[NO AUDIO]
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Good evening,
I call the city Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m..
Please call the roll.
[Roll Call]
Would everyone please rise and join me
for the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Next is the approval of the agenda.
If there are no objections, the agenda
will be approved pure caring none,
the agenda is approved as presented.
Moving on to public comment, it's
designed for you to share your thoughts with council
but it is not an interactive discussion.
If you are attending in person tonight and would like to give
a general public comment, please sign up at the clipboard
in the back of the room .
If you called in to tonight's meeting,
the clerk will recognize you by the last four
digits of your phone number and we
ask the chat feature online only be used to sign up
to give public comments.
Before I give instructions, do we have anyone signed up?
Clerk: We do have individuals signed up for public comment
tonight.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: There's a three limit time limit
for individuals and a five minute time limit for anyone
representing an organization .
Your feedback is important to us.
Doug Gilbert: Good evening , members of council and staff,
I wish to voice my Opposition to item 8D,
the resolution opposing the upcoming ballot measure.
I think in this era of Citizens United, large campaign
contributions not just here but also in lone tree,
I think we need to be having more direct democracy and not
less of it, because it focuses the electorate
on a particular issue and not on the broad range of issues
a candidate election might focus on, so it's a different animal.
Secondly, I think the arguments being
made the city needs latitude negotiation are really
talking about the wrong mission of the city.
The mission of the city is to look after the health and safety
and welfare of its citizens and the area under which it
operates, it is not to be a real estate developer.
The city or maybe the staff is considering
it should be a real estate developer
and I don't think that's what we like
to see as citizens of the city.
Obviously we want a prosperous city,
we voted for taxes and things to make things better.
Third, many citizens are concerned about the track record
of this city with respect to its application and administration
of zoning.
We've had the troublesome area of the McDonald's
with that agreement, I don't need to go to into detail
and bring up painful memories but beyond that there
are multiple complaints in the canyons about a lack
of effective code enforcement.
I think the resolution tonight illustrates
a certain amount of tone deafness
and we should get beyond this.
Last but not least, pursuing the item agenda
sends a message city Council is making a bold statement that it
knows better than those who elected it,
and I think that is problematic for a number of reasons.
It's very different from the approach we took in 2010 when
I was on council and we had a referendum
to undo the Urban Renewal Authority.
Essentially, we let the democratic process play out.
I was very opposed to the referendum,
but I had to respect democracy and I
would hope that you can do the same
and that you would vote against or postpone indefinitely 8
D this evening, thank you very much.
Whitney Schenk: Good evening mayor
and members of city Council, I am the executive director
of the Castle Pines Chamber of Commerce
and I'm here tonight on behalf of the chamber
to express our support For 8 C, 8 D,
and 8 E. What matters is the growth is
thoughtful and intentional in a way that benefits people that
already live here, businesses already invested here,
and the future of our community.
For businesses, predictability matters and they
need to understand the process, what will be expected of them,
and what the city is trying to accomplish long term.
We believe this policy provides that clarity
while still allowing City Council to look
at each annexation individually and determine whether it
makes sense for Castle Pines.
We especially appreciate the focus
on fiscal sustainability, infrastructure
and public service, community benefit,
and opportunities for future commercial development.
The chamber also supports opposing the proposed charter
amendment that would require voter
approval for certain annexations over 20 acres.
We believe our elected city Council
needs to maintain the ability to evaluate these proposals
individually and make decisions on what is best
for Castle Pines as a whole.
Annexation is already a very public process
including multiple steps, public hearings,
opportunities for residents to provide input
and ultimately a decision by the City council members
elected to represent them.
Requiring an election simply because our property exceeds
a certain acreage could make the process significantly more
complicated and could limit the city's ability
to respond when economic development opportunities come
our way.
I also think it's important to remember that Castle Pines
residents already have a strong voice in their local government,
our home charter preserves initiative and referendum rights
for our residents providing important checks and balances
for our local government.
We absolutely believe residents should
have a voice in how Castle Pines grows,
at the same time we believe our elected city Council needs
the flexibility to carefully evaluate each annexation based
on its individual merits rather than requiring
an automatic election based primarily on acreage.
Finally, the chamber supports item 80, the 2026 Economic
Development Strategic Plan.
This is something incredibly important to the Castle Pines
chamber, we hear all the time from our residents
that they want more restaurants, retail, services and amenities
right here in Castle Pines, but those things don't just happen.
We know we have to be intentional about creating
an environment where businesses want to invest,
and where businesses we already have can succeed.
A strong economic development strategy
helps us do just that, it gives us a road
map for attracting the right investment,
growing our commercial tax base, supporting our existing
businesses and ultimately creating the kind of community
our residents continue to tell us they want.
The chamber is excited to continue
partnering with the city on this work,
thank you for your leadership, continued commitment
to thoughtful, responsible growth, and economic development
in Castle Pines.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: We are moving on
to the presentation of our minutes, any corrections
to our minutes from the City Council meeting?
Hearing none, the minutes are approved as presented.
Tonight's consent agenda is resolution 26-50
for the coordinated election held on November 3rd 2026.
A resolution which also sets ballots and places to the Castle
Pines charter on the ballot for the coordinated election held
on November 3rd 2026.
The resolution awarding a construction contract doing
business as Nicholas Construction Inc.
For the Happy Canyon Phase one construction projects .
I have a motion and a second, clerk please call .
The motion passes.
Moving on to our general business,
our first item is the Douglas County Sheriff's Office update.
Speaker: We had an incident that happened in Castle Pines,
on August 20th at about 624 we had a suicidal subject
in the 600 block of Yellow Drive with a handgun,
the reporting party stated her ex husband had threatened
to shoot himself and refused to return to jail.
He did say he would shoot officers
if they would attempt to take him to jail,
so that's really the call we went to.
I know it seems it was a long time,
it was three hours for the total incident but the important thing
was the suspect , no one was injured from this.
The suspect surrendered, it was three hours of negotiation
and we also had to evacuate some of the apartments
within the complex for the safety of those surrounding
and they issued an alert to make sure
those who lived in the apartment complex sheltered in place.
Safety takes a priority, sometimes
we have to take the time it needs because this
is if we would have pushed the issue we would have had injuries
to citizens or those involved.
The important thing is is the person was taken into custody,
did surrender, and is facing multiple charges.
Party in the park, phenomenal event.
Officers enjoyed it thoroughly, air traffic team
came to help out with those that left.
That's going to be an ongoing event,
well received and well attended, no issues to report from that.
I think the only thing to report is
there's some barricades that need
to be more noticeable around night time,
but they said the event went flawless.
The last thing real quick , we've been receiving complaints
when it comes to speeding, and this summer has been no
exception to that.
We feel speeding is a problem because it's a safety issue
for the city of Castle Pines.
We did step up enforcement, you will
hear we were aggressive in the enforcement.
