Democrats and Republicans don’t agree about much in Douglas County, but the “3 to 5 Petition” has rare, bipartisan support in the county. The goal of the petition is to let Douglas County voters decide whether the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) should expand from its current three members to become a five-member board.

Organizer Angela Thomas describes the petition as a grassroots, bipartisan effort, and says, “We have volunteer circulators who are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents working all over Douglas County to collect signatures.” Those volunteers aim to collect more than 15,000 signatures between now and mid-July. If they succeed, Douglas County voters will decide in November whether to expand the BOCC to five members — and how that expansion would work.

What would the petition allow voters to decide?

If supporters collect enough signatures, voters will have the opportunity to decide:

1. Whether the Douglas County Board of Commissioners should be expanded from a three-member board to a five-member board.

2. If so, by what method that expansion should be accomplished:

   1. Five commissioners elected by the voters of each district, OR

   2. Three commissioners elected by the voters of each district, plus two commissioners to be elected by the entire county (at-large).

Currently, each County Commissioner must reside in the district they represent, but they are elected at-large by the voters of the whole county, not just by the voters in their specific districts.

Why expand the commission and vote by district … and at what cost?

Thomas estimates the cost of the expansion at $500,000. She itemizes the costs at a total of $250,000 per commissioner, per year:

• $150,000 - the upper end of the current salary range

• $ 36,000 - additional costs of benefits, including retirement match

• $ 64,000 - travel, meals, and other incidental expenses

HB25-1265, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Bob Marshall (D), Sen. Larry Liston (R), and Sen. Michael Weissman (D), in 2025 was designed to expand county commissions of large Colorado counties. The bill did not pass, but it contained an estimated cost of “$350,000 or more” per additional commissioner, without itemized detail. A high-end estimate of $700,000 per year to add two new commissioners in Douglas County represents a little more than one-tenth of one percent (~ 0.12%) of the county’s $600+ million budget.

There would also potentially be one-time costs for redistricting. Just passed in 2026, HB26-1038 requires boards of county commissioners to appoint independent redistricting commissions to develop redistricting plans. Those redistricting committees must be “made up equally of members affiliated with the two largest political parties, and members not affiliated with a political party, to develop redistricting plans.” The estimated cost of redistricting is $75,000 to $135,000.

Why incur those costs?

Supporters say the measure would create better representation and increased accountability in a county that has grown to over 400,000 residents with a budget exceeding $600 million. “With only three commissioners,” said Thomas, “it takes only two people to agree to policy and spending decisions that impact the entire county.” She believes voting by district would give every area of the county a clear voice and make county commissioners more responsive and accessible to the people who elect them.

Former Commissioner Lora Thomas (no relation to Angela Thomas) says it would also make running for county commissioner accessible to more residents of Douglas County. According to Lora Thomas, a single countywide mailer currently costs around $20,000, and to win a county-wide election, commissioners have, in past elections, spent upwards of $250,000 on their campaigns. She reasons that replacing the current at-large elections with district-based voting would significantly diminish the financial barriers to entry for people who want to serve as county commissioners in Douglas County.

Motivated to make the commission more representative and accountable to voters, Former Commissioner Thomas says she had a front row seat to how easily a three-member board can be taken over by just two commissioners. Thomas alleges that in November 2020, shortly after George Teal won the general election, Commissioner-elect Teal called her and stated, “Abe (Laydon) and I agreed that I will back whatever Abe wants, and he will back whatever I want. We have the county covered, so there’s no need for you to even come to work.” Thomas acknowledged that on a five-member board, that kind of alliance building could still happen, but she believes the five commissioner model offers greater accountability to constituents.

Lora Thomas was one of three Douglas County residents who sued the Douglas County Commissioners in 2025, alleging that they violated Colorado Open Meeting Laws. A panel of three appellate judges ruled on April 2, 2026 that the commissioners did violate open meeting laws by holding 11 closed, unnoticed meetings between December 2024 and April 2025 in the process of deciding to hold a special election to initiate Home Rule in Douglas County.

Share

The appellate court also remanded the case back to the Douglas District Court to determine whether the commissioners have continued to violate Colorado’s Open Meeting laws. The County plans to appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, and the plaintiffs have offered a settlement in an effort to prevent the County from spending additional tax dollars on litigation.

