Transparency

Save the Land at the Old Lutheran Hospital

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 30, 2025Posted in Community, Development, TransparencyTagged high-density, historic, lutheran, urban, wheat ridge

Wheat Ridge is facing the same pressures as Lakewood. Both cities want to turn established neighborhoods and properties into something completely different with little public input. Does any of this sound like the Belmar Park problem to you? High-density, no setback, no parking… a big change that the city has to make big changes for while not listening to big public pushback. Update: A quick count of the days shows that Wheat Ridge is giving residents 9 days to petition instead of 10 because July 4 is a holiday. There’s always another challenge. Let your Wheat Ridge friends know to get over to sign soon! From Stop Zoning of High Density Housing in old Lutheran Hospital Save the land at the Old Lutheran Hospital from becoming a high-density housing project! 1,200 Signatures needed. Wheat Ridge residents: Meet at The Historic Blue House @ Old Lutheran Hospital to sign June 24-July 3 , 7am-7pm What’s up with the new zoning of the old Lutheran campus?Here’s what people are saying: A change of this magnitude should be voted on by all citizens of Wheat Ridge. Allows the creation of a crowded urban environment on much of the property: More than 2,000 housing units can be built, according to the developer. [Sec. 26-1404]Maximal building coverage. [Sec. 26-211, 26-1405] No setbacks. [Sec 26-1405] Minimal landscaping and open space [Sec. 26-1405; 26-1409, 26-502]. No parkland dedication to the City is required. [Sec. 26-414] Minimal parking [Sec. 26-1407, wheatridgespeaks.org/items/1522] Variances from even these minimal standards are allowed, including variances of morethan 50%. [Sec 26-1416] No Historic Designation or Registry of the Blue House, Chapel or Tuberculosis Tent. Nothing about affordable homeownership. [It’s not found anywhere in MU-LLC regs.] No limit on the number of units that can be rentals. [It’s not in the MU-LLC regulations.] NO traffic studies have been done. Read more about this issue on their facebook page And find time to sign their petition at one of the meeting times: at The Historic Blue House @ Old Lutheran Hospital to sign June 24-july 3 , 7am-7pm

Zoned Out: How Lakewood is Selling Out its Neighborhoods

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 17, 2025Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, TransparencyTagged Colorado, eliminate, high-density, home rule, Lakewood, single family, zoning code1 Comment

