1 59 acres on Denver Federal Center’s

• Green Mountain Customers
• by Concern Citizen
• 4/7/2025

Background - 59 acres on Denver Federal Center’s NW corner were contaminated with toxins for 85 years (starting in World War II when it was a munitions factory). For nearly a century, it was a landfill for disposal of all sorts of toxins. Due to poor record-keeping, no one knows what was buried there.  About a decade ago, the government determined the site was contaminated and did a partial cleanup by removing the topsoil layer and replacing it with new clean soil to form a “cap” to seal in the toxins below.  The government claims it is safe so long as the “cap” isn’t penetrated. The new owner (a Texas developer) promises to be careful but best intentions aside, we can’t guarantee that constructing 2,000+ apartments (in buildings up to 180 feet high) will not disturb the contaminants. Although the developer promises to dig “safe” corridors for water, sewer, and utility pipelines, those trenches and high-rise foundations will penetrate the cap and disturb the wastes stored below.  The majority of GMWSD board directors are afraid there may be leaks during construction that might contaminate the groundwater. If the water table is compromised, toxins might leach into neighborhoods downhill from the DFC.  Other than the developer’s profit motive, there is no urgency to start digging. However there is reason to take the time necessary to do the right thing. If we rush ahead, there is a chance of making mistakes and endangering public safety.  Despite proponents’ claims that GMWSD is “required” to provide developers with any service they request, this proposal may create a new legal precedent with serious consequences. GMWSD has never had to provide service on land that is environmentally compromised and potentially dangerous.  The political establishment wants to help the developer by declaring the site “blighted” so it can qualify for tax incentives. To qualify for urban renewal benefits, the owner will claim the site is unsanitary/unsafe, conditions exist that endanger life, there is environmental contamination, and there are health, safety, or welfare factors that require high levels of municipal services.  The developer also wants to create a metro district, which would allow it to qualify for bond money to finance its project and the power to tax future residents.  While there are hired guns who claim it might be possible to mitigate the dangers, everyone acknowledges we don’t know what will be discovered once bulldozers start moving dirt. Due to all the unknowns, any development will be taking a chance, and GMWSD doesn’t want to enable a LOVE CANAL-type environmental disaster.  If it is adequately tested and figured out, then the project might take place. But if we are hasty and jump without looking, in the future GMWSD might end up in costly litigation when the courts try to figure out who all will be required to help pay for the damages.     One suggester noted there was a similar story on Next-door several years ago when the City was first considering buying the site:   Having been general counsel for multiple environmental remediation firms over the years, I resorted to obtaining and reviewing a copy of the Phase I environmental assessment for this property, a former munitions manufacturing site in WWII. As legal advisor to a firm integrally involved in the decommissioning of the Rocky Flats Superfund site, I appreciate the potential limits of such assessments and this one was no different. In spite of the City spending over $500,000 for this study, the firm characterizing the property was not able to provide City Council with any guarantee that there were not more, or unknown, contaminants:  “…the limited nature of [the firms] scope of work precluded the firm from providing any warranty or guarantee regarding the presence or absence of possible Hazardous Material that could potentially affect the Study Area…”  Sites such as Rocky Flats and the DFC, operated by the Federal government for many years under a cloak of secrecy, have a greater likelihood for historical record keeping that is problematic. Consequently, such facilities often have historical information gaps that make property assessment more difficult, and potentially less precise. This was certainly the case at Rocky Flats, where contaminants were randomly found in areas not previously thought to contain them, in spite of the exhaustive nature of the site characterization.   Although the Fed Center is certainly not another Rocky Flats, both were subject to conducting secret activities on behalf of the Defense Department in furtherance of crucial war/military efforts. However, it is pertinent to note the Federal government characterized as a "superfund site" certain portions of the Fed Center due to its prior munitions  manufacturing practices. The feds then remediated this small portion of the property which they characterized as fully remediated and capped. However, that particular portion of the property is de minimis as a percentage of the entire acreage of the property owned by the developer in this case. Above you can see the problems created for the initial Phase I environmental analysis due to the size  and previous use of this property.    As a long-time resident of Lakewood, a taxpayer and voter, it is my personal opinion that those parties whom we elect to function as our representatives  do not have a mandate from the voters to unilaterally undertake risky developments such as this one being proposed without first having engaged in exhaustive due diligence on behalf of their constituents and for the benefit of their administrative agencies. Based upon the foregoing, I urge the Green Mountain water board to NOT just "give the developer what it wants" with regard to this particular, and environmentally unique, property.    Exhaustive analysis AND proactive planning with regard to the nature and circumstance of any services in this regard should go a long way in mitigating the inherent risks associated with Fed Center development.

