, and has formulated some solutions of their own, although they have yet to publish a final report. This was taken up again on April 1, 2024 at a City Council Virtual Study Meeting. Although the original request was intended for specific areas within Ward 5, Council is considering implementing the findings on a city-wide basis. Mike Whittaker, a traffic engineer with the Public Works Division, presented comments from the department’s staff discussions and recommendations based on the LAC report.
Lower speed limits do not result in slower driving
There are a couple items that stood out from the Public Works presentation. First, they note that in cities where speeds have been reduced from 30 to 25 mph, or even 30 to 20 mph on residential streets, the average speed drivers actually drive is reduced by only 1 or 2 mph. Drivers choose to exceed the new lower speed limit and continue to drive at or near the speeds they are used to driving. This was noted in a study from Minnesota when some of their residential speed limits were reduced. The City of Boulder saw similar results, but on some streets, driving speeds actually increased. Another concern by Public Works is that lower speed limits might actually irritate some drivers who will respond by driving more aggressively. A third point of concern deals with the use of red-light cameras. When drivers know that a red-light camera might catch them running the light at an intersection, they are likely to err on the side of caution and brake suddenly to avoid a ticket, catching the driver behind off-guard, resulting in a rear-end collision. This subject actually came up a couple times during the meeting and is always an issue wherever red-light cameras are installed.
What are the costs?
Notably absent from the discussion was the mention of any firm costs associated with implementing these plans. For changing speed limits city-wide, new speed limit signs need to be painted and installed to replace all existing signs on residential streets, at some unspecified cost to taxpayers. Red-light and speed control cameras require additional studies of where to install and where to aim the cameras to be effective. The city would be dealing with a contractor who operates the cameras, and that involves a monthly rental cost ($8,500 per month for one unit was cited in the meeting), plus additional costs for installing the cameras, city personnel to monitor them, and costs to administer and collect fines.
A city-wide solution is not the answer
One puzzling thing that comes to mind after listening to the Study Meeting is this. The streets cited as being in most need of control (Alameda, Wadsworth, Colfax, Mississippi, and Jewell were mentioned several times) are not residential streets. The Public Works presentation, and the LAC recommendations, do not have any discussion on how reducing speed limits on residential streets will impact the areas of greatest concern. If I have to drive 20 mph on South Quail Street (a residential street), is that likely to reduce accidents at Alameda and Wadsworth? The obvious answer is no. Many residential streets in Lakewood, and particularly the older streets that are a bit wider, are safe to drive at 30 mph. Instead of replacing all of Lakewood’s “Speed Limit 30” signs and mandating a lower 20 or 25 mph limit, the practical solution is to reduce speed limits in the areas that are most troublesome and increase enforcement efforts in those areas. If that means allowing police officers the opportunity to earn a little overtime pay, those costs would certainly be less than what it would cost to replacing all the residential speed limit signage. One of the Council members remarked the drivers who are most dangerous are the ones egregiously speeding – the ones going 40 and 50 mph on residential streets. Those violators are particularly dangerous and need to be targeted, not the ones going one or two miles an hour over the limit.
Unintended consequences
Another puzzling item that was not fully discussed in the Study Meeting deals with how drivers react to reduced speed limits. If drivers only reduce their speeds by 1 or 2 miles per hour when speed limits are lowered, is there really any benefit to reducing speed limits at all, or are you out to make the residents “criminals”? Do you really notice a difference if you are driving 29 or 30 mph? Probably not. Theoretically, the City could mandate residential street speed limits so low as to reduce the possibility of an accident to near zero, but it really doesn’t make a difference if people are still going to drive 29 mph in what was once a 30 mph zone. By their own admission, the City has told us that people are generally drive the speed they feel is comfortable and safe (within reason) whether the speed limit is 30, or 25, or 20 mph. There is no reason to spend tax payer funds replacing speed limit signage and inconveniencing residents with lower speed limits throughout the city if there is no discernable benefit, particularly if there are problems only in a few specific areas. The best decision here is to keep the residential speed limits at 30 mph and not criminalize our residents by lowering limits to 25 or 20 mph.