In a 30 day period, there were 66 citations
for people driving ten over.
Unfortunately, we have residents and nonresidents
speeding through the city of Castle Pines.
Hopefully the enforcement will get people to change that
behavior, because really safety applies to everybody .
We've got kids going to school, people driving through normal,
we really have to have people appreciate that .
We were heavy on the reinforcement, that's
something to change behavior, the citation
takes a little hit for your wallet
and gives the person something to think about.
I'd have to pull the stats up, monarch and Castle Pines
was big.
There were certain areas that had
the majority of the citations.
We always have issue with the school zones,
people forget the school zones are active .
10 to 19 over in a school zone is a big deal,
we ask the residents in general and those coming to Castle Pines
whether to the businesses or they live here, be mindful
of the speed, mindful of what's going on in the city
because safety is ultimately what's important for all of us.
When I see things like the 20 to 24 over,
sometimes we have to remind them through a piece of paper .
We want to make sure the culprits are
held accountable and responsible for that, thank you.
Speaker: I would like to thank the Sheriff's office generally.
To have handled that without the negative outcome to everybody
involved, including the person struggling ,
and without an inappropriate use of force,
it was handled the right way and I appreciate that very much.
I also want to thank the Sheriff's office
for its dedication to human trafficking,
I had an event today where members of your force
appeared including the Sheriff and I just
want to communicate that out loud to you
as well because it happens in places that people don't always
see.
Councilmember Kori Salazar: How do you
break out the speeding from residents to non residents?
Speaker: We do have that in the stats,
we can see where a person lives from the citation violation.
It's a mix, we have a lot of people that come here
for business reasons and sometimes we don't necessarily
look at the surroundings and think about school
being back in service.
We hope the community will take a look
and take a step back for the safety of our kids
and community.
I know you feel the same , that can make a difference if a child
or a citizen so we just want people to really think about
that.
Have a great night!
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Next we are moving on
to a public hearing for the ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Castle Pines Colorado amending section
27 Site Improvement plan of the City of Castle Pines
zoning ordinance on second reading.
Our staff presentation will be given
by the community Development Director Donna Ferguson.
Donna Ferguson: This proposed amendment
to section 27 of the city's zoning code
is brought to you by the Community Development
Department authorized under section 109 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Your policy question tonight is does the City Council
approve an amendment to the city's zoning ordinance
to update the process, procedures,
and approval criteria for site improvement plans?
ever since Castle Pines became a Home Rule city in 2008 we have
been working towards updating our Land development codes
to make them make sense for the city ,
and not Douglas County from which we adopted it from.
This is not new, it's something we've
been striving for and working towards.
A little bit about what we went through to get here today,
we did start with the Planning Commission study session
and brought the question of updating the site approval plan
approval criteria to Planning commission, got their feedback,
we then took it out to a referral process and when
the referral process closed we took the information we learned
from the referral process back to the Planning Commission with
a formal red line, which you also have in your packet .
Then, this ordinance was on first reading two Tuesdays ago,
tonight it is on second reading and public hearing
for your review and consideration .
The referral period took place from July 2nd to July 23rd,
the referral was sent to Douglas County agencies , Parker,
Castle rock.
We sent it to our known homeowners associations,
including Castle Pines North, high Park, the canyons.
We also set this out to metro districts and the canyons,
we also sent this out to our business community,
our shopping center where Safeway is and King Soopers is,
and also our office park that sits right in front of city
offices .
We received one comment response from Douglas County Community
Development, it was really interesting
because they provided feedback on why
there were certain criteria.
The reason we had a three year expiration policy
is because it was inconsistent with this,
it was being informative and it did point out a few errors,
so it was helpful but not substantive in nature.
We also published this public hearing in the newspaper,
and you also received a copy an affidavit
for that in your packet.
This is an image of our land development process steps,
and this is actually in the city's website.
Anybody can come here, understand what the land
development process is.
It is several steps, starting with a comprehensive plan which
all of the steps below are informed by.
On the right side, you will see the level of discretion each
land development step has .
High discretion at the very top, our comprehensive plan
and annexation policy high discretion
level, but as you move down in the land development process
it becomes less discretion, and this is purposeful.
It's supposed to start very high and lofty,
and could get refined .
I wanted to point something out, a lot of talk through this
process has been about the self storage development,
and that property --
we inherited that property when the city incorporated,
it was in the city and it was zoned business district ,
and then the property owner came in and said hey,
I want to talk about changing the uses.
We went through a rezoning and a planned development process,
and through that legislative process
which does have discretion, they asked us primarily the impetus
for this was that we want indoor storage units.
This was right next to a residential community,
there's going to be impacts.
Planning Commission and Council said
you have to have minimum heights,
this building has to look a certain way.
It can't have lights adjacent to the residential community,
it has to be esthetically pleasing
with a lot of landscaping and buffering.
All of those land development controls were set in the zoning,
and then the site improvement plan simply
becomes the review of making sure they
meet all of those technical requirements that you set out.
Once it gets to a site improvement plan,
the land use is already set , the technical requirements are
already set, so site improvement plan is just about did you do
what the rules said you are supposed to do?
Keep that in mind, and we will go to the next slide.
So, the review of the site improvement plan.
These proposed amendments are to make the site improvement
plan review technical in nature, basically clean it up and remove
some old procedures that were fine for the county,
but not for us.
The first one being to focus the review on its consistency with
the codes, with the zoning, with actual regulations and not
policy .
It's not about are you consistent with the plan,
it's about are you consistent with the zoning?
Specifically, we are proposing to remove two approval
criteria which are very policy oriented,
and those are to remove supports the goals and objectives
of the comprehensive plan which by the way
is something we reviewed with the zoning already,
as well as further public health safety and welfare.
With regard to this, furthers public health
safety and welfare, we have already distilled that
into discrete regulations.
I did provide you a list of those regulations for all three
of those considerations.
For example, one of them is a setback from a street.
It's inherently chosen based on the level of the street .
That's an example of an actual regulation
that you can meet or not meet that protects the public welfare
safety, I just want to make sure you understand that.
Next slide , other things we are changing is the formal public
comment process.
Right now, we send referrals to agencies,
and we have advisory agencies and we have regulatory agencies,
and the code right now says you Must respond to Speaker:
They were in two separate areas, we
did remove one requirement the city doesn't use.
They have standardized notes and expiration dates,
the expiration dates for the civil drawings is three years
but in our manuals it is two years .
We wanted to update it to make sure it is consistent,
also there's a post approval procedure having
to do with the certificate of occupancy
I was mentioning earlier.
It's an outdated procedure, it's not something we need or use
and we would like to clean that up.
These proposed Staff feels that this will make it easier
to administer, more predictable for applicants,
for planning commissioners, for staff.
There's a clearer basis for findings and decisions,
as I mentioned before we are going
to add a public hearing and public notice,
and public comment opportunity.