Concerns about representation and citizen input in Douglas County have increased after the Home Rule defeat in June 2025. Since then, the three sitting commissioners have ended general public comment at their biweekly Business Meetings and turned off all comments on their social media pages.

In a recent development, the Commissioners have clearly established that additional restrictions on public comment will be the norm. A May 12, 2026 Business Meeting announcement on their Facebook page reads:

How do other counties elect commissioners?

The Colorado Constitution has mandated that all counties have a minimum of three commissioners and provides for up to five-member boards. Douglas County is the 6th largest county in Colorado. Three of the top five counties — El Paso, Arapahoe, and Adams — already have five county commissioners. Two counties smaller than DougCo also have five — Weld and Pitkin.

Rep. Bob Marshall (D-Highlands Ranch) sponsored HB26-1038 in the 2026 legislative session that would have required expansion to five commissioners for any county with more than 70,000 residents. That 2026 bill, the fourth Marshall has sponsored since 2023 to expand commissioner boards in large counties, was approved in the Colorado House but did not advance from the Senate. Marshall’s argument for his repeated efforts at legislation is simple:

“Multiple Colorado counties now have populations of hundreds of thousands, with budgets in the hundreds of millions. Yet their political structures remain the same from more than a century ago: electing three commissioners at-large.

At-large voting excludes political minorities from a voice in their local government, no matter who is the political minority. Early in American history, a majority of states voted at-large to elect congressional delegations. The resulting unrepresentative political power led Congress in 1842 to mandate all states use district-based elections for Congress that we know today, over the objections of ‘States Rights’ and ‘Local Control’ made by opponents to that reform.”

Current commissioners and candidates on the ballot initiative

In a recent response to Denver 7 News, Commissioner Abe Laydon offered simply, “Things rarely improve by adding politicians.”

Conversely, Commissioner George Teal expressed his support of the petition to expand to a five-member board, rationalizing that it would “effectively eliminate term limits in Douglas County.” On that point, Teal is misinformed according to Colorado law and a clarifying Attorney General opinion.

See Teal’s statement at about 1:41 in this interview with Denver 7 News.

According to Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI), the citizens of Colorado passed an amendment to create Article 18, Section 11 of the Colorado Constitution in 1994. Section 11 limits local elected officials, including county commissioners, to two consecutive four-year terms. It also contains a provision that allows local governments to seek voter approval to change those term limits. Some counties have made voter-approved changes, but Douglas County is not one of them, despite efforts in 2003, 2004, and 2011 to extend to a three-consecutive-term limit.

Section 11 provides a clear definition of the term consecutive:

“For purposes of this Section 11, terms are considered consecutive unless they are four years apart.”

That, together with a July, 2000 Formal Opinion issued by former Attorney General Ken Salazar, clarifies that redistricting and/or changing from at-large to district voting will not allow a term limited official to run without the four-year gap prescribed in Section 11. Salazar’s detailed opinion concludes:

Commissioner Abe Laydon is term-limited at the end of 2026, and three candidates are in the running for his vacant seat. Irene Bonham is the sole Democratic candidate on the ballot. Jake Bockenfeld and John Diak will face off in the Republican primary election on June 30, 2026 to decide which of them will run against Bonham in the November general election.

Irene Bonham

Bonham believes Douglas County has outgrown a three-member commission. “Each commissioner represents over 130,000 people…A five-member board would reduce the number of constituents each commissioner represents, allowing for more direct engagement and a deeper understanding of local issues,” she wrote in a recent blog post.

In response to our request for a statement for this story, Bonham replied,

“Yes, I support the petition to expand the Douglas County Board of Commissioners from 3 to 5 members and have signed it. Douglas County has grown into one of the largest counties in Colorado with nearly 400,000 residents and communities with very different needs and priorities. But our county government structure has not kept pace with that growth…In a three member system, two commissioners alone make up a majority of the board. That’s a lot of power…Ultimately, I see this as a good-governance issue, not a partisan one. As Douglas County continues to grow, our system of representation should evolve with it.”

Jake Bockenfeld

Bockenfeld opposes expansion of the Board. In an April 7 debate with Diak, Bockenfeld asserted that an expansion would create “voting blocs” in which “urban areas would outvote rural areas…so our rural constituents would no longer have a voice on the Board of County Commissioners.”

He concluded, “Douglas County has always had three. Why would we need more now? What’s changed other than the radicals and the Gang of Four trying to take over Douglas County?”