By Karen Gordey You’d be forgiven if you missed it — after all, the City didn’t exactly roll out the red carpet for public input — but Lakewood is in the middle of completely rewriting its zoning code. And on May 21st, the Planning Commission passed 16 amendments in one night. Sixteen. Because who doesn’t want to restructure the entire city with the speed and clarity of a late-night city hall cram session? Here’s the kicker: Lakewood is a home rule city, meaning we have the power to make our own land use decisions. But instead of using that power to protect neighborhoods or push back on one-size-fits-all state mandates, the City Council passed a resolution last year (Resolution 2024-62) that basically says, “Tell us what you want, Colorado — we’ll make it happen.” Meanwhile, six other cities are suing the state to protect their local control. Lakewood? We’re sending engraved invitations to the bulldozers. If you’re not paying attention yet, you should be. Because staff expects these changes to take effect in September and if residents don’t start showing up and speaking up, we’ll be stuck with zoning we didn’t ask for, can’t undo, and won’t recognize. “Home Rule vs Statutory Rule” Before we go any further, it is important to understand the difference between statutory rule and home rule. So that there is no confusion, I went to the Colorado Municipal League’s website (www.cml.org). The following is their explanation of the two: “Colorado cities and towns operate under provisions of Colorado state statutes (and are referred to as “statutory” cities and towns) unless voters adopt a municipal charter to become a “home rule” city or town. Home rule is based on the theory that the citizens of a municipality should have the right to decide how their local government is to be organized and how their local problems should be solved. Municipal home rule derives its authority directly from the Colorado Constitution. It affords residents of cities and towns that adopt a local charter freedom from the need for state-enabling legislation and protection from state interference in “both local and municipal matters.” The Lakewood City Charter was established on November 1, 1983. While it has been modified by the voters 5 times (the latest on November 2, 2004, we are still a home rule city. Lakewood City Charter and Lakewood Together Page 27 of the City Charter talks about planning and zoning. According to the charter, the city council could have established Ward Advisory Committees to try to corral all these changes but instead are using Lakewood Together for community input. In fact, I attended the Ward 5 meeting on June 14th and Councilman LaBure said that he tried to create committees last year and did not have support for this. Let’s take a look at the Lakewood Together site. On the front page of the zoning updates section (Lakewood Together Zoning Updates), it clearly references the state law requirements and again we are a home rule city so we are allowed to do what is best for our community. This will be important to remember when I talk about the 16 amendments. The 2024 City Council Resolution: Pre-Commitment to State Zoning Goals The City Council passed a resolution Resolution 2024-62 that sounds harmless — values like affordability, walkability, and sustainability — but when you read the details, it’s a blueprint for surrendering home rule. The resolution adopts state-level zoning goals before zoning code revisions or public feedback were complete. That includes: Bottom line: Lakewood didn’t just “revise” its zoning goals; it absorbed the state’s playbook wholesale. This was covered briefly by the Lakewood Informer: Jedi Mind Tricks – The New Zoning Code WILL BE Good Why Didn’t Lakewood Join the Lawsuit with Other Home Rule Cities? Good question! Recently, six Colorado cities banded together to sue the state over its new zoning mandates — arguing that the laws violate their constitutional rights as home rule municipalities. (6 Front Range cities sue over housing laws, governor’s threat to withhold state funds) Lakewood? We sat that one out. At the Ward 5 meeting on Saturday, June 14th, I asked our Councilors a simple question: Was our absence because of Resolution 2024-62, which essentially pre-commits Lakewood to implementing state zoning goals? And if the lawsuit is successful, meaning those cities win back their rights to local control, won’t we be stuck with sweeping zoning changes we didn’t have to make? Councilman LaBure responded: “We are a home ruled city but we are also a state entity. The state passes things all the time that encroach on local control. The argument has been historically well zoning and parking issues and all those things are matters of local concern and not the state concern. And Judiciary had tended to draw a line there. However, the state has increasingly been making the argument that there is a housing crisis statewide so we need more and more control over local zoning issues because it is actually a matter of state concern. I would have been happy to have jumped on that lawsuit however, other cities already did it and we are part of the Colorado Municipal League (CML). And CML has supported that lawsuit and in that sense we are member and if not the largest so in some sense we are part of that because of our CML affiliation. And it is a fair question to ask about if the lawsuit is successful, then we would be stuck with zoning changes that were not needed.” Translation: we could have stood up for home rule; but we’ll just let other cities take the heat and hope our dues to the Colorado Municipal League somehow cover us by association. Councilor Nystrom added that she did ask the City Attorney the same question but didn’t get a clear answer. She also pointed out that HOAs aren’t safe from this zoning overhaul either. While HOA covenants are seen as contracts between homeowners and their associations, local

The Illusion of Debate: How Lakewood’s City Council Rubber-Stamps Policy

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 3, 2025Posted in Entrenched Bureaucracy, Transparency, Vote TallyTagged Accountability, Lakewood City Council, rubber stamp, transparency, unanimous, voting record