It just standardizes many things,
like the notice requirements, and it
doesn't eliminate any development requirements
that are really key to getting us our good site developments.
Planning Commission, as you saw on that process slide voted
to support the proposed amendments,
we had two absent planning commissioners .
Most of the conversation focused on the approval criteria ,
Most of the planning commissioners thought that
the two approval criteria removed were too subject policy
oriented, they view their role as reviewing the building,
design, parking, landscaping, walkways is how they view
their role, and therefore they voted 4 to 1 to recommend
approval.
Your proposed motion is there in front of you,
I am there to answer any questions you might have on this
process, any procedures .
Mayor Tracy Engerman: This is an opportunity
to ask clarifying questions, please
hold your debate for later when we have a motion on the table.
Does anyone have any questions?
Councilmember Chris Eubanks: Please go to the slide
before staff announced this.
I just want to clarify, what does it mean
does not change any upstream?
Speaker: If we were to flip back ,
site improvement plan is at the very bottom .
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: The first one is multi-part.
On this slide, is it possible that a subdivision plot
step would be completed and then the SIP would follow years
later?
If it comes years later, where would the planning Commission
or the council be able to consider current policy that
may have changed between the date of the subdivision plot
and the date of submission if it was several years away?
Speaker: On a quasi judicial application,
that would need to be done well before a site improvement plan
is presented to you .
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: If the subdivision plot process
and all the policy that goes with it including traffic
studies and things like that, if that occurred three years before
and then three years later the improvement plan is submitted,
is there any place in the process
that that three years later point
where policy considerations could be considered?
Speaker: No, because the site improvement plan is not
a policy consideration, it's a technical review consideration.
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: You said our criteria were
removing two policy related things ,
is there some source document that says the site improvement
plan is never a consideration, who says that?
Is it something y'all learn in textbooks that site improvement
plans never have public policy in them?
Speaker: You can put a policy question in there if you wish,
that is certainly up to you.
But we are trying to explain that you have really addressed
all of those questions and considerations in the upstream
already, and in your example, a subdivision plan is simply
the creation of a legal lot that can be developed earlier,
we already know it has access and the ability
to be served by water and sewer.
This, now, is simply reviewing the lot
to make sure it's consistent with the zoning that's already
in place.
If now there's a policy, if you go this route
it shouldn't be a burden on the site improvement plan.
If you want a policy question in the site improvement plan,
you may have one.
Speaker: If the original plat is created,
let's take the commercial area or Parkway Plaza as an example.
If changes needed to be made to zoning, that's
where we're saying the policy changes occur so you would go
through a rezoning process for the West commercial area,
and whatever those additional new zoning requirements are
on whatever those particular uses are or would be,
that's where you're making the policy decision and site
improvement plan is solely the technical implementation of what
happens upstream, so part of the conversation in here is are
there ultimately more upstream changes
you want to make relating to specific uses
in the West commercial area and potentially the Parkway Plaza
area, but by the time you get to the site improvement plan
whether it is one year or three years,
it's the council over that period of time that is deciding
if we want to make changes upstream and then
the implementation of the improvement plan has to be what
the rezoning or change was .
Speaker: The city can propose text amendments
to address more stringent standards for car washes or gas
stations, and if an SIP isn't pending,
they have to comply with whatever standards are in place
at the time they submit an application,
so that is where you make your policy changes is in code
or through initiating a rezoning.
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: If planning Commission gets an old
car wash down the street in the town center or something
and the subdivision plot was previously done ,
does the process apply to certain conditions like it must
be screened by X amount of landscaping or set a certain
way, is that still permitted on an SIP?
Speaker: Yes, through the design guidelines.
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: If it's a planned development,
that doesn't apply.
Speaker: The design guidelines goes further
to talk about location.
You could technically put a parking lot here,
but our site design guidelines say
you should move this parking so it doesn't interfere
with the residential next door.
That is how we further the design and the site changes.
Speaker: I don't believe this is germane to what
we are talking about tonight.
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: I think
the chair has to make a ruling on that point of order.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: I'm going to move to accept a motion.
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: The chair may not ask a motion.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: I'm going to close the motion and we will
open public comment .
We're going to open the public comment ,
if you would like to give public comment and our attending
in person, please sign up on the clipboard at the back
of the room.
If you've called in tonight's meeting --
Doug Gilbert: I have voted for this hot mess of zoning
and so forth probably four times I think ,
and I believe we voted on it twice.
I think we've had these discussions,
I actually was not in favor of the way
that this came out because I wanted all the notices to be
moved to an annex and more modern processes,
and at that point in time the mayor persuaded
me to withdraw my objections and we move forward.
But please give your serious consideration tonight
to amend this proposal and leave the comprehensive plan
element in here.
I think all the procedural stuff is great,
that needed to be done 16 years ago,
and it has been very frustrating for me
to see that it hasn't been done at that period of time.
I left council 15 years ago and it still hasn't been done,
and that was the objection to Commissioner Wiley
at the Planning Commission that we are taking a halfway approach
here and are possibly setting up some situations where
we have approvals under an old system that
are going to flow through and cause potential liability.
It would be good to do a holistic review of things,
if you leave the provisions for the comprehensive plan in there,
it at least gives you an anchor to make
a very solid quasi judicial determination that is not just
where the parking lot is, because that may not
be sufficient to get you past court
as we learned from the McDonald's case.
My suggestion is do all those procedural things ,
but comprehensive plan we have even to date good fairly
comprehensive plan leave that in there.
My question to you would be why don't you
remove the land use goals from the comprehensive plan?
With that, I urge you to have a motion for amendment
to leave the plan criteria in there.
I've demonstrated in my written comments this is not that
difficult for staff to do, and they can challenge the developer
to do that .
Thank you very much for your attention.
Whitney Schenk: Good evening again,
the chamber supports the ordinance
and the proposed updates to the site improvement
plan approval criteria.
One of the most important things we can provide
is someone considering an investment
in Castle Pines, a process clear consistent and predictable.
By more clearly connecting project approvals
to the existing zoning regulations, division standards,
technical requirements, and design guidelines,
applicants have a better idea of what
is expected from the beginning, and that doesn't
mean lowering our standards.
We can make the process more predictable
while still maintaining high expectations for quality
development that helped make Castle Pines so special.
When businesses and developers understand the process
and know what is expected of them,
it makes Castle Pines a more attractive place to invest.
For those reasons, the Castle Pines Chamber of Commerce
supports 2606 on second reading, thank you.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: May I have a motion to begin discussion?
We will begin with Council discussion.
Councilmember Kori Salazar: I appreciate
the Planning Commission and our community director.
I think this was needed to get away from some of the ambiguous
language that we have .