Dangerous by design
A possible exception to this are the streets in the Belmar development that are narrow to begin with, have cars parked along both sides, and a number of pedestrians crossing the streets. The sight-lines are such that it is difficult to see what’s around upcoming corners. Streets in this area, to the fault of the developer and the traffic engineers who approved their plans, are poorly thought out and a hazard to automobiles and pedestrians.
One particular method of speed control that should not be used is that of narrowing traffic lanes by use of medians and/or bicycle lanes. An example of this is along 20th Ave. between Youngfield and Simms, where the bicycle lanes merge into the traffic lanes and the median is widened allowing only one vehicle (either a bicycle or automobile) through at a time. This is particularly dangerous for bicycle riders if a car cannot slow down fast enough to avoid a collision. Essentially, bicyclists should not be used for speed control on our streets. One of the Council members mentioned they felt the bicycle lanes along Garrison between Alameda and 6th are dangerous. Part of the problem along certain stretches of Garrison may be that the street cannot easily be widened. On heavily travelled streets like Garrison, for the safety of both drivers and bicyclists, there may have to be some future consideration of limiting these areas to motor vehicles.
The proposed use of cameras
The issues of red-light cameras and speed control cameras are different than the discussion of speed limit reduction. The regulations pertaining to traffic control cameras falls under the State of Colorado. Under the constitution of the United States, the person who is guilty of an offence is the one who is charged and the one who has to bear the penalties imposed under the law. With traffic control cameras, the person to whom the vehicle is registered pays the price regardless of who committed the infraction. If your Uncle Bob borrows your pickup truck and runs a red light, you get the ticket, not Uncle Bob. You can possibly get out of paying the Uncle Bob’s fine, but that involves additional time and effort on your part. Colorado’s ordinances can probably be challenged successfully on constitutional grounds, but until then, it’s the law in the State. Stepped up enforcement of our traffic ordinances in the troublesome areas ensures the actual offender is the one receiving the penalty for their offence.
Increased and selective enforcement – the better solution
Stepping up enforcement of traffic laws regarding speeding and red-light running also offers a more effective deterrent to violations. If you get a citation in the mail for running a red light or speeding, there’s not much that offers a deterrent to repeating the offence. You simply go online and pay the fine (a lower fine than if you are issued a ticket by an officer), no points off your license, and no reporting to your insurance company. Receiving a ticket from an officer is much more of a deterrent to speeding or red light running. It takes up more of your time as the officer runs a background check on you and your vehicle, discusses your infraction, writes up the ticket, and sends you on your way. A written ticket will have a higher fine, and will result in points off your license and a report to your insurance company. There is an additional sense of humiliation if you have your children, spouse, or friends in the vehicle with you at the time.
Stepping up enforcement in specific locations and at specific times is very effective in reducing violations while acting as a deterrent to future problems. When people regularly traveling a certain route become aware of increased police presence they will slow down and their driving habits will improve. More often than not, increased enforcement in an area is only needed for a couple of weeks – just long enough for drivers to take note and be more aware. If an area was previously patrolled and has become troublesome again, just step up enforcement in that area for a couple more weeks. The costs of increased enforcement efforts should not be a great concern. If the City believes it has the funding to change all the residential speed limit signage and install, monitor, and administer red-light and speed limit cameras, those funds can easily be spent for some overtime pay for our police officers or hiring a few more full-time officers.
Here we are again! The city of Lakewood is sending out a $73k survey to test the waters if the public is ready to De Tabor again and give up your over paid tax refunds so the city can spend it on their pet projects that they deem important.
After asking how things are going… snow plowing, police response, pot holes, the money spent on new parks (a new majority in Ward 5). They ask you if you would reject them taking more of your money.
One of the questions made me laugh. The one about the Mill levy. If you didn’t know I made a motion last October to decrease the mill levy from 4.7% to 3.85%. This would have decreased the revenue collected by the city to within the charter rule (12.12) which says clearly that property tax revenue must be below 7% growth from previous year.
At a budget meeting I attended The city financial officer Holly Bjorklund was projecting a valuation number that she guessed was going to be the new property valuations. We do property taxes in arrears.
After doing some research on what the city was collecting on previous years since the last De Tabor we found the city was over collecting property taxes one year alone was 18%. Based on this information I thought the citizens deserved a real decrease so that’s how my team and I came up with 3.85. It would have decreased the revenue to around 5%. The city would still be collecting a fair amount and provide the citizens the relief so desperately needed since the other districts i.e. school, Fire, etc. did not decrease their mills.