By Karen Gordey As you may or may not have heard, Kairoi—the Texas developer behind the 777 S Yarrow Street project—cut down more than 60 mature trees on May 12th. The community response was swift and emotional. That evening, a large group from the Save Belmar Park movement filled the back of Lakewood City Council chambers and voiced their outrage during public comment. Many echoed the same call: every sitting councilor—save perhaps one—needs to be voted out. The next day, I drove to Belmar Park to see the damage for myself. As I pulled up, I noticed two current council members chatting nearby. I spoke with one of them off the record for about 25 minutes. When I said, “Isn’t this what you voted for?” the councilor quickly replied, “No, I didn’t vote for this.” Skeptical, I went home and reviewed voting records for the past two years. And they were right—technically. The 777 S Yarrow project didn’t come before City Council. It went through the Planning Commission and the City’s Planning Department. But that wasn’t the end of the story. When I tried to dig deeper, it became clear how inaccessible the City’s meeting records really are. Minutes from meetings are supposed to be approved during the Consent Agenda at every regular council meeting. But finding the actual minutes? Nearly impossible. For instance, during the May 12, 2025 meeting, Council approved minutes from March 24, April 14, and May 5—but none were linked or attached. On February 24, they approved minutes from December 9, 2024. Again, no actual documents. You can technically find every ordinance and resolution passed by council here: https://www.lakewood.org/Government/Departments/City-Clerks-Office/City-Council-Ordinances-Resolutions. But it’s a list, making it difficult for residents to hold individual councilors accountable. The Consent Agenda, meant for quick approvals of non-controversial items like meeting minutes, ordinances on first reading, or ceremonial resolutions, is often a catch-all for measures that go unscrutinized. Councilors can ask to remove items for discussion—and did so multiple times in 2024. But here’s something you may not know: residents can request that items be removed too. Once passed, the items removed from the consent agenda are discussed and voted on, then the rest of the agenda is addressed in order., And while the Consent Agenda script claims that first-reading ordinances are published in the Denver Post—none have appeared in the last two years. Don’t take my word for it. You can search the Denver Post’s legal notices here: https://marketplace.denverpost.com/marketplace-denver/category/Miscellaneous/Legal%20Notices and on the state’s required public notice database: https://colorado.column.us/search/ (which is moving to: https://www.publicnoticecolorado.com). So how did your councilor vote? Here’s a breakdown of every vote not passed via the Consent Agenda Here’s what I found: Also included in that spreadsheet is a tab for study sessions and workshops. These are arguably more important than council meetings themselves. That’s where councilors hear presentations on major issues—always from city staff or invited parties that support the city’s position. No opposing views. No residents. By the time a topic comes up for public hearing (on second reading), the council has already made up its mind. Is it any wonder residents feel ignored and angry? Let’s talk transparency. The Budget & Audit Committee—tasked with overseeing your tax dollars—hasn’t met once in 2025. Back in January, Ward 5 councilors proposed expanding the committee to represent all five wards. That proposal was shot down. Only three wards are represented. Two wards remain unheard. And all this under a City Manager pulling in over $400,000 a year. When government struggles with the basics—recordkeeping, transparency, fair representation—it often fails on the big things too. Isn’t it time for a better way? If you’re tired of a council that listens to developers more than residents, tired of unanimous votes that ignore dissent, and tired of a system where transparency feels like an afterthought—then do something. Start asking questions. Email your councilor. Demand meeting minutes be posted, ordinances be published, and your ward be represented. Government works best when it’s held accountable. And in Lakewood, it’s time we started holding ours to a higher standard.

Likely Defect Identified in Planning Commission Software

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 5, 2025Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, TransparencyTagged Belmar Park, lakewoodspeaks, Planning Commission, public hearing, site plan, Travis Parker

From savebelmarpark.com The 777 S Yarrow public hearing is very close on: May 7th at 7:00 PM at 480 S Alison Parkway, Lakewood, CO You may now enter public comments online at: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/meetings/869. You may have to click on item 3. Unfortunately, a likely defect in the Planning Commission’s online file upload process has been identified and was reported via a follow-up public comment. However, that public comment was rejected by Lakewood for violating comment policy. It appears the comment was rejected out of an assumption that the Planning Commission software could not possibly be broken. The city clerk was also very helpful in providing examples of other comments with attachments that were publicly posted as proof that the upload process is not broken. Notably, NONE of the examples provided by the clerk included the .doc file extension. Therefore, because Lakewood was obviously not going to investigate a reported defect that could potentially have been suppressing public comment file attachments for a long time, perhaps years, I investigated. It turns out that the Planning Commission does NOT accept all of the file extensions specified on the file upload dialogue (which is shown in the image at the top of page). Once I converted the .doc file to a .pdf file, then the upload process was successful! If you upload a file with a supported .doc file extension, for example, it appears to work properly. However, if your comment is approved for publication, the attachment is never displayed. This is a material error because members of the public may reasonably assume their upload was successful since no error message is ever produced at any point in time during this process. Nor does the moderation process capture file upload errors and notify users. Nor are members of the public ever advised that the software may be unreliable and may silently dispose of file uploads. Upon reviewing public comments just this morning, one person who supports approving the Kairoi project referenced his attached letter. But no attached letter was displayed. So his attachment may also have been lost by the software. Therefore, members of the public or any parties with a matter to be heard by a quasi-judicial panel could upload files for the official hearing record and discover after the hearing record is closed that their file uploads were rejected. Then it is too late to re-submit their files. This problem is also complicated by a significant conflict of interest due to the fact that Mr. Parker, Lakewood’s executive in charge of making development recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, is also and incredibly an advisor on the executive team of the same software company that is at the crux of possibly suppressing public comment by silently rejecting documents intended for quasi-judicial hearings. We suggest the city is indifferent both to the public perception and the risks of this conflict of interest. We also suggest that as a result of enabling this conflict of interest, the city is also indifferent to the requirement for software quality control. Please consider that a quasi-judicial hearing is a legal proceeding. What if the clerk of a court periodically discarded or lost documents delivered by litigants without telling anyone? What do you think would happen to that court clerk if this malfeasance came to light after years of discarding court documents? We are not suggesting any Lakewood employees are disposing of these files. The comparison is being made to the apparently inconsistent software vs what if an employee hypothetically did the same thing? We doubt that an employee would get off so easily. But in Lakewood, the software does get off easily. And consequences can be significant if a court is not diligent regarding management of important technology used in processing court documents or evidence. Consider the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the fiasco over their DNA tests. It was recently revealed that hundreds of DNA tests were allegedly ‘manipulated’ over a 30-year time period and as a result material facts were omitted from official records even though no DNA matches were falsified. The CBI Director stated: ““Our actions in rectifying this unprecedented breach of trust will be thorough and transparent.” Will Lakewood be as forthcoming regarding ignored software defects that potentially corrupted public hearing records? Has this defect been suppressing relevant files for years? It is possible. Especially considering Lakewood does not seem responsive to any report that the software does not work properly. Anyone who has previously reported a problem may have received a similar response that it was user error because other people can upload files – but of a different file type. Therefore, we strongly urge that Mr. Parker be required to recuse from any matter that may eventually involve the Planning Commission or City Council where the PeopleSpeak software is used to accept public comments for any quasi-judicial hearings or city council meetings. In the meantime, any past decisions made by the Planning Commission or City Council where online public comments were accepted from the public should be reviewed and new hearings potentially announced once the software is fixed. Stay tuned and thanks for listening, Steve