I also spoke to one of our commissioners
today at our workshop, and he also
agreed it needs to be based on fact to eliminate
ambiguity to increase predictability
not only for developers, but for the city, community and Planning
commission to make easier decisions so that is why I am
in favor of this and appreciate all the work that
has gone into this.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Any other comments?
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: I would appreciate
hearing the other members, as I am still
formulating my thoughts.
Councilmember Chris Eubanks: I'm in support of this,
I remember the McDonald's case which was
painful for everyone involved.
I also do think that was the wrong decision by us,
I felt that all along, I was one of the two votes
in favor of the McDonald's because I
thought it met the criteria.
I do believe the site improvement plan process should
be an objective process, it should not be a policy process.
I think it needs to have a clear delineation
of the standards of what it's going to be measured against.
I think that's important for everybody involved
from the residents to the developers,
so they know what they are dealing with.
By the time we get to the SIP, that's where I think it
doesn't meet the criteria , that's the process we should
have in place .
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: I'm
concerned that the comprehensive plan and Policy are a little bit
too set aside by this process.
I fully support every element of this,
but it is my understanding that the requirement to submit
the traffic study and the construction plans has just
moved, and not removed.
As I look at the discretion arrow slide,
I am seeing that the comprehensive Plan
compliance is not in the decision making process.
I know it's in some of the criteria for zoning but what
concerns me is that when years pass,
it's too difficult to go back and change zoning on somebody
to assert a new policy, because if we do change zoning
on somebody or something or a landowner,
they may potentially have a right to complain about that,
and that would be even more confusing .
So I think there was a better way to lend more clarity
and certainty to the process , and what we are seeing is a lot
of time between subdivision plan and site improvement plan,
at least in the several years I've been involved,
and council is unwilling to go back and change zoning when
something changes in the community or when the community
and the council has its retreat and sets its vision we don't go
back and review all the zoning and other decisions that might
be important .
As an example the zoning and considerations for case seven
were a long time ago, things have changed in traffic has
changed .
It's just too complicated to go back and change all that,
when it could just be part of the process .
I would have been in favor of this
if it would have not been removing the first criteria.
I would have been in favor of changing
the phrase in furtherance of to some other thing,
and I think that's even more important when
we're considering changes to our comprehensive plan
now to make it clearer.
The problem in the past was that the comprehensive plan
itself contained conflicting items, so anything
would be found to be compliant or in furtherance of ITT.
When we are changing our comprehensive plan,
we remove those.
We talked about a more concise document,
so if we were to keep that in I could support this
because I support every other part of it
and all we need to do is change that in furtherance concept
and change our comprehensive plan to be easier to work with,
which we are already doing.
Councilmember Geoff Blue: The developer of the McDonald's had
updated the traffic study that was missing during the hearing.
The second piece I want to point out
is we had just rezone that area just two years before
or something like that when we did the self storage.
This isn't 10 or 15 years difference,
this is just a few years before we changed the zoning,
left in the restaurants and did not remove the restaurants
and we ended up declining a restaurant even
though it met the criteria.
You started the process by asking questions about
the length of time , I'm telling you in this situation it was
just a two year process.
At the end of the day, that's my piece on this.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Please respect our protocols.
Do we have any further discussion or comments?
please call the vote.
[Voting]
The motion passes.
I will close the public hearing at 731 ,
and we are going to take a rest break.
We are back and will go ahead and move
on to the next item on the agenda, resolution
26-49
, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Castle
Pines, Colorado, adopting the city of Castle Pines annexation
policy.
Donna Ferguson: Your policy question tonight is does Council
support the adoption of resolution 26-49 which approves
the annexation policy establishing a comprehensive
framework of guiding principles, evaluation criteria,
and procedural requirements to guide how the city considers
future annexations.
Annexation is the process of adding territory to the city,
and there are four steps to doing so.
The first two are state statute procedures,
and the last two are city procedures.
The first is substantial requirement, required
by the state, it's a determination
of whether annexation requester has provided us
all the information we need to review an annexation
application.
The second step is the eligibility,
and this is where we go through the review criteria based
on the state to see if a property that is in the county
actually qualifies to be annexed by any city, not just ours.
The third step is the annexation decision that is made by City
Council .
This is what the policy will help address and help guide,
and the last step is the zoning .
What are going to be the standards for development,
this is the third step we are addressing .
The city was incorporated in 2008 at which time approximately
the city became a rural city in 2019,
at which time we gained more local control of how we grow .
There have been three major annexations that have increased
the size since we have incorporated,
we are now about 9.9mi².
Currently we have no formal annexation policy in place,
we did the previous annexations without one
but with the presentation of an annexation crow's nest
which we are all aware of, we realized
we are in a state where we need to have some annexation
guidelines so City Council directed
us to pause the annexation request
and reach out to the community and put together an annexation
policy based on resident values.
A formal policy will help applicants and residents
set clear expectations of what the city would expect
from an annexation, also be clear to residents
about what is important to us based on their values.
Will help provide complete information with annexations
so that we can look at it comprehensively
and comparatively, and it will help residents see the criteria
that we are looking at and applying while still maintaining
the discretion we have At Really this annexation policy is meant
to be up front and available for somebody who Wants to annex,
so they know right up Just because a proposal comes in it
Just because -- an annexation proposal comes in I'm happy
to answer any questions you might have about the process let
me know.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Please hold your discussion and debate
topics for when we have a motion on the table.
Councilmember Kori Salazar: We had some suggestions from one
of our community members about the process,
it does not need to be included in this,
but just to state there was some suggestion about timeline
between when applicant applies and when
they have to do public comment.
Speaker: It had to do with public comment at the last
meeting related to the timing between the public comment
period and the submittal .
Those are things we would build into the application process,
if that was something Council wanted to see we would certainly
build those things in and we can come back if there's
a desire for that particular one,
but if there's other things you want to see in the application
process around timing but as you do
with all applications on the administration side
we develop what the process is, it ends up on our website
so anybody that is interested can go and look at the process
and understand what that timeline looks like.
We would be clear on the website,
so everybody understands that.
The implementation of the process as
opposed to the policy.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Additional questions?
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: I will refrain.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Any other questions for staff?
Councilmember Nate Winegar: I had
a question on the 30% open space, concerns
with the wildlife corridors and understanding 30% which I think
is a good number of realistic open space,
but is there any definition of what discretion
does the Council have during the process when
presented with something what that 30% looks like.
Donna Ferguson: You will have full discretion
to determine if it's adequate open space for whatever
values you have set forward in that policy.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Any additional questions?
Councilmember Chris Eubanks: How many is a lot?
Mayor Tracy Engerman: I'm going to ask
you to hold your discussion back and forth until we
get to discussion and debate.
Do we have any staff questions?
we will go ahead and I will entertain a motion.
We begin discussion with Council member Mulvey.
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: It would seem to be a minor change,
but under guiding principles it calls for specific reference
to the part of our policy that defines open space,
and so it just adds three words to specifically refer
to the rest of the section, and I think that comports with what
our residents wanted and doesn't detract from the overall need
to have the policy.