In response to our request for a statement for this story, Bockenfeld provided this statement.

“I do not believe expanding government is the right solution. Adding two more commissioners means adding more salaries, staff, administrative costs, and taxpayer burden. All without any clear benefit to the citizens. Before growing government, we should be focused on making the current system work more efficiently.”

John Diak

In the same April 7 debate, Diak said, “I’m open to it,” and explained, “When you have five, you have the ability to have more minds in a discussion.” He went on to describe how a larger board would make it possible for two commissioners to work together to discuss and refine ideas without violating open meeting laws so that better proposals can be brought before the entire board to achieve better outcomes for the community.

Diak did not respond to our request to provide a statement for this story.

What happens next?

Angela Thomas sums up the effort she’s spearheading this way:

“This initiative is about strengthening local democracy by ensuring Douglas County residents have better representation, more accountability, and more voices at the table as our county continues to grow. Expanding from three commissioners to five is a modest investment in better governance that gives communities across Douglas County a stronger voice in the decisions that shape their daily lives.”

She plans to submit the petition to the County Clerk in late July. “Until then,” she says, “watch for our volunteer circulators wherever you go in Douglas County.”

According to Thomas, August 3rd is the final deadline to submit signatures to the County Clerk. The Clerk then reviews signatures and determines whether the issue qualifies for the ballot. The deadline for that decision by the County Clerk is September 2nd, and, if the issue qualifies, it will appear on the November 2026 election ballot for Douglas County voters to decide.

Happy May and a belated monthly recap from The Lantern!

I want to start with suggested reading. Louviers Water District reached a major milestone in its journey to improved water quality. Meanwhile, former county commissioner Lora Thomas, Rep. Bob Marshall, and Julie Gooden dispatched a settlement offer to the Board of County Commissioners after the Commissioners were found to have violated Colorado’s Open Meeting Laws when they initiated their Home Rule election last year.

Pulse Check

The Lantern is doing very well heading into summer! We will soon announce a new addition to the writing team, we picked up our publishing pace to be more in-line with what we want it to be, and we’re working on stories and series that add a tremendous amount of value to the community discourse.

We are staggeringly close to celebrating our first anniversary and as we head into our second year it’s clear we are going to focus on county government, water, education, metro districts, and human interest stories that have a difficult time gaining traction with larger channels. Have an idea, tip, or want to write a guest piece? Email me at editor@dougcolantern.org.

Read more

At the April 21st meeting of the Douglas County Board of Education, Directors considered a proposal from the Douglas County Commissioners to provide:

• $347,300 in first-year funding for two new School Resource Officers (SROs) to serve Larkspur Elementary and Cherry Valley Elementary in Franktown

• Nearly 10 times that amount, just over $3 million, to share costs for Evolv entryway security equipment for ten DCSD schools

The Douglas County Commissioners’ proposal specified the vendor (Evolv), the specific equipment setup for each of 10 DCSD schools, and a 48-month lease term. Commissioners invited Evolv representatives to a presentation with the District’s Safety and Security Committee and high school principals.

The proposal from the County Commissioners did not cover three critical points:

• The evidence for the effectiveness of entryway security systems in schools

• The costs of staffing those systems

• How entryway security systems would fit into DCSD’s existing, comprehensive approach to safety and security

A multilayered approach to safety and security

Douglas County School District has prioritized security for years. Director of Safety and Security Jonny Grusing is a nationally recognized expert in his field who leads a comprehensive, multilayered strategy for the District’s safety and security. Many DougCo residents first heard Grusing’s name when he conducted a Safety and Security Forum for the community in the wake of the September Evergreen High School shooting. But Grusing has spent 5 years with DCSD and comes with over two decades of FBI service.

DCSD’s current annual operating budget for safety and security is $10 million; the District serves 61,535 students. (For reference, Cherry Creek School District (51,844 students) budgets $12.7 million for District Security and JeffCo Public Schools(74,177 students) budgets $13.1 million for Security and Emergency Management.) Grusing directs DCSD’s safety and security budget and has overseen the use of an additional one-time sum of $16 million approved by voters in 2023 and 2024. Those dollars were earmarked for capital improvements (e.g., secure vestibules, door hardware, camera systems, and fire systems) and human capital investments (e.g., SROs, Campus Security Specialists, and evening security at high schools).