0 Wall Street Journal story about creating housing on federal land

• Lakewood
• by Concern Citizen
• 3/18/2025

The Trump administration is creating a task force to identify federal land that would be suitable for building affordable housing. The initiative marks the administration’s first step toward a pledge to unlock vast swaths of federal land to address America’s housing shortage by transferring or leasing the land to local governments. The task force will be run jointly by the Interior Department, which oversees the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the two agencies’ secretaries wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Sunday. Developing even 512,000 acres of the Bureau of Land Management’s lots could yield between three million and four million new homes across western states such as Nevada, Utah, California and Arizona, according to a preliminary analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C., center-right think tank.  An increase of that magnitude would represent one of the most ambitious housing proposals in U.S. history. It would go a long way to addressing the U.S. housing shortage, which depending on the estimate runs to more than seven million units.  But few housing analysts see a clear path for a program like this. In some areas, the surrounding infrastructure and zoning laws would have to allow for home building, or be changed to do so. President Trump’s plan would also contend with logistical and environmental challenges.   Trump’s home-building ambitions could slam into many of the same thorny challenges that any housing initiative of magnitude has encountered in recent years. Nimbyism, red tape at the local-government level, labor shortages and higher materials costs have foiled many major efforts to build new housing, especially for lower- and middle-income families.  “Freeing up federal land for more housing—I think it’s a good idea,” said U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, which has an affordable-housing shortage and where the federal government owns roughly a fifth of the state’s land. “But the problem with housing policy is that politicians want a magic housing button that they can press. And that’s not how this works,” Schatz said. The federal government is the country’s largest land owner, controlling 650 million acres, or more than a quarter of all U.S. land.  The administration has been undeterred so far by opposition to other parts of Trump’s policy agenda, from shrinking the government to eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Trump could face more significant challenges to a housing plan of scale. Much of federal land is located in rural states such as Utah, Idaho and Montana. A lot of it is in remote areas that would require disrupting wildlife habitats and building entire infrastructure systems from scratch in order to put new housing there. “There’s plenty of land, no doubt, but the trick is releasing the right land in the right places,” said Pete Carroll, who leads public-policy and industry-relations research at CoreLogic. The aim of Trump’s new task force is to identify the land parcels suitable for building. It will then transfer or lease them out to public-housing authorities, nonprofits or local governments to develop homes. The land might occasionally be sold to private developers, according to a HUD representative. The federal agencies would determine that on a “case-by-case basis” in coordination with the local government. “HUD will pinpoint where housing needs are most pressing,” and Interior “will identify locations that can support homes while carefully considering environmental impact and land-use restrictions,” the agencies’ secretaries wrote in the Journal’s opinion piece. Only a small portion of U.S. government-owned land is near cities with housing shortages. About 47 million acres, or 7.3% of all federal land, falls within metropolitan areas that need more homes, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of government land maps and housing-shortage data from the National Association of Realtors.  In Nevada, where federal land covers more than 80% of the region, the state’s Bureau of Land Management has sold 50 acres to build affordable housing through a unique Southern Nevada land-sale program that became law in 1998. That program could achieve even more supply if some environmental and appraisal reviews were streamlined, said Bureau of Land Management Acting Director Jon Raby.   Local residents are also inevitably going to voice Nimby concerns over more crowded neighborhoods, schools and other changes that come with more density, said National Association of Home Builders President and Chief Executive Jim Tobin.  “You’re going to run up against the people who don’t want more housing in their neighborhood because it’s going to increase the line at Starbucks,” Tobin said.  Past presidents, including Joe Biden and Barack Obama, have tried to repurpose the government’s unused land for housing.  The policy is difficult to execute partly because it requires coordinated “buy-in” from local, state and federal government officials, said Shaun Donovan, Obama’s former HUD secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget.  Write to Rebecca Picciotto at Rebecca.Picciotto@wsj.com and Drew An-Pham at drew.an-pham@wsj.com