Councilmember Geoff Blue: I know you said where it goes,
but I'm lost in trying to find where you
are putting those three words.
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: There's
two places, or three, in this policy that
are kind of what we need to do.
one is guiding principles, one is general policy,
the next one is preferences pure rather than put
something under preferences, I'm suggesting
that when we mention our guiding principles under number three,
we say preserve significant natural resources
but then we define open space later in the document
and so I am proposing that it's consistent to add
open space there so that it makes direct reference
to that later section.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Additional discussion?
Councilmember Kori Salazar: You want
to add and open space to C3?
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: Yes.
Councilmember Chris Eubanks: I feel like sometimes we in this
council use the term a lot, and I'm curious about what the scale
of that is .
Councilmember Nate Winegar: It means on a routine basis of how
many emails or people that were upset and brought up,
I'd say it's brought up 35 to 40% of the time,
there's a silent majority I never hear from
but of the people I've spoken with who come to meetings ,
I would say it's about 35 to 40% of those people who really worry
about the wildlife and that they have access corridors for some
of these things .
Councilmember Geoff Blue: I am in support of this,
I really like the process we went through.
I take exception to the comment earlier today
that the annexation process was filled with holes
and problematic or whatever the phrase that was used,
I think we handled it perfectly appropriately at the time
and went through the process and the things we needed to do.
We stepped back when we got to a point
that we decided we didn't have a good policy document in place
to give us the framework within which we wanted to be making
the decision, I think that's what this is about
and so I am very happy with this.
Tying this into other things, I think
this policy highlights the fact this is a decision that belongs
at the city council level, annexation,
and if someone believes that annexation is problematic
they always can go out and get signatures and do initiative
on the specific annexation as opposed
to making a requirement for all annexations to go to the voters.
I think this policy helps guide that process,
so I am in support of this policy for a lot of reasons.
Councilmember Kori Salazar: I also
appreciate the work that went into this,
and how much of the community was involved
and how many community members expressed their desires,
they gave feedback, they attended meetings.
That's something we want to continue to have,
and I think this policy integrates
a lot of their concerns and also a lot of their criteria
that we want to have for our city
to have high standards, so we attract high quality people that
want to protect the land and the wildlife.
One thing the residents always ask about
is wanting more businesses and retail, wanting more restaurants
and our parks maintained and roads maintained.
For us to do that, we need to grow
and I think this policy allows us
to grow in a way that protects what we have, but then grows it
to a thoughtful manner.
So, I am supportive of this and excited about it.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: It was great to see the community come
out and make sure their voice was heard in this policy.
The reason we started with this is because the community came
out, and we also recognized that we needed some guidance from
what the community needed to see for its future and what it looks
like when we are analyzing annexations .
I hope the community feels like their voice was heard,
we encompass a lot of the things that were mentioned
between the survey and open houses and all
the other outreach that we had.
This was absolutely in conjunction and collaboration
with the community trying to incorporate their voices here,
and I think it's important that we have clarity for anyone that
wants to become a stakeholder in Castle Pines,
and this policy document creates that additional clarity
for what we have an expectation for our community in the future.
Please call the vote.
The motion passes.
Resolution 26-53, A resolution of the city Council of the city
of Castle Pines Colorado expressing opposition
to a ballot measure which would amend the city charter
to require voter approval for certain annexations in excess
of 20 acres.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: I have a motion and a second.
Councilmember Chris Eubanks: I was torn on this one,
on one side I understand having resident input
but on the other side, to me 20 acres is not a lot.
It seems to me any annexation would have a vote for it,
I also want to reiterate that we have discretion for everyone.
Even if we don't support this measure,
that doesn't mean we don't take that into account when we vote.
For those reasons, I am in favor of opposition of this --
I'm in favor of approving this measure which is in opposition.
That's my comment, mayor.
Councilmember Ron Cole: I struggled with this one a little
bit because I really want more city input ,
but we need to maintain the flexibility for us to make
a decision for the city to grow , so I'm in favor of saying no.
Councilmember Kori Salazar: I also support opposition of this.
The reason is I did some research,
and none of our neighbors in lone Tree, Parker, or castle
Rock specifically have this as a policy which
means if this is our policy, we are not
attractive to any developers and that means our neighbors are.
As an example, across from the canyons,
if the property wants to annex into lone tree,
we have no say over how much open space there is going to be,
if it's going to protect the wildlife.
Lone tree can decide they want to put
affordable housing, high density apartments, many of the things
we do not want in our community but that
would be in our community because they
are right next to us.
We would have no say over it because we are basically
closing the door for any conversation,
like I mentioned if we are the only city where a developer has
to go to a vote of the people, it links the amount of time
and also increases their uncertainty and probably cost,
so they are going to go to our neighbors
and then we are stuck with whatever our neighbors decide,
I think it is in the city's best interest
to not approve this vote, because we
went through this whole annexation policy process
to get the community input to make sure we have a policy that
supports the community.
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: I am by nature and definition
always opposed to telling people how to vote.
I strongly believe in our Constitution and citizens rights
to express their freedom and our collective rights
to our freedom of speech.
Our policy was actually a knee jerk reaction
to learning about this.
I think it had a great result, but the citizens chose
to persist with this process , I think they are valid and I think
the voters need to decide.
It took this much to get us to that annexation policy,
and a lot of citizen involvement .
They may be very happy now with what is produced .
The third reason might just be the principle I believe in that
it doesn't matter what party you are in ,
we are a democratic republic that allows our residents
to vote, and we put it on the ballot in our consent agenda we
should not be putting our finger on the scale by having this
in our agenda and by having this conversation,
we have by definition told people what we think and we
could have done that without telling them how to vote .
So, I strongly oppose it for those reasons.
Councilmember Chris Eubanks: I see it differently, I
don't see this resolution telling people how to vote.
This also doesn't mean it won't move forward,
what this is saying is that those of us
tonight who vote yes for the opposition,
we don't support that.
That doesn't change what actually happened,
it's just our opposition so I want to be clear about that.
We aren't saying you should or should not vote for it,
we are saying those of us who will vote yes
don't necessarily support that.
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: The distinction I seek to make
is that we each could have done so privately.
Many times we've received talking points and information
we can disseminate privately by approving
this sort of resolution which contained
many whereas clauses and many sections, we are as a body
weighing in and I do not think that is appropriate, thank you.
Councilmember Geoff Blue: I don't
want to totally repeat everything I said,
but what I said at the end of the annexation policy
kind of applies here.
I think the initiatives are a bad idea for our city,
I think they are constraining the representative system we
have set up, I think the city council is better
served to do the negotiation and handling the annexation
and it's been a process to have the City
Council make a decision.
If there's a problem or a lot of opposition
to a specific annexation, they can get the vote and signatures
and go out and run an initiative to overturn it.
