Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lifetime Fitness rebate draws public opposition; council does not record final vote

Castle Pines City Council · August 19, 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

Staff presented a proposed $171,500 rebate to Lifetime Fitness tied to higher building permit fees; residents urged rejection and council questions about the company's claimed financial hardship left the resolution without a final recorded vote.

City staff presented Resolution 25‑35, which would rebate $171,500 to Lifetime Fitness out of a larger increase in building permit fees that staff said totaled $381,111 in rebate‑eligible plan review and permit portions. Donna Ferguson explained that total building permit fees collected for the project were $1,258,085.95 (based on a $35,000,000 building valuation) and that contractual obligations require 55% of those fees be paid to SafeBuilt, leaving 45% (or $171,500) the city could rebate.

Ferguson said Lifetime had commenced grading and expected to open in early 2027, and staff recommended approval as a goodwill gesture; she also outlined projected municipal revenues tied to the project (estimated annual property tax revenue of $156,000 and annual sales tax from food and retail estimated at $45,000–$60,000). During public comment Joseph Hickman and Laurie Ball urged the council not to grant a rebate, calling rebates a cost of doing business and asserting (unverified) that Lifetime delayed construction to reallocate capital elsewhere.

Council members asked staff whether Lifetime had provided specific financial hardship documentation and who asked staff to present the request; Donna said Lifetime communicated the hardship but the company did not appear to make a public statement that night. Council member Blue attempted a motion to "reject" the resolution but withdrew the motion after staff advised procedural requirements for motions; no final vote on Resolution 25‑35 was recorded at this meeting.

Next steps: Staff will await further direction; council members requested more information about the company's stated financial hardship and asked that any final motion be handled in accordance with standard procedural practice.