Castle Pines voters will decide two citizen-initiated changes to the city's Home Rule Charter this November, Ballot Questions 300 and 301, both dealing with annexation — the process by which a city absorbs adjacent land and gains the power to zone and approve development on it.
The City Council met Tuesday, Aug. 25 to set the ballot titles for both. On the same agenda it took up the city's own Annexation Policy and a separate resolution that would formally oppose one of the two measures.
Everything on that agenda passed. Council placed both citizen-initiated amendments on the November 3 ballot, adopted the city's own Annexation Policy, and adopted the resolution expressing opposition to the measure requiring voter approval for certain annexations over 20 acres. That last one was the only close call: 6–1, with Council Member Deborah Mulvey the sole no. The ballot questions go to voters either way — see below.
How they got on the ballot
Both questions arrived by citizen petition, not by Council referral.
A Statement of Intent to Circulate a Petition was filed with the City Clerk's office on May 11, 2026. Petitions for both ballot questions were submitted on July 31, 2026.
Colorado law requires such a petition to be signed by at least ten percent of the municipality's registered electors. According to staff reports from City Clerk Tobi Duffey, signatures were inspected and verified against the rolls of registered Castle Pines electors, and those not in conformance were removed from the totals. After that review:
- Ballot Question 300 — 1,420 valid signatures, deemed sufficient
- Ballot Question 301 — 1,406 valid signatures, deemed sufficient
The City Clerk certified both petitions as valid and sufficient on Aug. 3, 2026.
The campaign for the measures puts the number of residents who signed at "over 1,600." The certified totals above are what was left after the Clerk's review, so by the Clerk's count and the campaign's, somewhere between roughly 1,400 and 1,600 people signed.
Once a petition is sufficient, the Council's role is not discretionary. State law (C.R.S. § 31-2-210(3)) provides that "if the petition is sufficient, the governing body shall set a ballot title for the proposed amendment at its next meeting." The staff reports say plainly that Council is required to adopt the resolutions "as the requirements per statute have been met by the Petitioners."
Both resolutions also state that by submitting the questions, the Council "is not endorsing any provision proposed by the petition, conceding that any provision proposed by the petition is valid, or waiving any right to challenge the substantive validity" of the proposals.
What each measure actually says
Below is the text as it is printed on the Douglas County sample ballot, reproduced in full.
One difference from the Aug. 25 resolutions is worth knowing about. Resolutions 26-50 and 26-51 set the titles to open "SHALL THE CITY OF CASTLE PINES HOME RULE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO ADD A NEW SECTION AS FOLLOWS." The sample ballot opens instead with "Should the City of Castle Pines Home Rule Charter be amended to include the following provision," which is the wording on the petitions. The provision that follows is word for word the same in both.
Ballot Question 300
Should the City of Castle Pines Home Rule Charter be amended to include the following provision: Property in excess of 20 acres owned or controlled by a single owner or ownership group or that are part of a common plan of development or related transactions may be annexed into the City only upon approval by the voters at an election of the registered electors of the City of Castle Pines, Colorado, and for purposes of this provision, any single, successive, cumulative, serial or simultaneous annexations of multiple parcels shall be aggregated and treated as a single annexation as provided in C.R.S. Section 31-12-104(1)(a)?
Note the aggregation clause: under this language, "any single, successive, cumulative, serial or simultaneous annexations of multiple parcels" would be counted together as one annexation for the purpose of the 20-acre threshold.
Ballot Question 301
Should the City of Castle Pines Home Rule Charter be amended to include the following provision: Any parcel over 20 acres owned or controlled by a single owner or ownership group annexed within 180 days of the effective date of this section shall be referred for ratification at an election of the registered electors of the City of Castle Pines, Colorado, and if no such annexation occurs within such 180-day period, this section may be repealed by Council ordinance without a vote of the registered electors of the City of Castle Pines, Colorado?
By its own terms the second measure is time-limited. It applies to a qualifying parcel "annexed within 180 days of the effective date of this section," which it says "shall be referred for ratification" at an election. If no such annexation occurs in that window, the text provides that the section "may be repealed by Council ordinance without a vote of the registered electors."
What the text does not say is which side of the effective date that 180 days falls on. The two sides have described it differently:
- The city reads it as looking forward. Resolution 26-51 describes the measure as requiring voter ratification of any qualifying annexation "occurring within 180 days after the amendment takes effect."