I'm very much opposed to the initiatives ,
frankly I've struggled with whether we should pass this
resolution.
I am sympathetic to what Councilwoman Mulvey is saying.
I kind of disagree on what Councilor Eubanks has said.
I'm not certain how I'm going to vote until my vote comes,
but I did want to be very clear about my opposition
to the initiatives, I think the annexation policy does
what needs to be done and sets up a nice system where we have
a good framework within which to analyze any annexation that
comes to us, and my expectation is we will see something.
We have land to the south of us, land to the north of us,
east of us -- a bunch of homes, who knows what they want to do
so I expect we will see something in the future and I
think we need to have the flexibility to analyze it
on a case by case basis and make good decisions and meet
our citizens needs and our desire to keep the character
of our city.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Additional comments?
Councilmember Nate Winegar: I want
to say that I do respect and appreciate
the passion of the citizens in the community and their voice.
I think we've come a long way since I've joined the Council
on making efforts to hear the voice and creating different
ways to make sure that we are getting their input and creating
multiple opportunities for that .
I also respect Council Member Mulvey
and respect your stance on this.
I've already spoken out on this, I
think that there are unintended consequences sometimes
about good intention and well meaning of people,
and I think that I understand and am sympathetic to reasoning
as to why they feel like this is something that needs to happen
and I also feel like there are unintended consequences that
can severely impact the city of Castle Pines, its growth,
its finances and its character.
And for that reason, I will be voting in opposition.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: I understand some of the council
members hesitance for not wanting
to weigh in on this as a resolution,
but for me, this resolution, us not doing this resolution to me
doesn't stand as us remaining neutral,
I think it's us withholding information from our citizens.
We have information from sitting at this dais and what it looks
like to pass anything else in front of us
including annexation, and we have
knowledge from sitting here and learning those things,
and for us not to weigh in to make statements
about what kind of impact if this measure were to pass,
we are doing a disservice to our community
and that's why I believe we need to actually weigh in
with the resolution in this case.
This ballot measure, if it passes, essentially
sets up a binary choice to residents about yes or no
on an annexation, it doesn't give you
an opportunity to negotiate on what is best for the community.
It's whatever the developer puts in front of us,
and then we vote on it.
It really gives us no opportunities
to make things better in an annexation possibility, I don't
think we are actually going to see
any annexations if this measure passes,
which means oftentimes we are not at the table for annexation
options, we are on the table.
For that, call a motion.
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: I move
to amend the resolution to only section one, state
all the things we have affirmed about the City Council's
position and the impact it might have,
and it would simply remove that one item about how
to vote the opposition part, everything else would remain.
My motion to clarify is to amend the resolution to remove only
section one, which states opposition to the ballot measure
and so forth .
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Hearing none, the amendment dies.
Please call a vote for the motion.
Clerk: The motion passes.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: We are moving on to the very last one.
Resolution 26-54, A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Castle Colorado Approving the 2026 Economic Development
Strategic Plan
.
our staff presentation given by city manager Michael Benning.
Michael Benning: The policy question --
does Council support adoption of the resolution approving
the city's economic development strategic plan?
I just want to point out as a side note
we are trying to standardize some of our presentations
so you see a lot of the same types of process
and policy presentation similar, that's
why you see these in here.
In developing the strategic plan,
really want to focus on the lower part of the slide.
The consultants I am not going to go back through
because you've heard from them before,
but they came to understand what the market was, defined
that strategy and proposed actions
for us through the implementation strategies.
I do have Handouts that are large if anyone wants those
for their shelf or whatever you might have .
In the market findings, I'm sure you saw in both the staff
memo and the presentation I think
there's some repeats with some different words in here,
but we really operate more as that residential hub,
and what has happened both to the north
and our south is they have created strong retail
both from a park meadow standpoint,
but they've got headquarters for lots of corporations
and standard employee base in the South
primarily in the services industry
through the outlet stores and dining, those kinds of things.
We leave the city to do that, we repeat ourselves a little bit.
Organic development is occurring,
we know we have primarily three major property
owners in town that are all very experienced developers.
They don't call us and ask us to help them find anything,
they have brought us development opportunities.
establishing job centers outside the city
could have some limiting factor on us,
I don't know that I would emphasize prohibiting it
but certainly there are other kinds of gravitational pulls,
especially in lone tree.
We do have the purchasing power, if the retail and service
industry comes here we certainly can be supported by the existing
community and hopefully pull some of the regional support
here.
The west side is mainly built out,
I have a little bit of updates but essentially the west side
is 100% leased.
they are investor owned .
Parkway Plaza has three parcels left, but that is very minimal.
The east side is really where we have an opportunity ,
you will see this in the future slides.
Really what I think the role for the city and the council
is, goes to your approval of this
is not being on the front end trying to recruit the businesses
but creating policies and ordinances
so that the built environment looks
and feels like you want to ultimately see partnering
with the developers and those public spaces,
we will get to that in a little bit.
This basically says what I just said.
In this slide, it really illustrates what that is.
We know it's coming, so to reiterate back
to the other conversation, are you
happy with what is in the design guidelines
and if not let's look at amending those
so we can really work on those upstream things so
the businesses that are negotiating with the property
owners directly and then coming to the city
once they purchase a sale agreement
or whatever the issue happens to be, ten at least or something,
the expectations are clear and they know what to expect
and through those expectations your adoption
of update of the regulations or ordinances
create the environment you ultimately want to see
and the infrastructure policy alignment really
ties into the best private investment
that I have ever seen.
I think if you talk to your colleagues ,
its public investment into the right of way.
One of the recommendations later on deals with specifics
related to where is the library going to be
and how can those be incubators for other businesses
around there.
Through those ultimately early actions we improve the quality ,
so we create our own gravitational pull .
This kind of breaks down just a little bit similar to what I was
just saying .
On the town center property on the west side,
that corridor has potential which is about 120 acres
and I think I mentioned during the council budget retreat
one of the things that at some point we may bring to you,
we might want to frontload as an example
of the public infrastructure being invested
because it is the developer's responsibility, pushing that
forward.
Definitely again having conversations with the property
owner on the east side, a lot of you
have said you better do that commercial development
and bring that main street here, I
think that's really the role that we can play
is making sure that as the development is on the east side
that council is communicating our expectations
around that public space, because that is not necessarily
what the developer is going to do on their own.
I think we are generally blessed with high quality expectation,
so luckily we are generally in alignment on the east side.
Council has very much supported our organization,
we are not looking to add a staff member .
More internally is using key performance indicators,
we will be starting to work on that
and it would tie into the city's dashboard.
We would certainly build that, I've already referred
to discussions around the library saying how we can best
support on the east side .
They do recommend establishing clear commercial positioning
statement, I think as a good partnership on the east side
they have been very clear with us on the meetings
and they want to incorporate the council
and adopt into the commercial.