0 New zoning rules propose to take Lakewood back to "bedroom" community concept

• Lakewood
• by Concern Citizen
• 3/18/2025

On top of everything else going on these days, the Lakewood establishment is planning to change the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning codes to allow for more population density and cheaper housing. As usual there is way too much devil in the details to wrap one’s head around. However, there is one area that gives me a deja vu. Back when I was on City Council (in 2012) there was a major change in zoning. One of the innovations was the concept of “mixed-use” zones. We on Council bought into the idea there could be buildings with multiple uses. The example we were sold on was a vision where the first floor of the building could have commercial uses like restaurants or shops. The second floor could be offices for businesses.  The third and fourth floors could be apartments or condos for residential use. Therefore there could be three different types of uses within the same building.  This would reduce the need for traveling to different zones for a range of uses - i.e. one could work, shop, play and live all within a single building.  So city zoning was changed to create "mixed-use" zones that would allow for several different types of uses within the same structure. However when it came time to actually build this type of zoning ALL these buildings were 100% housing. Commercial uses and offices remained located in other parts of the metro area. The City argued mixed-use did not mean there actually had to be more than one use going on in a building but rather there was a range of possible uses to chose from.  According to this line of reasoning, the builder could chose to either build all housing, or all commercial or all offices. When voters complained about this bait and switch tactic, there was an effort to require that mixed-use buildings actually have more than one use going on.  There was a major City Council effort led by Ward 4’s David Skilling to change the zoning rules for properties in Mixed-Use Employment (MU-E) districts. Mr. Skilling was able to pass an ordinance that changed MU-E zones to prohibit more than 50% of the building being used for housing. However, since developers never had any intention of building mixed use projects but rather were just interested in finding a way to build housing in zones previously limited to commercial or office use, not a single project was eventually build using this model. After these zoning rules went into effect, developers with properties zoned as MU-Employment came back to the city and requested permission to re-zone these properties into a category that would allow them to build 100% housing. Fast forward to 2025. The current proposed “reform” of the City’s zoning codes seeks to just get rid of the 50% limit on housing in MU-E zones. That way developers could continue to just focus on building more housing. As for commercial and office uses, the proposed zoning would go back to the old scheme of making Lakewood the “bedroom” community for metro Denver.So this new zoning is essentially a GOING BACK to the glory days of multi-family residential housing and riding the train into Denver for work or shopping.

0 Lakewood Doesn’t Care About Us - post from Next-door.com

• Lakewood
• by Concern Citizen
• 3/18/2025

Reprint from Nextdoor.com                               Lakewood Doesn’t Care About Us!!!           The city has once again proven that they don’t care about their citizens. There is overwhelming community opposition to uncontrolled growth in Lakewood, yet the city manager and City Council are marching in lockstep to push it forward. The City Council should be directing City Manager Kathy Hodgson—but in this town, it’s the other way around.           Now, they’ve overreached yet again, allowing the Texas based developer, Kairoi to disturb the surrounding land without having all the proper grading permits required for erosion control. Why does the City Council and the City of Lakewood allow this? Because they don’t care.          In Steve Farthing’s post, he said he hopes a biologist has checked for nesting birds on site. Let me tell you—there has been ZERO oversight. No biologists, no environmental impact analysis, nothing. They don’t care if birds are affected. They don’t care that 69 mature trees are going to be cut down. Yet they boast about their so-called "green" and "sustainable" initiatives while labeling real environmental advocates as “greenwashing,” as Mayor Pro Tem, Jeslin Sharhrezaei called them during a recent city council meeting.            They deflect blame onto the citizens who actually care while they continue their mission to build lot-line to lot-line across this city. And they will not stop unless we rise up against this.            Look at the destruction happening—bleeding right into the park. There is no careful demolition being done, and Kairoi still doesn’t even have their major site plan approval.             The City of Lakewood has completely failed its citizens. They don’t care about green space. They don’t care about environmental hazards. There could be asbestos and other particulates already contaminating the air and impacting the lake—do they care? Big. Fat. NO.            They don’t care about the people, the wildlife, or the environment.            his is outrageous! Make sure you know who you're voting for on March 25th for 2 new city council members. Know that THIS is what happens when you aren't paying attention to your local government. We need to return this council to a power of the people council, not a power of the City Manager and her attorney council.           Please support the group trying to fight this at www.savebelmar.org! This isn't over!! #StopTheDestruction #LakewoodFailsUs #Localgovernmentmatters