My team did some calculations and found that based on Holly’s projected valuation number the city would be increasing property tax revenue by 12%.
After getting the real certified valuation number from the Jefferson County Assessors in August the city would have made a whopping 24.5% increase in revenue. That new certified number was never brought up, so I made some papers to inform the rest of council, the mayor and the city manager and the budget committee about the new certified valuation numbers and why we must decrease the mill levy to provide relief to our Lakewood citizens. The only other councilor that contacted me about this was Rich Olver and he decided that based on the research and the facts he would co-sponsor my motion.
I had to announce my motion by council request and was denied the first time so I had to wait till the end of October at the budget approval council meeting, when I was allowed to bring my motion forward, as reported in Lakewood news. I had already provided the other councilors the mayor, the budget committee city manager and staff my findings and why we need to decrease the mill. I put my motion forward and councilor Olver seconded my motion, when out of the blue councilor Barb Franks made an amendment to my original motion to raise my mill levy number of 3.85 to 4.28% in an appearance to make it look like the revenue was neutral. I have an email from Holly Bjorklund the chief financial officer admitting that the city will be indeed increasing the revenue by 12.5% , not neutral.
During discussion about the amendment I cited the charter 12.12 and was told by the city attorney that we were talking about the mill levy reduction not the charter rule about the revenue cap. I was told that in order for the city to go back and look at the interpretation of 12.12 the city would have to be sued.
The 4.28% mill levy amendment was voted on 10-1. I declined to vote for the amendment because #1 it was based on an estimated valuation number not the certified valuation number and #2 I knew that the increased revenue would be above the charter cap.
So based on facts do you think its safe to let the city take your TABOR Refunds?
Lakewood citizens are becoming increasingly frustrated over the amount of shoplifting, vandalism, and “less important” crimes that are not being pursued by the police. And rightfully so!
Not long ago, my wife and I watched a man, pushing a shopping cart full of items at Home Depot, breeze through the self-checkout area – bypassing the opportunity to pay for the items – and head to the parking lot. We looked at the cashier/attendant with stunned expressions on our faces, as we watched the Home Depot personnel do nothing. Her response was, “The police won’t do anything, so we just let them go.”
For a fleeting moment, I thought about canceling my purchase and just loading the items in the cart and heading to my car… Remember, I said “for a fleeting moment.” I wonder if I would have been treated in the same manner as the thief who had the shopping cart full of items. Chances are good that Home Depot would have alerted the police if I tried to steal the same merchandise.
If I had been pursued by the police and the other person wasn’t, it would be a case of “Selective Prosecution.” Selective prosecution should be distinguished from “Prosecutorial Discretion.” Historically, prosecutors have had broad discretion to pursue those cases where the facts support a conviction and elect not to pursue matters where the facts are less clear. However, as we read the news the lines between “Prosecutorial Discretion” and “Selective Prosecution” have become blurred – perhaps intentionally.
“Prosecutorial Discretion” has been in the news recently when a federal prosecutor elected not to charge Mr. X in a matter relating to stolen classified documents. Mr. X kept those documents in his garage next to his Corvette. In electing not to indict Mr. X, the prosecutor noted that he was an elderly man with a poor memory and those facts made it problematic in obtaining a conviction. Many legal authorities believed this prosecutor’s decision was far more political than legal, thereby removing this case as a matter of traditional and historical “prosecutorial discretion.” After all, the prosecutor had the individual “dead to right.” The facts were indisputable. In reality, the results of this case amounted to “Selective Prosecution” rather than “Prosecutorial Discretion.” Don’t think for a minute that you or I would not be indicted if Top Secret documents were found in your garage next to your Ford station wagon… even if we were old and had a poor memory.
The City provides disparate treatment to different classes of individuals.
Therein lies a big problem for the City of Lakewood (or any municipality). The City provides disparate treatment to different classes of individuals. The City seems to rely on some form of “prosecutorial discretion” for its diversionary programs that elect not to charge certain classes of individuals with crimes even though the facts of the crime are indisputable. Or, in the alternative, dismissing or reducing charges for those classes of individuals. In reality, it is “Selective Prosecution,” and it is only a matter of time before Lakewood citizens decide they are fed up with being treated this way. Based on current practices ANYONE can load up their cart at any store, and exit the store with the cash still in their pockets, knowing they won’t be prosecuted.