We don't ultimately know what that looks like, but by the time
the council had approved that, the commercial development
we very much believe they are going to build that and so
it helped to maintain or establish
that commercial identity.
So again, they did the assessment
of the current standing with the economics, demographics,
the business climate was they did talk to our property owners
in addition to the residents and key stakeholders.
They ultimately are defining a road,
identifying those opportunities for growth,
location for infrastructure needs
I just talked about and long term strategies
that I needed to print on 11 by 17 to be able to see it,
that is what it looks like on the screen.
One of the things we will start working on
is of those short term pieces.
There are some of those longer term
pieces that I think tie into things like the design
guidelines, and what we are really
thinking about and working with Council on how do we
create that regulatory framework so that businesses that
come here are the quality type of buildings that you all
want to see.
We are really keen on this, what your leverage is so you're going
to see this on a regular basis.
It sets the guidance for development, strength
and local services, economic vitality,
community character and long term quality of life.
It doesn't establish an aggressive or business specific
recruitment program, because again,
I think our unique property ownership in terms
of the undeveloped land that is not what they have ever asked
of the city, and because the current environment on the west
side is least, and as you know the property owners
in the Safeway property village no, that one's --
what's the Safeway one called?
That's not important.
They have been very specific about we
will call you don't call us type of thing.
So the consultants heard that and really wanted
to honor that given we have again, a unique situation.
Ten, 20, 30 years from now that very much could change.
And we would be more in line with other communities that
are looking to support backfill, and redevelopment
and those kinds of things.
But that's not where we are at, but identify
any specific concerns incentives,
but again we are not looking to propose additional staff it's
really around the policy making and those property
investments that is what we can do to support and influence
future business in our community.
So we believe that they did a good job,
we believe that the plan has a realistic strategic framework
that we can start working on this plan this evening,
there's no immediate fiscal impact
as I just said we will be working if council approves it,
on 27 implementation component from here.
And if there are some components to that those will be included
in the 27 proposal for you so we propose
that you approve resolution 2654 adopting the Resolution
Strategic Plan and there's a proposed motion here.
>> Council members do you have any questions for staff at this
time?
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: This was an investment
that we all agreed on but for the public's sake
could you share the consultant?
And if you don't have the exact, maybe the ballpark perhaps?
>> We think of a 65000, but if you want we can confirm
and communicate that to council.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Any additional questions
come out Councilmember Cole?
Councilmember Ron Cole: Not so much a question
but a Mayor Tracy Engerman: Can I
ask you to hold it until discussion?
Okay.
Thank you.
All right comment any further questions for staff?
All right.
May I have a motion to begin discussion?
>> I move to approve resolution 2624 a resolution of the city
of the Council of Castle Pines Colorado approving the 26
Economic Development plan.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Councilmember blue
will start with you then Councilmember Salazar
then Councilmember Cole.
Councilmember Geoff Blue: I'm very impressed with this,
we went back and forth over years Councilmember Mulvey
and I going back and forth, I think
this is a good compromise I think this gets us moving down
the path and at some point we may need a development director
but at this point I don't think we do
and I think this shows that.
And I'm looking forward to seeing how this is implemented.
So many questions, this answers a lot of questions
and creates a framework, but it also asks a ton more.
But these are the kinds of questions that we are here for.
That's what our job is.
So I think this is great.
You guys have done a great job to put us
in a position to really start looking at this kind of thing.
Especially as everything is developing
and now is a really good time to be doing this.
So thank you.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Councilmember Salazar.
Councilmember Kori Salazar: I know this is something
that they mentioned in our study session
with the Ayres group, (laughs) so I'm
happy to see the implementation, and I
know that it does match our policy direction in where
we want to go, and what the community also
has expressed where they want to go
and a lot of the things listed in the implementation matrix
are desires of the community.
So I'm excited to see this come into fruition.
And I am happy that we have the support and good relationships
that the city has built with our landowners.
So thank you.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Councilmember Cole?
Councilmember Ron Cole: Just a comment
the six bullets under the strategic presentation
just blew me away you guys did a phenomenal job pulling
that together, I think it lays out a solid path for where
we need to go.
And I appreciate your work.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Councilmember Eubanks?
Councilmember Chris Eubanks: Thank
you mayor, while I may not have been a huge fan
com I think it came together nicely in the message,
I think that we can consider this going forward.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Any additional comments?
Councilmember Mulvey?
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: I think
these are an example of how we as a council
can get something done.
This is a long time coming, should
have been done a long time ago.
And you know gone with the expenditure of what
would be half an FTE to get to this point,
it was worthwhile worthwhile.
So whether we hired somebody to do the outside as a consultant
or hired somebody to do an inside, to me,
that's irrelevant.
It finally got done.
And it took us a while to get consensus to get that done.
I do think it's important to look at the implementation,
and it might require some additional costs.
And I think we have to be open to that,
and to be open about it.
But we can't stop.
We were pushed to do an annexation policy,
we were pushed to do this, let's not
stop on what we need to do to govern properly.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Additional comments?
All right clerk deputy please call the vote.
[Members voting]
Clerk: The motion passes.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Thank you we are moving on to products
and report city manager do you have anything
to report this evening?
>> I do.
I have more slides for you tonight.
Special.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Are they surprised slides?
>> All right I'm just going to read this quickly.
This is a great little story.
Over the weekend staff received a voicemail
from a concerned parent reporting
that their son's skateboard had gone into the stormwater system.
Parent was concerned about the water washing it away,
but their son was worried about the Ninja Turtles taking it.
(laughs) taking it out of the sewer system.
We are not staffed on the weekends
so the parents left us a voicemail.
But, of course we didn't get it until Monday,
so they had to wait until Monday to find out
the results of the skateboard.
Well there you have it.
Right there.
Is the first thing Monday, our storm manager Joe
went to find the wayward skateboard,
and after going above and beyond and pun intended below,
the response we got from the parent was we got it,
the storm water management got back to me
they retrieved it this morning and he was awesome.
Awesome.
I just wanted to say I thought this was
great the policy of our staff.
So we're very cool in the pictures we're
very cool so they got me going.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Happy ending.
>> And just so you know stormwater bots we knew it
wasn't going to go away because would have had to already been
filled up and the sediment Joe was pretty confident that he
knew where it was and it was going to be right there.
Continuing the positive, we received an email
from the resident, I commend the crews
that did Eldridge Park they did an excellent job the restrooms
were clean, the grounds were cleaned of any debris,
they said it's a jewel of the decree,
they said it was wonderful and spectacular
thank you and everyone else who put it together
many many hours of work and collaboration.
We don't get a lot of these so I thought I would share it
with the City Council.
And then, a couple of you heard this
but Larry Nimmo has announced his retirement.
He will be leaving us at the end of the year, he just turned,
I probably shouldn't say it so I won't.