Springsteen Files Injunction Regarding Emory

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 4, 2025Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Jeffco, TransparencyTagged Anita Springsteen, Emory, injunction, open meetings

Former Lakewood City Councilor and attorney Anita Springsteen is no stranger to Lakewood’s backroom dealing and use of executive sessions. Springsteen has filed two lawsuits against the city for using “negotiations” as the context for an executive session. Allegedly, those meetings were open meetings violations because they didn’t provide enough detail on the “negotiations” involved. Those allegations are playing out about the purchase of Emory school. Even residents living next to Emory had no idea the city was trying to purchase the school for the Action Center. Springsteen filed an injunction to prevent the city from voting on the property purchase April 28 but Springsteen says “the Court held that the issue was moot when Council held the vote despite being on notice of the request for injunction.” She plans to refile the motion to prevent further actions by the city. She is also communicating with the Jefferson County Schools so they are on notice of breach of fiduciary duty. Councilor Mayott-Guerrero asked for an attorney to explain why residents have not seen open conversations about purchasing Emory before. The attorney for the city said negotiations are protected by executive sessions so there has been no public notice until now. The April 28 meeting, during which this conversation and vote took place, was duly noticed, he advised. Unfortunately, that still left many residents in Lakewood feeling like they were unprepared, not informed and left in the dark. Which is entirely reasonable since, as Lakewood just admitted, they did not tell residents they were working on this until now. Lakewood did not put the address of the property on which they were negotiating in the notice for executive sessions. City Council and staff were very clear that this was only the first step and that the city needed to proceed in this matter so they could progress to formal negotiations. But then what were they doing in previous executive sessions? Lakewood could have been transparent and told residents in September of 2023 that they were interested in buying the school on behalf of the Action Center, as documents show. Instead of fully explaining the plans for Emory, Lakewood cried “misinformation” and only addressed limited misunderstandings. There are also allegations that Jeffco was hiding talks because they were involved in negotiations to sell the property four months before it was officially disposed of. Council and staff still say that no decisions have been made and that they will listen to resident input at future meetings. Of course, that’s a variation of what they have said for the past year and a half while decisions were being made. There is no indication that plans will change based on resident input at the city level but that may be different at the school district level. There is also the possibility that the expanded interests of the Action Center will persuade people that this is the best use of Emory. The purchase of Emory for the Action Center was a priority for Lakewood since the school’s closing. It was the first and only one on the municipal option list to begin in January of 2024. Springsteen was one of four Councilors who demanded transparency before allowing an executive session to proceed. The session involved the City Manager’s contract renegotiation. The four Councilors calling for transparency prevented a super majority vote, which is required for an Executive Session to proceed. This forced the contract renewal to take place at a public meeting so that the public could see who voted to renew the City Manager’s contract, which increased her benefits. Springsteen has filed three lawsuits regarding open meetings violations, two of which pertain to property negotiations. Springsteen says “the third case was for an Executive Session involving ‘legal advice’ on a CCU issue that had already been resolved upon appeal a year prior, which calls into question the purpose of the meeting.”