In a presentation to the school board, Deputy Superintendent Danelle Hiatt emphasized the District’s focus on creating inclusive culture, a sense of belonging, community engagement, and strong relationships within schools as the foundation for school safety and security. Counselors, school psychologists, nurses, school social workers, and administrators are another key component in DCSD’s approach to supporting and ensuring the safety of all students. DCSD boasts that its 298:1 student to counselor ratio is one of the best in the region. However, it does not meet the 250:1 ratio recommended by the American School Counselor Association.

Grusing noted that DCSD has more SROs and Campus Security Specialists than any other area school district. Douglas County Schools have also added night security at all comprehensive high schools, starting after school and continuing until buildings close at 10pm. Grusing pointed to these human resources and several other capital improvements, including stadium security measures, as critical elements of the District’s overall safety and security strategy.

What does the evidence say?

Entryway security systems - and the security personnel required to operate them - provide visible and tangible evidence that school leaders are doing something to address safety issues. However, critics suggest security companies have a profit motive to prey on fear.

Much of the evidence for the effectiveness of entryway security systems comes from the vendors themselves. In 2024, the Federal Trade Commission took action against one of those vendors over “allegations that the company made false claims about the extent to which its AI-powered security screening system can detect weapons and ignore harmless personal items, including in school settings.” That vendor was Evolv, the vendor the Commissioners selected in 2025 for their proposed partnership with the school district.

Grusing confirmed that entryway metal detectors in schools have never been recommended as an additional safety measure by Douglas County Sheriff’s Office or other law enforcement partners. In response to a question from Director Brad Geiger about evidence that metal detectors reduce violence in schools, Hiatt answered, “The evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive.”

While the evidence for reducing violence and preventing shootings in schools is thin, researchers consistently report that “measures intended to combat school violence – such as the placement of school officers and the use of metal detectors – may also negatively affect the well-being of students and their sense of safety.” Given the data, school officials must carefully consider both the costs and the benefits of entryway security technologies and other investments in safety and security.

What are the costs?

Jonny Grusing estimated that the costs of staffing entryway security systems in ten DCSD schools would exceed $9 million per year — and that would not include the cost of the equipment itself. Grusing noted that the purpose of entryway security is to detect weapons so it must be staffed by armed security; in DCSD that means an SRO plus 2-4 additional security staff members for monitoring and search management.

Superintendent Kane noted that the total annual cost of $10.5 million for the security and equipment would be equivalent to over 140 DCSD staff positions. Devoting $10.5 million just for entryway security would require the District to more than double its current annual general fund operating budget for all safety and security. To afford these entryway security systems, the District would need to make $10.5 million in cuts to other programs, and Kane noted those cuts would be in addition to $15 million in cuts the District is already expecting for the 2027-2028 school year.

Where should schools invest…and who should decide?

Feedback from building-level leaders (like principals) revealed an extensive list of concerns about the installation of entryway security systems in DCSD high schools. Impacts on school culture, climate, and perception of safety, student wellbeing, staff workloads, and financial constraints were all concerns. Leaders also provided alternative ideas for investments in their individual schools’ safety. Ultimately, not one building-level administrator wanted to bring an entryway security system into their school — despite the Commissioners’ offer to pay the cost for any single school that requested one.

Data from KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) suggest that less than 1 in 1,000 students in Colorado will be exposed to a school shooting. That’s too many. But for comparison, about 1 in 4 students in Colorado have one more more diagnosed emotional, behavioral, or developmental conditions. And over 50% of students age 12-17 report difficulty accessing mental health care. When mental health concerns go unaddressed, their impact grows and worsens.

Many educators argue that school shootings become more likely as students feel more disconnected and disaffected at school — and as the adults around them lack the time and resources to address that disconnection and disaffection. This is the evidence-based rationale behind DCSD’s priority for relationships, belonging, inclusivity, and engagement.

Children who have one or more emotional, behavioral, or developmental conditions in United States

As the Board of Education deliberated on a response to the Commissioners, Director Geiger expressed appreciation for Commissioner Laydon’s concern for DCSD students, noted that MLO and Bond funds could not be spent on this project, and in light of expected cuts proposed that both the effectiveness of the proposed Evolv equipment and current budget constraints make it impossible to accept the Commissioners’ cost sharing offer.