But, he is ready to move in to his next statement.
I know he wouldn't mind me sharing,
the passage of our group really got
him thinking about the fixture in the transportation.
I worked with him in the 80s?
90s came back in Boulder when we both worked for the city
of Boulder, he was in transportation then and just
made it his career and I think he communicated this
to the staff.
Got him talking to his wife about what their future holds.
So we don't have any retirement details,
ultimately we're just thinking about the timeline people
are relocating and doing different jobs,
and he's here through the end of the year.
We'll update council with a retirement plan.
And I think that was it.
That was the last one.
Sorry mayor.
So Village square which is the road,
they have reached out again interested,
this is a conversation you all had during the budget retreat,
so they continue to be interested,
so we will be meeting with them again
and potentially have an update for council on that.
I'm sorry, it is connected to the you are a.
My guess is they will want to tie that together,
I don't know for sure Council finds marketplace that's what I
was trying to remember for sure ,
we don't have any names or anything like that but they are
getting very close to fully leasing the Safeway and they
have some tenant backfills that they are working
on for the bakery space as well as --
I'm calling it the medical office space,
but it's where the veterinarian had been.
And they did all of the remodel in their office space
and then they moved out.
If they divide the Safeway in half
they've got four tenant spaces, and so they're
working diligently to get all of those filled,
and if that's the case, of course
we would be 100% leased on the west side of town.
So thank you.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Council member blue?
Councilmember Geoff Blue: Any news
on when Old Pinos is going to open?
>> They are going to be doing some soft opening and tests next
week, so I would think, let's call it two weeks as long
as the soft test goes well.
So, the second week in September if I have my calendar right.
>> Toby it sounds like we have dinner for next council meeting.
>> I don't know if they'll be open by the time we're here.
It's a hard pass.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: All right.
We will move on to council member reports.
I'm going to try and go in alphabetical order.
So council member blue?
Councilmember Geoff Blue: I assume that I
will be first with the b.
Two things.
One, first of all, at the Cherry Creek Basin Water Authority
board, meaning we're talking about Thinking about
for our city and city manager, I raised that with Michael I
asked the question, our current number for him is 5000.
We are going to get the numbers of what
the local jurisdictions around us are,
and I think we should consider raising that
just because I think it would make sense
to have more flexibility.
And frankly I trust Michael to make the decision
if he makes a bad decision we'll know about it pretty fast
anyway.
That's implicit though right?
The other thing that I wanted to point out,
we have this great space here, and I know we shouldn't be
talking about it already, but we only have --
I mean this is not a permanent solution, we know that.
This is a temporary solution for us as the west or east side
is built out, it's built out in the mixed use.
I know they're talking about putting it
in for the library there tonight we
need to start considering we need to consider
where do we want a city hall?
We need to start having a conversation
and the discussion and the two obvious places
are clearly in this space, but with a new building.
With some sort of civic area around it
in the park or whatever.
Or, over in the canyons.
Those are the two obvious places.
And obviously we can talk about the Vickers property
as another place we can go.
But I think we need to be thinking about it.
It's never too early to have these conversations,
70 years can go by really fast or ten years can go by really
fast -- seven years or ten years.
So I think we just need to have it front of mind
as we go forward.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Council member Cole?
Council member Eubanks?
Council member Mulvey?
Councilmember Deborah Mulvey: I'm
glad you brought it up early because when
we think about our budget and capital infrastructures
and implementing things we really have to look forward.
And if we want to spend a bazillion bucks,
we better figure out how we are going to get a bazillion bucks.
Unless we are willing to go into debt.
So thanks for bringing that up.
And, to that end two, civility matters.
And thank you is okay.
And I appreciate the civility that we have here.
Another thing that comes to mind is
we each have principles when we are voting, and I am glad
that we respect them.
I would suggest if you're struggling with something then
there's a reason.
And just stick to your principles.
Lastly, well not lastly but lastly on this topic.
I'm not going to express how I intend to vote all the time.
And what I think of a ballot measure all the time.
And I appreciate that anybody can and anybody should.
And the place to do that is in your own sphere.
Because the fair Campaign Practices Act calls for that.
I want to thank staff for the proclamation for Constitution
Week.
I want to thank the Sheriff for his interest
as I mentioned earlier, there was an event
to kick off and raise funds for a program
to prevent and help people suffering from trafficking.
You would be surprised where it occurs.
We had a clerk that you would have never known.
It just happens, and you wouldn't know it.
So, some of those things you may see initiatives
coming to pass on that.
I know I'm going to be dealing with it.
And then lastly, there are some tough votes
that have to be done this week.
And my other spheres, if you have questions about them
please let me know.
This isn't the time or the place to get
into the content, because it's not on the Douglas County
ballot, but if you have any, please,
I invite you to have a conversation with me.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Thank you.
Council member Salazar?
Councilmember Kori Salazar: Thank you.
Two as well for me I attended the Municipal Leadership Academy
day one in Alamosa, and I got to meet council members
from across the state.
From towns as small as 200 people to those of over 100,000
and our workshop this past -- it was the 14th of August,
we focused on good governance.
My biggest takeaway was the need for us as council or as a city
just for increased communication as what council is,
how it's involved, and all of you sitting here and all of you
sitting there.
Also this past Thursday the parks board
met for the first time in a couple months.
We took the summer off and we are
working on phasing for the Soaring Hawk Park
in the canyons, which again we need funding for which growth
would help with that funding, so just another tie
back to the annexation policy.
Good news policy Ridge will start beginning work here
after Labor Day, and we are hoping to be completed by April,
and then the parks board also talked
about trailhead kiosks and mile marker placement,
as part of our trail systems.
So that is it for me.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Council member Winegar?
Councilmember Nate Winegar: Thank you mayor I do
have something.
I have a kudo.
Two Saturdays ago, I was messaged on Facebook,
which, I usually am.
That there were concerns canyon side for a blind spot
due to some of the construction on all three
sides of that intersection that had created what my community
and citizens in the county would call an issue
where people would be coming out and not be able to see at.
I contacted the city manager Penny on a Saturday,
he was extremely responsive, and just so
you know when I say a lot of people per year, Councilmember
Eubanks, was probably 35 people that had messaged
and questioned this concern.
There was a quick response, a quick action by you
and your team.
And, everybody was very appreciative.
They were appreciative of that and they
were happy with how fast the city responded so thank you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
That's all I have.
Mayor Tracy Engerman: Thank you.
I have a quick kudos because I have
a teenager that keeps calling me so I
need to adjourn the meeting.
I need to say thank you to the Public Works department,
they've done an awesome job trying
to adapt to the start of school and the traffic that's happening
and the construction along with it,
and backups and things like that when everyone's just
trying to figure out you know, what does the new school
year look like?
So I want to thank them, they are doing a great job.
So thank you.
We will go ahead and adjourn at 8:52 p.m..