Public Hearing for Massive Belmar Park West Housing Project Announced

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on April 28, 2025Posted in Development, Sustainability, TransparencyTagged Belmar Park West, public hearing

From savebelmarpark.com May 7th at 7:00 PM at 480 S Alison Parkway, Lakewood, CO You may now enter public comments online at: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/meetings/869. You may have to click on item 3. If you submit a comment online or in-person, we suggest you specify to which specific section in Lakewood’s Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan your comment is relevant. Simply submitting a general comment without linking it to the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan may result in your comment being disregarded or misinterpreted. If you can afford to hire an attorney to help formulate your concerns and possibly submit your concerns on your behalf, that would be excellent. This is a quasi-judicial hearing which closely resembles a court proceeding rather than a city council meeting. You may also view the hearing online at LakewoodSpeaks.Org Please feel free to attend and comment in-person. However, since Lakewood is not consistent with transferring oral comments into the public record (other than archived videos), you may want to also submit your comment online which allows you to verify the comment was accepted. If you attend in-person, keep in mind a quasi-judicial proceeding is similar to a courtroom so applauding comments or cheering comments could get you removed from the chamber or other negative consequences could accrue. The hearing concerns whether the large housing project at 777 S Yarrow Street adjacent to Belmar Park in Lakewood, Colorado should be approved. If the commission approves the major site plan, there could be a legal challenge to that decision raised in a court of law because some citizens have funded a charity that has retained an attorney and stated its intention to raise such a challenge if necessary. Having comments submitted from informed citizens who explain how the major site plan fails to comply with the zoning ordinance and/or comprehensive plan could possibly be utilized in such an appeal, especially if such comments are researched in advance by your attorney in order to improve the legal impact and clarity of your citizen comments. Assuming there is a future appeal in a court of law, any comments you submit to the Planning Commission could eventually be rebutted by the developer’s lawyers so comments that have been legally vetted by your attorney may be more effective. Because any attempt to introduce additional evidence will likely be rejected at the appeal level, it is important to get all relevant documents and comments into the hearing record on May 7. You may upload one document per comment. You can rely on the fact that the developer will have top notch legal representation at the hearing. It is up to the public to debunk the rosy presentation those attorneys may make on behalf of the developer. Some developers find advocates that can make almost any type of project sound like a dream come true. That could be the type of presentation the public will be up against on May 7th. Therefore, especially if you have a legal background or can afford to enlist legal support, please step up now and prepare to make your best argument to the Lakewood Planning Commission.

What Is the Government Solution to Homeless

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on April 27, 2025Posted in Budget, Crime, Development, Homeless, TransparencyTagged 14th, encampment, Homeless, navigation center, taxes, Vance, wadsworth

Lakewood residents reach out for a government solution to homeless encampments, as written about on kdvr.com by Alliyah Sims. Lakewood says encampments like these are the reason to open more shelters and offer more resources. But not everyone takes the resources offered. The problem, as noted in the article, is that these encampments (not all) are located in an area that caters to homeless. Lakewood’s Navigation Center is half a mile away, the Action Center less than a mile away, outpatient services near this encampment at 14th and Vance, and others close by. But what if the unhoused do not want the resources provided? Governments can force taxpayers to provide resources but they can’t force people to utilize them as intended. Lakewood police say help has been offered but not often accepted. As the author of San Fransicko wrote, ““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 addiction and untreated mental health crises.” – Michael Shellenberger Cities like San Francisco and Denver have been experimenting with government solutions but the only continuing metric of success is the amount of people served and money spent. The increasing number of homeless in these cities is disregarded as irrelevant. From kdvr.com: “Neighbors living in Lakewood are calling for the city to come up with a permanent solution to homeless encampments popping up in their neighborhoods. “They say the sites near 14th Avenue and Vance Street have been a problem within the last year, but they have seen it grow with the recent cleanup at the 6th Avenue and Wadsworth Boulevard interchange that happened last week.‘Long time coming’: Lakewood homeless encampment cleared “Lakewood police say while they are aware of the camp, they can not confirm if it’s the same people from the 6th and Wadsworth clean-up. “They say they offered help to everyone living there, but a lot of times it’s just not accepted, creating an endless cycle. “I’ve been at this location for almost 10 years now, and we love the work we do and love helping others,” said Marie Archambault.” Read the full article….

