Castle Pines Annexation: What Ballot Questions 300 and 301 Would Change, and the 795-Acre Crowsnest Fight Behind Them

If you live in Castle Pines, Questions 300 and 301 are the city's own, the first citizen-led amendments to its 2019 home rule charter to reach a ballot by the Douglas County Lantern's account, and both come down to one sentence: should the City Council, or the voters, make the final call when the city wants to annex more than 20 acres?

What 300 would do

The ballot asks whether the charter should say that "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." It adds that "any single, successive, cumulative, serial or simultaneous annexations of multiple parcels shall be aggregated and treated as a single annexation."

In plain terms: today the council alone decides whether to annex, after the state-required findings that a petition complies with the law and that the land is eligible. Under 300 the council would still do all of that and still negotiate conditions, but a qualifying annexation could not be completed without a citywide election. The aggregation clause is aimed at splitting one project into pieces under 20 acres to avoid the vote.

Twenty acres is small by the city's own history. Every annexation since incorporation in 2008 would have triggered it: Castle Valley, 249 acres, in 2008; The Canyons, 3,343 acres, in 2009; and Castle Pines Town Center, 354 acres, in 2012, by the city's count. Crowsnest was 794.51 acres.

What 301 would do

Question 301 is the companion. It says "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," and that if no such annexation happens in that window, the council may repeal the section by ordinance "without a vote of the registered electors."

The city describes it as a 180-day check that starts when the amendment takes effect: a large annexation completed in that period would go back to voters, and if none does, the provision can be cleaned off the charter without another election. The petitioners' own FAQ reads it differently, as covering anything annexed "between now and election day" so that it "would need to go back to the voters." The ballot text ties the window to the effective date, not to the petition, so the city's reading is the one the words support. Either way, 301 only matters if something gets annexed in a narrow window around this election; 300 is the permanent rule.

Where this came from

Crowsnest is the reason both questions exist. In January the city accepted an annexation petition from Ventana Capital for 15 parcels totaling 794.51 acres southwest of Crowfoot Valley Road and South Chambers Road, on both sides of Crowfoot Valley Road, reached by a flagpole strip of right-of-way running from the road's intersection with Macanta Boulevard. The council found the petition in substantial compliance on January 13 and the land eligible on February 24, the two procedural steps state law requires before the actual annexation hearing. The developer's inputs to the city's fiscal model described 2,955 single-family and paired homes, 1,000 multifamily units and 435,600 square feet of commercial space, all infrastructure paid by the developer. City staff projected about $207 million in revenue against $95 million in costs over 20 years, a surplus near $112 million.

On March 19 the applicant withdrew. The council spent the summer writing the city's first Annexation Policy, with a survey answered by more than 600 residents, two open houses, two study sessions and an August 19 listening session. The policy, adopted August 25, says annexation "is a discretionary legislative decision of the City Council," puts the burden of proof on the applicant, prefers proposals that are not solely residential and that share a significant border with the city, allows flagpole annexations only when they preserve open space, support major infrastructure or show considerable public benefit, and asks for open space of "no less than 30% of the gross site area."

Residents who had organized against Crowsnest did not wait for the policy. They circulated the two charter petitions and say more than 1,600 residents signed. The council placed both on the ballot by consent on August 25 and, in the same meeting, adopted Resolution 26-53 expressing opposition to the 20-acre measure.

The case each way, in the city's words

The city's ballot page lays out both sides without endorsing. For 300, it lists: voters rather than the council would make the final decision on large annexations; the rule would apply consistently regardless of which council is seated; the aggregation language blocks phased annexations; and the requirement would sit in the charter rather than in a council policy that a later council could change.

Against it, the same page says the acreage test treats every proposal alike, whether housing, commercial, open space or public facilities; it adds a step after state requirements and council approval; applicants might not bother negotiating an agreement that still faces a yes-or-no vote, producing "a development that may not be the best opportunity for the city"; and owners could take their land to a nearby town with no election requirement. The council's position, as the Gazette reported it, is that the new policy already provides the framework and public process the petitioners want, and that 20 acres is a relatively small threshold.

For 301, the city lists the same voter check during a defined window and the ability to repeal it quietly if never triggered; the one tradeoff it names is that the effect is concentrated in a short period.

Who has taken a side

The petition committee, now calling its site Castle Pines Charter Amendments, is for both. The City Council is on record against 300. The Douglas County Democrats recommend yes on both, and the Kim Monson voter guide recommends yes on 300, which makes this one of the few questions on the ballot drawing the same answer from both ends.

Our read

Nothing on the ballot changes what gets built on land already inside the city. The question is who decides about land outside it, and 300 answers that permanently: a council can rewrite a policy, but it cannot rewrite the charter without going back to voters. The honest trade is speed and negotiating leverage for a veto. A developer who knows a citywide election waits at the end may offer less, or go to a neighboring town instead; a council that knows the same thing may demand more up front. Crowsnest, at nearly 800 acres and roughly 4,000 homes, is the scale the petitioners had in mind. The 20-acre line, by the city's own history, catches everything the city has ever annexed.

More: every race and measure on your ballot, the November ballot guide, Questions 200, 201 and 1A, and ballot issue 5A. We do not endorse candidates or ballot questions. Corrections to hello@discoverdougco.com.

*Election night: live results for every Douglas County race, measure and judge, with the first numbers after 7 p.m. on Nov. 3. Before then: where to vote in person, every drop box, and the deadlines, and who has voted so far.*