September 22, 2026: The interchange money lands — and a contract total goes on the record
“Once that $42 million is spent — say the bid comes in high, or we don’t get some of the grants — what’s our contingency or fallback plan?”— Council Member Kori Salazar, September 22, 2026
The Happy Canyon Interchange, Streets & Parks
Put the contract total into the resolution before voting on it — Approved Made the motion to approve a $700,000 amendment to the city's design contract with Jacobs Engineering for the I-25 and Happy Canyon interchange — and before the vote, asked that the resolution itself say what the city is committing. The draft named no dollar figures; the numbers sat in an attachment. At her request the city manager amended it to state both the $700,000 increase and the new contract total of $4,120,359, so anyone reading the resolution can see the whole commitment in one place. The added work covers design of the CDOT bridge that was left out of the original scope because CDOT was not yet in the project, two federal grant applications, extra geotechnical borings, traffic modeling and design support during construction.
Asked what the city got for $84,000 spent writing grant applications — On the record Reviewing the same contract, Salazar noted that about $84,000 of it paid consultants to write two federal grant applications and asked whether the city tracks what came back. Staff said the applications sought roughly $9 million in total, that $1.5 million has cleared the House and is still moving, and that the applications draw on specialists the city does not have. She also asked how a line the consultant labels “estimates only” — the $269,930 for design help during construction — can sit inside a not-to-exceed contract. The city engineer said the cap is enforced and the scope gets trimmed if the work runs toward it.
Asked what happens if the interchange runs past $42 million — Approved Voted for the agreement under which Douglas County contributes $15,250,000 toward building the Happy Canyon interchange — $15 million plus $250,000 for its half of CDOT's construction management costs. Under that agreement the city carries every dollar above the $42 million estimate. Salazar asked what the fallback is if bids come in high or an expected grant does not arrive. The city engineer said the contractor has sat at the design table since 30 percent design, that the approved first phase carries a 3 percent contingency, and that costs are tracked continuously so an overrun would not surface as a surprise. The city manager added that the city would likely absorb a smaller overrun, since the county is already paying more than its original share, and would go back to the county if something catastrophic happened.
Approved another $952,500 for interchange design — Approved Voted to amend the city's funding agreement with CDOT, raising design-phase funding from $3,297,500 to $4,250,000. The money is 80 percent federal and 20 percent local. It came free when the city cancelled its planned pedestrian bridge over I-25 and returned the federal share to the regional council of governments, which passed it to the next project on its priority list. A colleague noted the city can seek walkway funding again when the next regional funding cycle opens, and asked council to start deciding now what it wants to put forward.
Locked in snow removal before the first storm — Approved Approved, on consent, the 2026–2027 snow and ice agreement with Designscapes Colorado, capped at $750,000 — the same figure as the proposed 2027 snow budget, because what the city actually spends depends on the winter. One hourly plow rate is up about 1.5 percent from last season and the price of Ice Slicer is down about 6 percent.
Raised the ceiling on the city's on-call engineer — Approved Approved, on consent, a new not-to-exceed of $650,000 for the city's 2026 on-call engineering agreement with Alfred Benesch & Company. The city has spent $366,229 with the firm so far this year on permit inspections, construction management, pavement program support and the design of the westbound Castle Pines Parkway reconstruction; $147,538 of that is reimbursed through development and inspection fees, leaving $218,691 paid directly by the city. The packet does not state the original contract ceiling, so the size of the increase is not on the record.
Moved 76 acres of open space toward city ownership — Approved on 1st reading Approved on first reading, on consent, the two ordinances that carry out the property swap with the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District. Ordinance 26-08 brings roughly 76.37 acres of open space and drainage into city ownership — the tracts created by the six replats council approved in July. Ordinance 26-09 hands the district 4.43 acres of utility tracts so it keeps the ground its water and sewer lines sit under. This completes a transfer the city agreed to in 2023, when voters approved the 12-mill parks and open space property tax that pays to maintain it. Both need a second vote.
Brought back the parks board's case for fewer trail signs — Ongoing Reported from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, which met September 17, that the board settled on keeping trail signage sparse — a sign at the start of a trail, one in the middle and one at the end, rather than markers every mile — so the trails keep the open feel residents say they value. That recommendation comes to council. The board also worked on how to phase Soaring Hawk Park in the Canyons so the most-used amenities open first, given that the money for it comes from growth.
Redistricting
Asked how residents will find out their district changed — Under study Council reviewed proposed new district lines. District 3 has grown to about 6,378 residents against 5,667 in District 1, a gap of 11.8 percent against a 10 percent legal limit, almost entirely because of building in the Canyons. The proposal moves 263 lots — part of District 2 north of Castle Pines Parkway into District 1, and a townhome community west of I-25 from District 3 into District 2 — leaving the three districts within 1.6 percent of each other. Salazar said residents were confused in the last election about which district they lived in and the county's voter rolls were wrong, and asked what the city will do this time both to tell residents and to make sure the county updates its rolls. Staff agreed to build a communication plan and to follow up with the county early. She also asked how often this will keep happening; the city manager said to expect redistricting every two years until the Canyons finishes building out. The ordinance comes back to council in October.
Council Business
Asked whether the new campaign finance rules would touch this November's election — Approved on 1st reading Ordinance 26-07 raises the most one person can give a Castle Pines candidate from the state's $400 limit to $2,000 per election, sets a $10,000 limit per person for issue committees, caps contributions and spending in cash, coin or digital currency at $100, and writes the city's existing registration, reporting and record-keeping practices into the municipal code. The clerk said the $400 state cap made fundraising difficult for candidates in 2025, and that the new figures match Lone Tree and Greenwood Village; Parker caps contributions at $500, and Castle Rock and Centennial set no limit. Salazar asked whether a second reading on October 13 would put the ordinance in force before the November 3 election; the clerk answered that second reading has been moved to November 10 so it cannot affect this year's races or ballot questions. First reading passed on the consent agenda, without discussion at the business meeting. A colleague asked that residents be told what the rules are before they take effect.
Explained on the record where the council stipend review came from — Under study Council took up its own stipend for the first time since it was set in 2021 at $750 a month for council members and $1,100 for the mayor. Asked how the review started, Salazar said she had asked whether council stipends were adjusted the way staff pay is, learned they were not, and looked at what other cities do — her case being that $750 five years ago is not $750 today, and that the stipend lowers the barrier for residents who would have to give up work hours to serve. Council settled on the smallest of the three options staff offered: an 18.9 percent inflation catch-up taking council members to $900 and the mayor to $1,300, about $14,210 a year, plus an ongoing annual inflation adjustment so the question does not have to be reopened. Two colleagues said they regard the seat as a volunteer position and would not support more than inflation; one of them argued the mayor pro tem differential should be larger than the 10 percent council settled on. Salazar supported that differential, noting a mayor pro tem covering for an absent mayor drives around the city on their own time. Under the city charter and the state constitution, no sitting member can be paid an increase during their current term: the change would first reach seats filled at the 2027 election, in January 2028. An ordinance comes back in October.
Watch the recap
About this record
Every entry comes from a public Castle Pines City Council meeting; video and official minutes are available through the city clerk’s office. Ordinances take two council votes — an entry marked first reading still needed a second, confirming vote before it became law. Resolutions, emergency ordinances and contract awards take a single vote. Matters still in process are described as such rather than claimed as outcomes. Dollar figures come from the staff memo or the record; none are estimated.
Comments