Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Castle Pines City Council adopts 2026 budget, certifies mill levies for law enforcement and parks

City Council of Castle Pines City · December 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of Castle Pines City Council on Dec. [2025] approved the 2026 budget and certified a 4.5‑mill levy for law enforcement and a 12‑mill parks levy. Council and residents debated park funding priorities, the Happy Canyon I‑25 interchange and social‑media civility during public comment.

The City of Castle Pines City Council on Dec. [2025] adopted a $2026 budget that funds major transportation and parks projects and certified property tax mill levies to support law enforcement and parks programs.

At a public hearing opened around 5:16 p.m., Finance Director Mike Raynham walked council through an abbreviated presentation of the proposed 2026 budget, noting minor revenue adjustments since the September submittal, a transfer of certain parks positions to the roads fund to match expenditures, and alignment with the city’s strategic priorities. Raynham said the budget includes $16,200,000 in transportation capital improvements — including work tied to the Happy Canyon/I‑25 interchange — and substantial planned investments in parks, stormwater partnerships and capital projects. He noted a proposed $6,500,000 transfer from the general fund to the capital improvements fund to support transportation and other projects.

Raynham reviewed fund‑level highlights: a consolidated parks and recreation fund that combines prior district proceeds; a roads fund supported by a 1% sales and use tax and state and county shares; a conservation trust fund projected to grow from lottery proceeds and interest; and a capital improvements fund that includes a large county contribution toward the Happy Canyon interchange. He presented the city’s policy questions to council, including a proposed 4.5% compensation adjustment for city staff, a $60,000 comprehensive‑plan update, pavement maintenance funding to sustain a PCI target of 80, a proposed $10,000,000 construction allocation for the Happy Canyon interchange in 2026, stormwater contributions to the Mile High Flood District (discussed at roughly $500,000), and park capital projects including $2.2 million toward Coyote Ridge phase 1 and a $900,000 community center renovation.

Council held clarifying Q&A before public comment. Officials asked whether conservation trust funds must be used only for capital projects; staff replied they must be used for parks, recreation, trails and open space but need not be capital in nature and have been used for maintenance in the past. Council also sought and received clarification about scheduling and funding for road segments, developer obligations tied to lane additions at I‑25 and Castle Pines Parkway, and how the Happy Canyon interchange approvals and federal‑state reviews affect construction timing.

During the public comment period, business and community leaders and advisory‑board members spoke in favor of the budget. Britney Schenk, speaking for the Castle Pines Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber supports the roads capital program (including the Happy Canyon interchange), park maintenance funding, updates to the unified land development code and the comprehensive plan, and Policy Question 1 to support staff recruitment and retention. Tiffany Ball, speaking both as an individual resident and as chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, urged council to model civility on social media, and later urged continued funding for park maintenance and projects such as Coyote Ridge and Soaring Hawk.

Following public comment, Councilmember Blue moved to adopt resolution 25‑59 to approve the 2026 budget and that motion was seconded on the record. Council discussion included general praise for staff and the budget’s capital program. Councilmember Meloy, while supporting adoption, cautioned about taking on obligations that come with annexations and highlighted the need to account for landscaping and maintenance costs tied to newly included areas; Meloy also flagged potential budget amendments related to an economic‑development branding contract that exceeded the line‑item projection.

Clerk Duffy called the roll and the council adopted the 2026 budget (resolution 25‑59) on a recorded vote. The council then considered and adopted resolution 25‑61 to certify the 2025 mill levies for collection in 2026: a 4.5‑mill levy for law enforcement (reported to generate approximately $1,813,014) and a 12‑mill levy for parks, recreation, trails and open space (reported to generate approximately $4,800,000), based on an assessed valuation cited by staff of $402,891,918.

Other business: the council announced the Crow’s Nest annexation hearing was vacated and would not proceed at this meeting. In council reports, City Manager Penny thanked staff for the budget work and highlighted capital projects planned for 2026. Councilmember Hudson — speaking at his last official meeting — described receiving hateful mail and threats during the recent election, said the Douglas County sheriff’s office is investigating, and said he no longer feels safe at home.

The council recessed and voted to move into an executive session under CRS 24‑6‑402(4)(b) for legal advice related to the Crow’s Nest annexation and work completed on North Monarch by Jalisco Construction; the regular meeting adjourned to executive session at about 6:21 p.m.

What happens next: council approved the budget and mill levies and staff will certify the mill levy to Douglas County as directed. Council indicated it may return with budget amendments or contract accounting adjustments where needed; no additional public hearings or votes on the items covered were scheduled during the regular meeting.

Quotes represented in this account are attributed to speakers who appear in the public record of the meeting.