1 incomplete site plan for development of contaminated DFC site

• Green Mountain Customers
• by Concern Citizen
• 3/18/2025

From the Lakewood Informer dated March 14, 2025 The Bend development incomplete site plan. What will Lincoln Property Company (LPC) do with the toxic landfill on The Bend development at 4th and Union? No one knows. One part of the property has development plans, including the area SOUTH of 4th Ave. This area is supposedly free of contamination and can be developed by following safety rules. The area NORTH of 4th Ave is where no development can occur because it wasn’t fully remediated, only covered with dirt. There has been no plan filed for this land so the site plan is incomplete. The city needs the plan for the entire parcel of land to design adequate resources and to reassure residents the area is safe. But if anyone knows the full site plans, Lakewood Informer can’t find them. Lakewood Informer filed an open records request for the site plan. Instead of supplying the document, the city said to get it online. To be fair, knowing where to find the documents yourself is a valuable tool for any government website, which always seems convoluted. The Urban Renewal application materials were posted for the meeting back in January. However, there was no site plan included.  (Thank you to the city staff who handle requests) Going to the eTRAKiT development site revealed no permits or projects for that parcel ID. There is obviously a site plan, pre-development application, development application, or whatever is applicable according to Lakewood property development steps. Lakewood and LPC have been working on this site for years. And perhaps there is a good reason why I can’t get the material myself online. But regardless, I do not have that information to share. Public statements from LPC confirm that they will decide what to do with that land later. They have acknowledged that there is no plan for land right now, even as a concept. How can the city approve a site plan that doesn’t include the entire site? How can the city let homes be developed across the street, literally, from an acknowledged environmental hazard site, without getting some kind of plan for that land? Aside from the safety factor to the people living there, the city needs a full site plan to develop adequate infrastructure. This site is anticipated to include almost 2,000 homes, which will impact traffic, water, fire and police resources. Are the resources currently being planned enough for the entire parcel? Or only half? Why not disclose the plans for the entire site?

0 Proposed state law is deceptive attempt to control water district tap fees

• Green Mountain Customers
• by Concern Citizen
• 3/17/2025

HB25-1211: Deception to Legislate Litigation WRITTEN BY LAKEWOOD NEWS FROM KAREN ON MARCH 17, 2025. HB25-1211 is a deceptive bill concerning local government’s ability to set fees and it is passing the Colorado House on a party line vote. The most likely outcome of HB25-1211 is a profusion of concrete jungle developments with increased water usage and decreased ability for water districts to pay for costly infrastructure. But what IS NOT written in this bill is even worse because the bill contradicts existing law that is currently in litigation. HB25-1211 is using legislation to go beyond 100 years of case law to side AGAINST local governments in pending and future litigation. At first read, the bill’s title and language read as if the main point is to conserve water by tying lower infrastructure fees to conservation measures. This is deceptive and misleading. Infrastructure has certain fixed costs no matter how much you use it. To make this relatable, think about the appliances in your homes as your water infrastructure. It doesn’t matter if you promise to only use the dishwasher once a week or flush the toilet once a day. You still have to buy the whole appliance to make it work. You can’t buy half the appliance because you promise not to use it often. But that’s exactly the argument HB25-1211 makes. It asks water districts to let people pay less for their infrastructure because they promise to use it less. No matter how you count it, 100 high-density apartments will use A LOT more water than a couple houses, even with yards. No water conservation is happening, none, only water and cost shifting. However, the false talking point about water conservation is just a smokescreen for a larger agenda. The proposed bill stipulates that water districts have “a duty to serve”. The bare bones “duty to serve” provision, HB25-1211 contradicts the district’s ability to make decisions for the good of the whole district based on the current provisions like feasibility (see below). “In addition, if the board finds it infeasible, impracticable, or undesirable for the good of the entire district to extend water or sewer lines and facilities to any part of such district, the board may designate by resolution such area not to be served with water or sanitation service, but such area designated not to be served shall be at least ten acres in extent.” C.R.S. 32-1-1006 (1)(b) Bill sponsors like Representative Rebekah Stewart refused to make the bill conform with current law by accepting amendments to read “a duty to serve INSIDE YOUR DISTRICT”. Without those important distinguished words, “INSIDE YOUR DISTRICT”, special districts could be forced to serve people and developments outside their boundaries, which is not currently true. As a former member of Lakewood City Council, Rep. Stewart has been sponsoring this bill because of one case in Lakewood that she disagrees with. By attempting to change state law on these litigation matters, Rep. Stewart appears to be making a tacit admission that the case she’s familiar with was legally upholding service plan boundaries. This “duty to serve” provision has got districts so upset that one anonymous district said they can’t fight it because even talking through the possibilities may inspire new ideas to compel service that could bankrupt their district. So far, HB25-1211 is mostly a party-line issue.  Exceptions like Rep. Tammy Story (D) offered amendments to strip the duty to serve provision. Most Democrats, the party for the environment and sustainability, are supporting this bill that will turn suburban oases into concrete jungles. They have not realized that this bill encourages taking water out of the environment and putting it into high-density apartment infrastructure which will increase the heat profile and decrease the tree canopy. The bill sponsors have also sold this false argument to conservation groups like Conservation Colorado and Western Resource Advocates. It’s unclear whether these groups and other legislators realize that water pricing generally increases with volume used, which is where the real conservation comes from. There are other problems with the bill. Such as the focus on small government special districts instead of the largest water providers which are municipalities, private and public companies. It gives special privileges to developer metro districts. And it shifts costs from one user to another rather than promoting equality. The sponsors only have a few local examples that they based the bill on and all of them are based on significant false facts. From beginning to end, this bill is deceptive and disruptive to the ability of water districts to provide the infrastructure people need in their daily lives.  Disclosure: The author is a Director of the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District and while the district officially opposes HB25-1211, all opinions expressed are my own.    