In other words, in the Home Depot scenario above, if the police elected not to charge the vagrant pushing the cart full of stolen property out of the Home Depot store, they cannot charge anyone pursuing the same activities. To do otherwise is “selective prosecution” which the courts have said violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. (The 14th Amendment is often referred to as the Equal Protection Clause.)
Some might suggest that a law that isn’t enforced should be removed from the books, or in the alternative, in the case of shoplifting, making it legal if it is under a certain dollar threshold. The “theory” is that people who need items like food to survive would have this resource. There again, legal authorities have said that you cannot prosecute only certain classes of people. If a vagrant can’t or won’t be charged then no one can be charged. That is the essence of the prohibition of “selective prosecution.”
Lakewood City Council seems to think that shoplifting by anyone who can say they need the items for food to survive, should not be prosecuted. Likewise, other “low-level” crimes like panhandling/washing your window at the stop light, and public urination/defecation are not worthy of attention by the police. But remember City of Lakewood – if you allow one group to get away with something, you must allow all.
Most honorable citizens believe that all crimes should be pursued and pursued equally. As parents, we know that if you don’t enforce the small stuff, it becomes impossible to enforce the big stuff. This isn’t rocket science but it is a matter of fair treatment of all citizens and all businesses. If everyone started pushing their shopping carts out of Home Depot, King Soopers, or Walmart, without paying, those stores would be closed and Lakewood’s tax revenue would be in the toilet.
The development at 777 S Yarrow St, Lakewood, Colorado, has brought residents concerns over development to the forefront. Despite having ordinances and zoning codes, residents have identified concerns with traffic impacts, wildfire and emergency response, the loss of trees and questionable park fee implementations. Residents continue to act for this cause, at SaveBelmarPark.com, and there has been rumors of possible legal action. However, if Colorado House Bill 1107 gets passed, residents will have an even more difficult time bringing legal action against the city, because they will face legal fees if they lose the case. The bill is meant to decrease suits from residents, who don’t understand that the city has done research to show that the city is right, and therefore, resident concerns are generally unfounded and possibly frivolous. The Lakewood Legislative Committee, has taken a support position on this bill, meaning they support making it harder for residents to bring legal action against the city. This position provides an insight as to why so many resident complaints, like those of hundreds of people against the S Yarrow St development, are often given lip-service or outright ignored.
The issue highlights an important dichotomy in government. Technically, in a representative democracy, the residents should be telling elected officials what they want in terms of legislation. The elected officials then vote on a policy and the city staff will implement it. But what happens when politicians use targeted words to get a policy through that means something other than what people think? What happens when words from last year can be reinterpreted to mean something different this year, so that policy can change without so much as a public discussion?
These are the questions that residents ask when looking at the rules for developing S Yarrow St. How is it possible that a little street with a small building footprint can have no negative impact to traffic if you change it to high-density residential an add an extra couple hundred cars? Aren’t there rules to maintain a neighborhood in similar fashion?
In Colorado Springs, residents have found the answer in taking legal action against the city. Springs residents’ often cite the same problems – and developers are tired of it. According to this article in The Gazette, developers cite the need for more housing while residents cite safety concerns. Reading this article, where they talk about the 7-story complexes going in that are causing traffic concerns for the residents, you may think you are reading about Lakewood.
City Has the Experts
Lakewood will often require a traffic impact study, or environmental study when necessary. This expert testimony is the basis for approving projects. As one quote from the Gazette article stated, “”When [neighborhoods] fight these projects, they are not agreeing with the experts. They are deciding for themselves that it’s not safe.”
“In recent years, numerous political theorists and philosophers have argued that experts ought to be in charge of public policy and should manipulate, or contain, the policy preferences of the ignorant masses.” – Nicholas Tampio, aeon.co
It is rare that cities will change their mind on project approval. Residents concerned with 777 S Yarrow have been told for months that nothing substantial can be done. So legal action brought by residents will typically delay a project, but will not cause any particular change.