- The organizers described it as a backstop for the months before the vote. The petition committee's own summary, written while signatures were being gathered, says that "should any land be annexed to Castle Pines between now and election day (November 3, 2026), that annexation would need to go back to the voters." The PAAC site now labels it "Ratification of Recent Annexations."
In practice, neither reading has anything to act on yet. None of the ordinances the city has posted for 2026 annexes land. Crowsnest, the annexation request that set all of this in motion, was withdrawn by the developer on March 19.
What the proposed opposition resolution argues
Resolution 26-53 put the Council formally on record against the first measure. It was adopted 6–1, with District 1 Council Member Deborah Mulvey casting the only no. Colorado's Fair Campaign Practices Act permits a council to adopt a resolution expressing its position on a ballot measure.
The debate is worth reading, because for most of it the Council was not arguing about annexation. It was arguing about whether a city government should tell its own residents how to vote.
Ron Cole said he had "struggled with this one a little bit because I really want more city input," then landed on opposing the measure: "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."
Geoff Blue was blunt about the ballot measures — "I'm very much opposed to the initiatives," and "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" — but candid about the resolution in front of him: "frankly I've struggled with whether we should pass this resolution. I am sympathetic to what Councilwoman Mulvey is saying." Minutes before the vote he said, "I'm not certain how I'm going to vote until my vote comes."
Mulvey's objection was not to the annexation policy. It was to the Council taking a position at all:
"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."
She moved to amend the resolution so Council would keep its findings and its stated concerns but strike the operative clause: "My motion to clarify is to amend the resolution to remove only section one, which states opposition to the ballot measure and so forth." Everything else, she said, would remain.
No one seconded it. The mayor's ruling was "hearing none, the amendment dies," so it never reached a vote and no member is on record for or against it. Mulvey was the only one on the dais who wanted the opposition language out, and she could not find a colleague to second the motion long enough to debate it.
The resolution lays out the Council's reasoning at length. Its central argument is about the city's neighbors:
The City of Castle Pines is bordered by Lone Tree, Parker, and Castle Rock, which are not subject to the voter-approval requirements proposed by the ballot measure, potentially placing Castle Pines at a competitive disadvantage when property owners determine which jurisdiction to petition for annexation.
Because the measure would not stop development outside city limits, the resolution argues, "the practical effect of the measure may be to determine which municipality governs such development rather than whether the development occurs at all." If land is annexed by a neighboring city instead, it says, Castle Pines "could lose the opportunity to influence development of that property through its zoning, design standards, infrastructure requirements, development agreements, fiscal policies, open-space expectations, and other adopted community standards" — while residents could still absorb the traffic, drainage and service impacts.
The resolution also argues that a voter-approval requirement would apply "regardless of the proposed annexation's fiscal performance, land use, infrastructure commitments, open-space preservation, community benefits, or compatibility with the City's adopted plans," and notes that residents already hold an initiative right under the Charter and state law if they disagree with an annexation Council approves.
The petitions behind both measures were found sufficient by the City Clerk, each carrying more than 1,400 verified signatures.
Who is campaigning, for and against
For both measures: the yes campaign runs as Protect the Future of Castle Pines. Its website says it is "paid for by Protect the Future of Castle Pines, Susan Zloth Registered Agent," describes the group as Castle Pines residents who "knocked on doors to collect over 1,600 signatures," and asks voters to vote yes on both. The petition drive grew out of People Against Annexing Crowsnest (PAAC), the residents' group that formed during the Crowsnest annexation fight.
The campaign's case, in its own words:
- "Voter-approved annexation will remove the influence of developer money on annexation decisions."
- On the city's new policy: "Voter-approved annexation will strengthen the current annexation policy by promoting full voter engagement."
- On the ways residents can already challenge an annexation Council approves, which the opposition resolution points to: they "place a heavy, unfair burden on everyday citizens."
Christine Harris, one of the organizers, told Denver7 in August: "I would say it's not that we're against development. We just want it to be smart and fit the character of our beautiful city."