0 State bill to regulate water district tap fees passes House

• Lakewood
• by Concern Citizen
• 3/14/2025

    On Friday, HB1211 was heard on its second reading in the House. There was significant debate, primarily led by Republican Rep. Chris Richardson and Democrat Rep. Tammy Story. Richardson offered two amendments L005 and L006, primarily for debate purposes, both of which failed. Story offered amendment L007, which would have stripped the requirement to serve language from the bill. Rep. Stewart added one amendment L004 at the request of South Platte.   This morning, HB1211 passed its third reading with a vote of 36-27, with 2 members excused. Four Democratic representatives (Marshall, Mauro, McCluskie, and Paschal) joined Republicans in voting against the bill. Our lobbyists have contacted the Senate President's office, requesting that the bill be sent to the Senate Agriculture Committee.   As of Friday, the Water Congress has still not moved to oppose the bill, and we have not heard of any action from the SDA. No district supports this bill, but these large organizations will not oppose it without hearing from you. If you are a member of either organization, please let them know that minor amendments do not address the major objections to the bill.   The hope that enough people would be exempted or that significant portions of the bill would be cut through amendments is over. It's time to recognize that the bill has not been substantially altered and is now headed to the Senate. It's time to oppose it. Let them know!   Patrick Farrell, District manager at St Charles Mesa Water District reached out representative Tisha Mauro, resulting in rep. Mauro voting NO on HB1211. Contacting your legislators with your concerns will make a huge difference.    There are about 200 water and sanitation districts, Find your legislator here:https://leg.colorado.gov/FindMyLegislator