To limit these delays, developers and cities need a way to stop residents from pursuing legal action. One way to achieve that is through HB24-1107 which proposes that residents who legally challenge the city will have to pay legal fees if they lose.
Passing HB24-1107 is sure to discourage residents, who already have less financial and legal resources than the city or developers they are facing.
Lakewood Council Member David Rein pointed out that this legislation is very one sided because developers are still free to bring legal action with no increased risk to themselves, which will not be the case for the residents. However, with his “city hat” on, Rein supports the legislation.
Councilor Glenda Sinks said that Lakewood should support this bill because it’s a way to support staff.
No one publicly considered the increase in legal action as a cry for help from the residents, who have presumably asked for the ordinances to be enforced in the way residents commonly understood they would be (for example, open space would be park space, not including dumpster space.)
Unanimous approval from the Legislative Committee: Council Members Sinks , Cruz, Stewart, Rein, LaBure (absent)
Legislative positions are not posted anywhere or shared unless there is a “strong” position. But this signals to the residents that Lakewood considers resident appeals to be generally not worthy of support.
During public comments at the February 26th Lakewood City Council meeting, Tom Gonzales, a Lakewood resident remarked that he was told by Lakewood Police Department (“LPD”) officers there was nothing they could do about the panhandling (window washers) on street corners – that the police “were handcuffed”. Later, Councilman Rich Olver posed a question based on these remarks to Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein – is it true that our officers are “handcuffed” or is there something they could do about panhandling on street corners? Mr. Goldstein answered that it depends on the circumstances (what safety issues are at play), that it’s a matter of resources (not having enough staff), and that “it is a complex issue”. Mr. Goldstein suggested that LPD could put together a report for Council that would address the issue.
Under Lakewood Municipal Code 12.18.020, it would seem that window washing would be clearly prohibited:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit employment, business, contributions, or sales of any kind, or collect monies for the same, from the occupant of any vehicle traveling upon any street or highway when such solicitation or collection:
1. Causes the person performing the activity to enter onto the traveled portion of a street or highway;
2. Involves the person performing the activity to be located upon any median area which separates traffic lanes for vehicular travel in opposite directions;
3. Causes the traffic on the traveled portion of a street or highway to be delayed or impeded;
or 4. The person performing the activity is located such that vehicles cannot move into a legal parking area to safely conduct the transaction
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or attempt to solicit employment, business, contributions, or sales of any kind from the occupant of any vehicle traveling upon any controlled-access highway including any entrance to or exit from such highway.
Why certain city codes are not being enforced is perplexing.
Seeing window washers at Alameda and Wadsworth at mid-day, walking between the lanes of traffic and between cars while trying to return to the median when the light turns green is clearly not safe for those individuals or for the drivers who have to maneuver their cars to avoid hitting them. Common sense would dictate that it would not be difficult for an officer witnessing this activity to pull over and issue a citation – there should be nothing “complex” about this. This is not the fault of the officers, who are employed to serve the citizens of Lakewood, and put their lives on the line for us every day. They follow the instructions they are given by their managers and whatever guidelines the City has adopted concerning law enforcement. It appears that a decision has been made by someone in a leadership position within the city that certain laws will not be enforced.
Reviewing the numbers
A review of crime figures in Lakewood might help shed a little light on what seems to be happening.
Lakewood publishes a couple of reports containing crime statistics each year, a Chief’s Report and a LPD Annual Report. Looking at these reports for the reporting years of 2019 thru 2022 (the latest year available), the reports typically include the number of criminal offenses for the report year, plus the figures for a couple of previous years for comparison. However, the crimes that are reported each year are not always the same. An example being the 2018 and 2019 LPD Annual reports do not include a number of property crimes (mostly fraud and some theft related crimes) that are included in reports for 2020 and later. There are also some unexplained differences in the annual totals that are reported. For instance, crimes for the year 2019 total 12,127 in the 2021 LPD Annual Report, 12,299 in the 2020 report, 11,877, in the 2019 report. Some of these differences may be due to newer reporting standards.