Toxic Legacy: Uncovering the Chemical Contamination at the Denver Federal Center – Part 2: Blight or Oversight? The Bend, the LRA, and Lakewood’s Shortcut

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on April 20, 2025Posted in Development, TransparencyTagged City Council, Colorado, Colorado Revised Statute, Denver Federal Center, Lakewood, Lakewood Reinvestment Authority, The Bend, urban renewal

By Karen Gordey “Transparency isn’t optional when taxpayer dollars and contaminated land are involved.” A New Name, A Familiar Pattern Most Lakewood residents haven’t heard of “The Bend.” That’s because it was previously known in city discussions as the 6th & Union, 4th & Union, or simply part of the Denver Federal Center redevelopment. To longtime residents of Lakewood, it is known as the Horseshoe Property. It quietly rebranded, and with it came an expedited process that skirted public scrutiny. I attended a West Metro Fire Protection District Board meeting on January 21, 2025, out of concern for wildfire readiness. What I stumbled into instead was a vote on tax increment financing (TIFs) for a development I’d never heard of—The Bend—on land I knew all too well. As a result of hearing this, I went out to the Lakewood website to refresh my memory on the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA). From the Lakewood website: “The fundamental mission of the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) is to encourage private reinvestment within targeted areas of Lakewood. The LRA has been created by citizens to enhance the City’s ability to preserve and restore the vitality and quality of life in the community.” So let’s first look at how the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) process is supposed to work. (Below is a bullet point version. However if you are interested in seeing the full presentation it is on Lakewood Speaks and you can search for the LRA meeting from March 4, 2024.) Lakewood’s Reinvestment Authority (LRA) process, aligned with Colorado state law, outlines a clear and deliberate path for redevelopment: What Actually Happened with The Bend Sidebar: Past Precedents Lakewood has a documented pattern of fast-tracking redevelopment by combining steps for blight designation and plan approval. For example, consider these past projects: Developer Negotiating TIFs? At the January 21, 2025 West Metro Fire Department Board of Directors meeting, officials explained that they were approached, not by the City but rather by the developer regarding a new urban renewal agreement for the near 6th Avenue and Simms/Union. This land lies within West Metro’s boundaries, but not currently in their response area. The meeting minutes show active negotiations over TIF revenue shares, which should raise eyebrows because the developer has no role in negotiating government taxes. This raises a critical question. Was the developer acting as an agent of Lakewood? Was the developer acting on behalf of a presumed new metropolitan district? Just weeks later, at the February 18 meeting, the Fire Department approved the TIF Sharing Agreement with the City of Lakewood for the Bend project, again detailing the revenue splits. While both of these documents can be found on the West Metro Fire Department website, both meeting minutes have been downloaded and can be found here on our google drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1O0eNIOLdCo833C0xGKrvvRAeH9sUeVez Here’s the problem: under the Colorado Urban Renewal statute https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_31-25-107 developers are not authorized to negotiate Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreements. That duty lies exclusively with the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in this case, the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) or the City itself, acting in that capacity. The minutes of West Metro make no mention of negotiating directly with Lakewood. Under the statute section (9.5)(a), the taxing agreements must be worked out with the appropriate entities before the plan is approved but there is no new metropolitan district approved, unless one was promised behind closed doors. Even if a new metro district was granted, there should be a meeting and A VOTE of that Board of Directors, with conflict of interest disclosures filed. In this case, the property owners and developers will likely be the only board members so they will act as their own government. They will negotiate deals as a government that will enrich their personal property in a direct conflict of interest. They will be able to do this legally if Lakewood City Council approves their service plan in May. Why It Matters The LRA has extraordinary powers: it can borrow money, sue and be sued, condemn property, and distribute public financing to developers. When oversight is minimized or skipped, or in this case handed over to the developer; transparency, accountability, and public trust suffer. And when that’s happening on top of a Superfund site, it’s not just a process problem, it’s a public health issue and fiscal irresponsibility. Article 3 will dive into the specifics of what’s in the blight report/conditions survey, the gap analysis, what the city has currently approved for this property, and the lawsuit filed by Lincoln Properties against the Green Mountain Water Board. Please Note, the author did send an email on April 7th to the Mayor and City Council requesting to talk about this project. No one has yet to respond. Important Upcoming dates: April 21st at 7 pm – Virtual Study Session with City Council and the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) May 8th at 6:30 pm – Screening of the movie “Half Life of Memory, Rockleys Event Center 8555 W Colfax Ave, Lakewood, CO 80215. This event is free! May 12th at 7 pm – City Council Meeting, 400 S. Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO, 80226. 7pm Public Hearing for the 1.) Creation of Urban Renewal District 2.) Creation of Metro District 3.) Approval of parkland dedication, including improvements in-lieu of a site greater than 15 acres.