0 Opposing State Legislature's attempt to regulate local water fees

• Lakewood
• by Concern Citizen
• 3/11/2025

From Shawn H -  March 11, 2025            House Bill HB25-1211 is a ‘Hail Mary” attempt by big developers to force their will on local water districts. Opposition last year killed this concept (Chris deGruy Kennedy’s HB-1313) with the uniform opposition of the Water Districts.  This new bill is essentially Chris deGruy Kennedy’s bill repackaged to force Green Mountain Water District to extend service to the developers of the 59 acres located between 4th and 6th Ave. and east of Union Blvd.          More importantly, the net effect is to remove local control over the fundamental operation of these district and insert State control and direction. The Lakewood City Council is supporting this bill which is actually ignoring the impact that adding 1,800 apartments (with no limits on the number of people in each apartment) would have on demand.        When the legislature in the last session (2024) force-fed “additional dwelling units” for all properties and established “high density” building corridors for one-half mile on either side of a transit corridor, they significantly increased the total potential population for every water district and supplier of water. The Legislature never explained from where the extra water and infrastructure capital necessary to handle the increase demand would come. The key issue is the increase demand in demand for water which is driven not by “taps” but by the increase in the number of people being serviced.   Here are key talking points in opposition to House Bill 25-1211 based on principles of liberty, property rights, and limited government:   OPPOSE HB25-1211 - Tap Fees Imposed by Special Districts  This bill is unnecessary and duplicative, and also imposes new requirements on Special Districts.      ➔ CRS 29-20-104.5 already requires that tap fees be “no greater than necessary to defray such impacts directly related to proposed development.”       ➔ Imposing state-mandated conservation measures on Special Districts shifts infrastructure costs from one property owner to another    ACCESS TO WATER FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS          New construction projects, whether housing or business, have to access needed services through the providers in their area. Two of the most important services are electricity and water.    WATER PROVIDERS           Water providers come in many different structures - Water Districts, Metro Districts, Municipal Water Companies, etc. These entities have a responsibility to provide water to consumers within their boundaries. The cost of providing those services is generally paid through both System Development Fees, otherwise known as “tap fees” (initial access to the water system), and ongoing user fees, which covers the cost of water usage..    TAP FEES           As mentioned, tap fees are charged to a project developer to initially access an existing water system. These fees are directly tied to the infrastructure costs of each specific district - current law (CRS 29-20-104.5) already requires that tap fees be “no greater than necessary to defray such impacts directly related to proposed development.”          These fees include a share of existing infrastructure costs, along with the cost of any new infrastructure needed to serve a project, such as upgraded pipes, large-scale treatment plants, lift stations and other infrastructure necessary to address capacity issues.      ➔  One-time charge     ➔  Fee for new customer demand only            ◆ Fee required of all new customers for their share of capacity             ◆ Fee required for existing customers requesting increases in capacity     ➔  Fee based on the value of the utility’s capacity and the amount of capacity needed by the new customer          In short, if a new housing project is proposed, whether single family or multi-unit - that new project must pay their share of the costs associated with “tapping” into the service.    MANDATES REDUCED FEES - Only Shifts Costs to Other Users         This bill also requires reduced tap fees for projects with the potential to have reduced water demand based on a number of factors such as bedrooms in a home, square footage, landscaping, appliances and fixtures. This concept is flawed as these factors do not guarantee an impact on water demand.        ➔ Examples: Two people living in a 3 bedroom, 3000 square foot, house may actually use less water than four people living in a 2 bedroom apartment. -OR- A home that “taps” in with xeriscaping may later redo their yard and incorporate a sprinkler system.         Would these projects then have to pay an additional tap fee to the water district? How would a water district without a large staff police and enforce these provisions?    COSTS VARY ACROSS COLORADO  Tap fees vary across the various water providers in Colorado-ranging from as low as $3,000 to greater than $60,000. This is a direct result of the different service structures, size of the area served, age of the infrastructure, and a number of other factors.  ➔ Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District’s fees are determined using the American Water Works Association’s Buy-In method, along with the Replacement Cost New approach for system valuation.     