Most law enforcement agencies across the US report crimes to the FBI using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which succeeds and expands on the earlier Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system that dates back to the 1920’s. However, not all agencies in the US report to NIBRS, as some have incomplete historical data and others are still working to convert their UCR data to NIBRS. Crime data thru 2023 for Lakewood is in NIBRS, but Lakewood yet to publish their LPD Annual Report for 2023. NIBRS breaks crimes in to two major groups, Group A Offenses and Group B Offenses. Group A Offenses, generally considered more serious offenses, are further broken down and grouped as Crimes Against Persons, Crimes Against Property, and Crimes Against Society. Group B Offenses are generally less serious offenses and include trespassing, disorderly conduct, DUI, liquor violations, and “other offenses”. Group B Offenses report actual arrests, whereas Group A Offenses only reflect the report of a crime whether or not an arrest is made. The NIBRS data lends itself better to analysis as it is more detailed, complete, and consistent compared to the data that is in the LPD Annual Reports and the Chief’s Reports.
The NIBRS figures show normal fluctuations in reported offense totals from year to year. Three-year averaging was used to remove some of the statistical noise and establish a longer term trend. Looking at average number of crimes reported for 2017 thru 2019, compared to 2021 thru 2023, the NIBRS data is showing an overall increase of 13.5% in Group A Offenses. This includes in a 9.4% increase in Crimes Against Persons, a 12.4% increase in Crimes Against Property, and a 23.5% increase in Crimes Against Society. Some of the offenses that are driving this increase include assaults, car (and car parts) theft, and destruction of property.
What Lakewood is not reporting
Within Group A Offenses, reported incidences of Crimes Against Society (mostly including drug and weapon related violations) increased from 2,475 to 3,056 (+23.5%) on average for the 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 reporting periods respectively. Crimes Against Society figures are not included in the LPD Annual Reports.
The LPD Annual Report also excludes the less serious Group B Offenses. NIBRS figures show a decrease in Group B Offenses of 44.6% when comparing 2021-2023 to the 2017-2019 averages. The Group B Offenses contributing to this reduction are disorderly conduct (-53.0%), DUI (-15.5%), liquor law violations (-77.6%), trespassing (-14.7%), and “all other offenses” (-47.7%). The bulk of the drop in reported offenses occurred between 2019 and 2020, when total reported Group B Offenses dropped from 4,673 to 3,220. Since Group B Offenses reflect actual arrests, these figures can be viewed as actual drops in arrests.
Total incidence reports in the Crimes and Group B Offenses that are not reported in the LPD Annual Report vary from year to year, but in general amount to approximately 30% of the total crimes (Group A and Group B combined) in the NIBRS figures.
Incidences of total combined Group A and B Offenses averaged over 2017-2018 and 2022-2023 are virtually the same. This is because the increase in reported Group A Offenses is offset by the reduction in reported Group B Offenses.
One other statistic Lakewood does not include in their LPD Annual Reports are arrest numbers. Using the same 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 averaging periods, we see that arrests for Group A Offenses dropped by 12.1% (recall that these reported offenses increased 13.5 in this same period). Arrests for both Group A and B Offenses for this same period are down 29.3%, in large part due to the drop in Group B Offenses (which require an arrest).
One would generally think that crime trends would move in the same direction – if Group A Offenses increase then so should Group B Offenses. It is possible that LPD is not focusing as much on the less serious Group B Offenses (as seen in the larger drop in Group B Offense arrests). If this is the case, there may be a perception amongst criminals that if lesser crimes are not being enforced they can get away with committing serious crimes. That would possibly account for the increase in reported Group A Offenses. It is also possible that people involved in certain Group B Offenses are more likely to be diverted to various social programs addressing mental health, addiction, or homelessness issues, and those incidences are not being reported as crimes (but this would not necessarily account for the increase in Group A Offenses).
A sense of resignation
In a posting on the City of Lakewood’s website from February 2022, there is a comment attributed to a Lakewood Police sergeant concerning law enforcement in the city:
“Let’s be honest. If they (criminals) have had 30 tickets for shoplifting, trespassing, drinking in public, do we really think that the 31st ticket is going to be that magical step that solves the problem?… We recognize that is probably not the case. That’s why the city and our chief of police recognize the importance of trying new things, not being afraid to step out and say, ‘This isn’t working. The status quo is not working. Let’s try something new’.”