Against: the City Council is on record opposing Ballot Question 300 through Resolution 26-53, laid out above. Mayor Tracy Engerman, speaking to Denver7, said "the challenges for this ballot measure are that it really positions annexations as a one-size-fits-all decision, and it's a binary yes or no vote," adding, "I think that this decision would drive possibility away." Denver7 reported her concern that, if it passes, it would not allow for dialogue between the city and a developer to improve an annexation proposal.
As of Sept. 25, the city's campaign finance page had not posted any committee filings for this election, for either side.
The annexation policy on the same agenda
Separately, Council will consider Resolution 26-49, adopting a City of Castle Pines Annexation Policy. The opposition resolution leans on that policy directly, describing it as establishing "clear and stringent standards for when annexation should and should not occur" and committing the city to "a cautious approach toward annexation" evaluated case by case.
The policy's development included a resident survey and a public comment period; both the June 15 survey results and a July 28 summary of comments submitted through the city's webpage are attached to the agenda item.
Council had been scheduled to adopt the policy at its Aug. 11 meeting but postponed it to Aug. 25 to allow more time to meet with residents. The city held a listening session on the draft policy on Aug. 19 at the Castle Pines Community Center.
Also on Tuesday's agenda
All of the following were taken up the same night, and the city's published highlights record the outcomes:
- The Annexation Policy was adopted. Council had postponed it from Aug. 11 and held a listening session on Aug. 19 first.
- The Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code was not adopted. In the study session, Council decided not to proceed with it.
- Ordinance 26-06 passed — amendments to Section 27, Site Improvement Plan, of the city's zoning ordinance.
- Resolution 26-52 passed — a construction contract with Nicholas Construction Inc. for the Happy Canyon Road and Lagae Road roundabout monument. (Separately, the City, Douglas County and CDOT are planning to rebuild the Happy Canyon Road interchange at I-25.)
- Resolution 26-54 passed — adopting the 2026 Economic Development Strategic Plan.
- An update from the Douglas County Sheriff's Office.
Where the record will show up
The Aug. 25 meeting was held at 7404 Yorkshire Drive — study session at 5:30 p.m., regular meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Quotations here are transcribed from the city's official captioned recording of the Aug. 25 meeting, and the 6–1 vote on Resolution 26-53 was confirmed against the video of the roll call. Approved minutes are adopted at a following meeting; the Aug. 25 minutes were on the Council's Sept. 22 consent agenda.
The election: Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026, coordinated with Douglas County. The Clerk's staff reports estimate the city's cost of participating at $29,000.
Castle Pines voters will see these two questions alongside the countywide "3 to 5" measure on expanding the Board of County Commissioners and the school district's $54 million mill levy override, both of which qualified for the same ballot.
Castle Pines ballots also carry Ballot Issue 7A, the Front Range Passenger Rail District's 0.333% sales tax, which its board referred to the Nov. 3 ballot on Friday, Aug. 28 (Resolution 2026-32, adopted 14–1). It is printed on every Douglas County ballot, but Douglas County Elections says only votes from voters inside the updated rail district boundaries will be counted. Senate Bill 26-172 redrew the rail district to a list of 31 municipalities plus the Sterling Ranch metropolitan districts. Castle Pines is not on that list, so a Castle Pines vote on 7A will not be counted, and the city would not pay the tax as the law stands. Details in our story on the Sterling Ranch station.
Sources: the Douglas County 2026 General Election composite sample ballot, for the ballot numbers and printed text of Ballot Questions 300 and 301; the Protect the Future of Castle Pines campaign website and the People Against Annexing Crowsnest petition site, for the campaign's statements, signature claim and summary of Ballot Question 301; Denver7, Aug. 18, 2026, for the Christine Harris and Mayor Tracy Engerman quotes; the City of Castle Pines 2026 ordinances and elections pages, checked Sept. 25; the City of Castle Pines official captioned recording of the Aug. 25, 2026 City Council meeting, the source for all quotations here; the video of that meeting for the Resolution 26-53 roll call; City of Castle Pines City Council agenda and packet for Aug. 25, 2026, including staff reports from City Clerk Tobi Duffey and the full text of Resolutions 26-49, 26-50, 26-51 and 26-53; the city's published Aug. 25 meeting highlights on its City News page, which is the source for every outcome reported here; City of Castle Pines city council meetings page; The Source, City of Castle Pines newsletter, Aug. 19, 2026.