Arapahoe Community College kicks o healthcare annex renovation

BY NINA JOSS NJOSS@COLORADOCOMMUNITYMEDIA.COM

Across the country, hospitals and other medical facilities are facing a healthcare worker shortage.

Colorado is certainly feeling these e ects, as it is projected to be lacking 64,000 nurses and “lower wage” health care workers by 2026, according to an analysis of the U.S. healthcare labor market by Mercer.

With a focus on addressing this shortage, Arapahoe Community College is expanding its healthcare programming with the creation of the ACC Health Innovation Center, a renovation to their Annex build- ing on its main campus in Littleton.

On May 4, ACC community members gathered at a celebration to kick o the renovation project, which will o cially begin on May 15.

“Prior to the pandemic … we knew that demand for a robust, well-trained healthcare workforce was great, and COVID simply served to amplify and exacerbate it,” said ACC President Stephanie Fujii at the event. “As an educational institution which seeks to be innovative and responsive, we have chosen a planned strategic approach to this project that will allow us to be at the forefront of cutting- edge practices to meet our community’s healthcare needs.”

ACC developed the proposal for their renovation project in 2017 and submitted it to the state legislature at the start of 2018, Fujii said. With an almost $8.4 million investment from the state and $3.5 million of ARPA funding from Arapahoe County, ACC is ready to set o on the rst phase of its renovation project. e institution also received $1.1 million in in Higher Education Emergency Relief funds from the U.S. Department of Education for the project.

On April 17, resident Kurt Suppes announced that a group of Englewood residents led a davits with the city clerk seeking to recall Mayor Othoniel Sierra and Councilmembers Joe Anderson, Chelsea Nunnenkamp and Cheryl Wink.

Filing the recall a davits is the rst step in the recall process. e residents had until May 4 to submit recall petitions for each councilmember to the city clerk.

On May 5, Englewood City Clerk Stephanie Carlile con rmed via email that four recall petitions had been submitted for approval.

“Sandra Kettelhut and Jan Weipert submitted the petitions yesterday for authorization on behalf of each recall committee,” Carlile wrote.

On May 8, Carlile said via email that the four recall petitions have been authorized for circulation,

EVERYONE IN!

City pools dealing with lack of lifeguards meaning the residents can circulate the petitions for 60 days to get signatures. e required signatures needed to proceed with the recall process are: 458 signatures for Sierra, 342 signatures for Nunnenkamp, 583 signatures for Anderson and 1,426 signatures for Wink. e petitions including the statements of defense are linked in this story online at tinyurl.com/ engrecall.

Each petition may be circulated and signed by registered Englewood voters “who would be entitled to vote for the successor of the incumbent sought to be recalled,” according to the Englewood Home Rule Charter. e number of signatures must equal at least 25% of the voters who voted in the last general election for that o ce.

Carlile said the deadline to le the petitions is on or before ursday, July 6.

“If the petitions are timely led and deemed su cient, council will set an election date not less than 60 days nor more than 120 days from the ling of the petitions,” Carlile wrote.

Statements of defense

In each petition, there is a “statement of charges” that explains why the group of residents want to recall the council member. ere is also a statement of defense, in which the councilmember can respond to the claims.

One of the claims made by the residents is that each of the four councilmembers support zoning changes contemplated in the CodeNext project including permitting “multiplex housing” in R-1 zone districts, which are areas that have single-family homes.

CodeNext refers to an ongoing effort to update Englewood’s development code, called the Uni ed Development Code. e city is still in the drafting phase of the project. e Englewood City Council unanimously agreed to inde nitely end the conversation of potentially permitting two-to-four-unit buildings in R-1 zone districts during the April 17 meeting.

In Wink’s statement of defense, she wrote, “ is recall petition is promoted by a small group of people who believe I should not serve as your Council member because the Englewood City Council EXPLORED housing ideas to address our region’s a ordable housing crisis.

“Should City Council be punished for DISCUSSING how to address our most pressing issues? Council heard our constituent concerns about density in neighborhoods and decided not to pursue multifamily units in all residential areas.”

Nunnenkamp, in her statement of defense, also said the recall e ort is being pursued by “a minority of residents,” calling the e ort “misguided.”

“It will only divide our community and cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars,” Nunnenkamp wrote.

In response to claims that the councilmembers do not address crime and drug issues in the city, several of the councilmembers mentioned ways they believe they have, such as increasing the city’s police force.

Wink claimed the city council has invested $18.4 million to address ooding, tripled its investment in streets and committed $200 million to improve the city’s water system.

In his statement of defense, Anderson said that some people “misunderstand the disagreements that come in public debate” and that just because he does not agree with someone does not mean he has not listened.

Anderson wrote that “some people just want to shut important conversations down.”

Sierra called the recall e ort surprising in his statement of defense, saying it is based on discussions the city council had to bring more a ordable and attainable housing to the city.

“Over the past two years, we’ve created master plans for our water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure, partnered with Littleton and Sheridan on a Tri-Cities Home- lessness Action Plan, and added 6 additional sworn o cers to the 2023 budget to help combat crime,” Sierra wrote.

“ is feels like this is an attempt to keep future councils from looking at any major items for fear that it may lead to a recall,” he added.

Referendum e ort regarding Sam’s Automotive lot

Carlile also con rmed that residents have turned in the referendum petition protesting the approval of the multifamily development near West Oxford Avenue and South Navajo Street, where the former Sam’s Automotive business was located.

In a 6-1 vote, Englewood City Council had approved the development, which would include 361 apartment units in a four-story building as well as 34 rental townhomes in seven three-story buildings. e referendum petition states, “By signing this petition, you are protesting this ordinance going into e ect and — if su cient signatures are obtained — causing Englewood City Council to reconsider this ordinance, by either repealing it in full or calling a special election to submit it to a vote of the electors of this city.” e petition needed to gather 1,466 signatures by May 4. On May 5, Carlile said the city clerk’s o ce will begin the veri cation process and has 30 days to issue a statement of su ciency or insu ciency.