The tone of this remark reflects a sense of resignation on the part of Lakewood and LPD to enforce laws. The problem in this statement is, if someone has 30 outstanding tickets, they obviously are not being held accountable for their offenses. The problem is not that the tickets are not being paid. The problem is that laws are not being enforced. In cases of habitual offenders, they need to be put in jail until they can be brought before a judge.
In July of 2021, Lakewood adopted the LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, or alternatively, Let Everyone Advance with Dignity) to assist people with “unmet mental needs, addiction and homelessness”. Instead of charging individuals identified as candidates for the LEAD program with certain crimes, they are diverted to social programs to address the issues they are struggling with in hopes they will recover and return to society, not to be repeat offenders. LEAD has been adopted by several other Colorado communities, as well as several large cities including Seattle, Portland, and Baltimore. The LEAD Support Bureau, which advises Lakewood in this program, and their affiliate P.D.A. (Purpose. Dignity. Action., formerly Public Defender Association of Seattle), are a group of people with background experience such as include public defenders and social justice activists. It is important to understand that the national LEAD program is run by advocates for criminals and they actively seek to divert people involved in certain crimes into social programs and away from the criminal justice system. It is possible that the drop in reported Crimes Against Society and Group B Offenses is in part due to persons being diverted via the LEAD initiative rather than being charged with a crime.
What others are doing about crime
Some cities struggling with severe social and criminal problems are finally starting to take action by getting tough on crime. In San Francisco, residents recently approved Proposition F which requires drug testing for locally-funded welfare recipients. They also approved Proposition E, which eases restrictions on the police and allows stepped-up enforcement actions to reduce crime. The Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, has ordered the National Guard to the subway system in New York City to combat an uptick in crime. Washington D.C. recently passed the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act, which makes certain crimes easier to prosecute and steps up punishment guidelines. Leaders are beginning to see the failure of go-soft-on-crime policies and are finally responding to the cries of their constituents by taking a harder stance on crime.
Expectations and Accountability
Considering other cities have abandoned their years-long soft-on-crime policies, we should not expect to go soft on crime in Lakewood in hopes of success where others have failed. Laws are put in place to protect us and our property. When laws are not enforced we are no longer safe and secure in our communities. These are some expectations that we should adopt to ensure the leaders within the City of Lakewood are accountable for their policies and focused on keeping our community safe:
Lakewood residents have a right to know, and need to know, how laws are being enforced in the city. We clearly have ordinances against street-side panhandling that are not being enforced. The City needs share the news and let us know who is making the decisions which laws are enforced and which ones are not enforced.
The LPD Annual Reports should be complete and consistent year to year. A good standard for reporting would be the NIBRS categorization with annual crime figures from all Group A and B offenses.
The City needs to explain why they believe a group that has roots in defending criminals and social justice should be advising Lakewood on how to handle crime in our community especially in light of other cities having failed undertaking similar soft-on-crime policies.
The City needs to be forthright with us concerning which violations are turned over to social services (diverted via LEAD protocols, referrals to the Navigation Center, etc.), and how the determination is made to divert versus prosecute. Annual figures for offenses that are deferred can be included in the LPD Annual Report.
For offenders who are diverted into social help programs, tough standards and accountability expectations within these programs need to be met. If the individuals fail to meet their requirements, they need to be held accountable for their offenses within the justice system.
We should expect LPD fully complies with ICE detainer requests.
We need to know if the City has the resources (staffing, equipment, etc.) to sufficiently enforce ordinances. If we don’t have the necessary resources, the City needs to actively secure what is needed to protect the citizens of our community.
If you missed the last two Lakewood City Council meetings, you missed… Well, let’s put it this way, if my Mom had caught me doing what I saw at the meeting, I would have been sent to my room without any dinner. Let’s start with the February 12 meeting:
Perhaps the most disconcerting and substantive financial part of the meeting came about as a result of questions posed by Councilor Rein to the City Planning Office and the State’s representative providing the grant. According to the City Planning Office, the taxpayers are on the hook for $2M – $2.5 of operating expenses each year. (The City’s own financial documentation indicates the operating costs will be much higher, but let’s use the Planning Office numbers for now.) He went on to say that any decision of the Council to accept the $9M grant would “not be binding on future Councils.” I believe most legal scholars would disagree with the City Planner and state that future Councils will be bound by grant conditions and the “strings” attached to the grant. A future Council could elect to breach – but that always comes with a price tag. Query: Where was the City Attorney while the City Planning Office was providing legal advice to the Council? She sat there and didn’t say a word.