1 How will Trump's Proposals Affect the Denver Federal Center

• Lakewood
• by Concern Citizen
• 3/6/2025

Campus in Jefferson County houses more than two dozen federal agencies amid GSA order   John Aguilar.  Denver Post, February 7, 2025 The Denver Federal Center, an institution for more than eight decades in the middle of Lakewood, faces an uncertain future as the new Trump administration begins the process of dramatically reducing the size of the federal workforce — and consolidating or closing the office space and buildings they inhabit. The General Services Administration, which acts as the federal government’s real estate manager and broker, is under orders to begin terminating leases on all of the roughly 7,500 federal offices nationwide. The 623-acre Denver Federal Center campus — or parts of it — could well end up in the cost-cutting crosshairs, local officials and representatives fear. The agency’s regional managers have been told the goal is to terminate as many as 300 federal office leases per day. The Federal Center, home to roughly 28 federal agencies, is considered the largest single grouping of agencies outside Washington, D.C. About 6,200 employees are spread across 44 buildings on the campus, which is at the southwest corner of Kipling Street and U.S. 6. The center contains more than 4 million square feet of lab, warehouse and office space. U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen, who represents the Jefferson County-centered district in which the Federal Center sits, lambasted President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman chosen by the president to help trim costs in the government, for their “repeated illegal attempts to put our federal workforce on the chopping block.” In a Thursday statement to The Denver Post, Pettersen called the retrenchment orders an “unacceptable attack on our Constitution and the public servants who go to work every day in our district to conduct groundbreaking research, manage millions of acres of public lands, work on critical wildfire mitigation efforts and provide other critical services that Coloradans rely on and our tax dollars pay for.” Among the federal agencies housed at the Federal Center are the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land Management. While there have been no official announcements made about the center’s future, The Post this week obtained a Feb. 4 letter from GSA Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian to federal agencies stating that “President Trump has outlined a clear vision to restore efficiency, fiscal responsibility and optimism to the Federal Government.” The letter, which does not mention the Denver Federal Center by name, says the GSA is tasked with “right-sizing the Federal office portfolio by accelerating the disposition of underutilized and inefficient buildings, reducing capital liabilities, and moving Federal operations into more modern and appropriately sized spaces.” It asks agency heads to determine by Feb. 14 if “your agency’s ability to fulfill its mission will be irreparably compromised by a termination, and provide evidence thereof.” After that date, the GSA will begin ending leases for agencies that haven’t successfully argued for an exception, the letter reads. A spokesman for the GSA didn’t address the Federal Center’s status when asked this week by The Post. The GSA owns and leases more than 363 million square feet of space in 8,397 buildings in more than 2,200 communities nationwide. The properties include courthouses, post offices and data processing centers. Fed Center is “critically important” Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom said the Federal Center “is critically important to the local and regional economy.” “These dedicated public servants are also conducting important work that addresses the safety and welfare of the American people,” she said Thursday. “As with any industry contributing to our economy, any significant changes to the workforce or its facilities is of extreme concern.”   More than 6,000 federal employees work at the Denver Federal Center in Lakewood. The 623-acre campus is home to more than two dozen outposts of federal agencies. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski) Any changes at the federal campus, Strom said, “should involve a prudent, planned process that includes the input of residents and representatives before any decision is made.” Speculation about the future of the Denver Federal Center comes amid a nationwide fiscal restructuring effort by the Trump administration that included a directive last week attempting to freeze billions of dollars in federal spending. The funding suspension effort was quickly stopped by judges and rescinded — at least for the moment. And this week, up to 40,000 civilian federal workers in Colorado — and thousands more across the nation — faced a tough choice: tender their resignations and be paid through Sept. 30 or hold firm and face future rounds of belt-tightening and strict return-to-office requirements as the government reduces remote accommodations. A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the president’s ultimatum to federal workers after labor unions challenged it as illegal. U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. in Boston paused its implementation until after he could hear arguments from both sides at a court hearing scheduled for Monday. Home to notable facilities The Denver Federal Center, which started out in 1941 as the Denver Ordnance Plant making ammunition for soldiers fighting overseas during World War II, features the National Ice Core Laboratory. Its vault, with a temperature of 40 below zero, holds a half-million ice core samples from Antarctica, Greenland and high-mountain glaciers that date back 4.5 million years. It is the largest ice repository in the world. “It’s absolutely spectacular,” Jansen Tidmore, president and CEO of the Jefferson County Economic Development Corporation, said of the ice lab. Tidmore worries more about lost jobs than lost buildings as cuts are made across government facilities. “It’s about making sure we preserve jobs and the crucial research associated with them,” he said. “There’s a lot of pride in Colorado and Jefferson County in having the Denver Federal Center here.” Denise Maes served as the GSA’s regional administrator for an area that included Colorado for more than two years under former President Joe Biden. Since it was a political appointment, she stepped down the minute after Trump was inaugurated for his second term on Jan. 20. “It’s an icon in that part of Lakewood,” Maes, who worked in Building 41 during her tenure with GSA, said of the Federal Center. “There’s a history about it. There’s an economy around it.” Like the fact that Building 810, a 675,000-square-foot warehouse, was once one of the biggest facilities of its type in the western United States, and the fact that Building 710 was built with a basement that can withstand a nuclear attack. Maes said she feared the GSA’s current downsizing posture could harm — or even do away — with a Colorado institution. “This is not recognizing the value of the place and what it does for Americans every day,” Maes said.