Following the Planning Office comments, the grant representative from the State said that a contract would be negotiated with the City identifying the City’s obligations. This contract would only be negotiated AFTER the City accepts the $9M grant. She pointed out that the contact obligations would be for a 30-year period of time.
YIKES! The City will not know its contractual obligations with the State until AFTER it accepts the money.
What entity takes $9M without knowing what “strings” are attached?? The answer to that probing question is, your City Council. A simple remedy to this problem would have been to negotiate the terms of the grant contract PRIOR to accepting the money. Finalization of the contract could have been contingent on the City accepting the grant. At least the citizens of Lakewood would have known what their City Council had signed them up for if the terms had been negotiated in advance. But, No! The councilors were so eager to get their hands on more of your money that they apparently didn’t even want to know what the additional strings would be. And don’t forget, “he who controls the purse controls the “strings.” Other than the two councilors from Ward 4 (Olver and Rein), no councilor expressed ANY concern over the uncertainty of the “strings” attached to accepting the $9M.
Now, fast forward to the February 26 Council meeting. The issue consuming the most time at this meeting dealt with the Head Start program in Lakewood. Due to possible overlapping resources and the very high per capita cost of the program, Lakewood wants to eliminate the Head Start program from its provided resources. The City favors passing this opportunity to Jefferson County or a private entity. All of the councilors seemed to agree with eliminating the program from the City’s budget. However, there was some uncertainty over which entity (if any) might take on the Head Start responsibilities so as not to have a disruption of services.
NOW, here’s the dichotomy – because of the “uncertainty” the Council would not move forward to allow the City to notify the Federal Government (DOE) that the City of Lakewood would no longer be responsible for the Head Start program. The councilors wanted the City to informally probe other Head Start providers (private entities and Jefferson County) to ascertain their interest.
Here’s the problem: the councilors were told by the City representatives that the Federal Government cannot seek other providers UNTIL the City removes itself as the Head Start provider.
Only one of the councilors expressed an opinion that acquiring another provider would not be a problem, given the City’s support for the program. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty (though likely small), the Council voted to delay notifying the Federal Government. Apparently, the councilors – even if they are well-intended – have little knowledge about Federal Government contracting. They may think that the Federal Government can move at light speed and such delay would have no impact on continuing the Head Start program. In reality, the timeframe between now and the City’s proposed schedule to withdraw from the Head Start program may be insufficient to allow the Federal Government to meet its contracting requirements. Council’s failure to allow the City to give timely notice to the Federal Government may result in contracting deadlines being missed.
Later in the meeting, one of the councilors recounted some of the events from the February 12 meeting. He specifically stated that the February 12 meeting included a “robust” discussion relating to the finances at the Navigation Center and the $9M grant. I must have attended a different City Council meeting because I heard no “robust” discussion about funding. Unfortunately, he misses the bigger issue. While there were brief comments about the current finances and how a portion of the grant could fund some of the operating expenses, there was no discussion about how the City would fund the long-term operating costs and no discussion about how to fund any of the “strings” the State will attach to the grant… and how could there be any discussion about those “stings” since the City Council has no idea what they will be. We heard no discussion about contents of the thirty-year contract required by the State, when those contract negotiations would occur and whether the Council would even review/approve the contract.
Editor’s note: Email received 2/29/2024 from Lakewood states “The contract you are referring to has not been drafted or finalized at this point. Planning expects that this will take place over the next couple of weeks. Thank you.“
Bottom line – Uncertainty over “strings” attached to $9M and saddling taxpayers with $60M – $100M+ of future obligations is not a problem for this council. ($60M if you use the Planning Office low number and likely more than $100M if you use the City’s internal numbers.) But a bit of uncertainty over the Head Start program caused the Council to delay timely, Federal notification and potentially destroying the Head Start program.
Even if you assume the Councilors are all well-intended, both meetings were a display of naivety and inexperience. In fact, Councilor Olver may have made the most poignant and accurate observation: He said the Council is suffering from “self-inflicted” wounds. That statement is indisputable! With the exception of Councilor Olver, maybe they should all be sent to their rooms without any dinner.