Directors unanimously passed a motion directing Superintendent Kane to draft a letter to the Commissioners thanking them for their generous offer and their commitment to school safety, and inquiring if they would be willing to redirect the $3 million from the Evolv technology to help fund secure vestibules in all DCSD middle schools and increase SRO coverage for DCSD’s most rural schools.

Questions we need answered:

• Will the Douglas County Commissioners redirect their $3 million offer to help DCSD address its most critical needs for ensuring school safety and security?

• In the face of looming budget cuts, how will DCSD prioritize investments in the student support they describe as the foundation for school safety — particularly with respect to student-to-counselor ratios and ensuring access to mental health support for students who need it?

To learn more about DCSD’s approach to safety and security, view the September 2025 Safety and Security Forum:

Related Articles:

Additional Reading:

Examining School Shootings at the National and State Level and Mental Health Implications

Youth Mental Health Statistics - Annie E. Casey Foundation

FTC Takes Action Against Evolv Technologies for Deceiving Users About its AI-Powered Security Screening Systems

As More Schools Turn to AI Weapons Detection, Questions Persist

Located in northwest Castle Rock, The Meadows neighborhood is a tranquil scene of suburban Colorado life. Over the course of four decades, a quiet fiscal problem has grown into a massive outlier. In most communities, property taxes pay for schools, roads, public safety, and county or municipal operations. But in the Meadows, about a third of residents’ property tax bills fund something else: paying off a debt that was created before most of the neighborhood existed. That debt, originally $57 million, is nearly half a billion dollars today, despite decades of taxes collected to repay it.

How did $57 million in infrastructure bonds from the 1980s balloon into a $454 million obligation? Because not one dollar of the original principal has been paid down. Now, after 40 years, residents are starting to do something about it.

The Meadows & Colorado Metro Districts

To understand The Meadows, you first need to understand how metro districts work in Colorado. There are nearly 2,500 metro districts across the state, and they quietly shape property taxes for hundreds of thousands of residents.

A metropolitan district is a form of local government created under Colorado law. Developers create metro districts to finance public infrastructure — roads, sewer lines, water systems, and more — before homes are built and before there are any residents to pay taxes. The district issues municipal bonds to cover construction costs. Those bonds are then repaid through a dedicated property tax charged to every homeowner within the district’s boundaries over the life of the bond, typically 20 to 30 years.

The benefit to homebuyers is straightforward: spreading infrastructure costs over time keeps home prices low upfront. According to the Colorado Association of Home Builders, public infrastructure typically adds $30,000 to $40,000 to the price of a new home if paid without a bond. Metro districts, in theory, solve that problem by deferring the cost over the life of a loan.

Colorado’s property tax assessments are filled with terms most people do not need in everyday life, but a “mill levy” is a good term to know. One mill equals $1 per $1,000 of assessed value. Assessed value is a percentage of a property’s actual value, what a property would sell for on the market. When stacked on top of county, school district, and other taxes, metro district taxes often represent a significant portion of a total property tax bill.

The tax structure for metro districts has a critical problem: developers often control a metro district’s board of directors from the moment the district is formed, long before a single home is built or a single resident moves in. The developer sets the debt ceiling, issues the bonds, and in some cases purchases the bonds they vote to issue — collecting interest payments from the very homeowners whose property secures the debt and to whom they just sold a home.

State Sen. Lisa Frizell, who represents Castle Rock and lives in The Meadows, has said she has “seen a lot of kind of shady dealings by metro districts over the years.” Reform advocates have been more direct. John Henderson, who co-founded Coloradans for Metro District Reform, describes the structure as “a lifetime annuity that pays out, guaranteed by the most secure source of revenue you can imagine — taxes.”

How Money For Roads Became A Billion Dollars In Debt

The Meadows is the largest master-planned community in Castle Rock, located due south of Castle Pines Village across Highway 85 and southwest of the Castle Rock Outlets. Development began in the mid-1980s, when the community’s seven metro districts issued approximately $57 million in bonds to build the roads, sewer systems, and other infrastructure that made the neighborhood possible.

The original debt plan was manageable. Bond terms from 1991 projected a full payoff between 2006 and 2021 — a 15-to-30-year timeline that would have freed thousands of homeowners from the excess tax obligation long before now.

That plan changed in 1993.

In October of that year, facing tax revenue shortfalls as the development built out more slowly than projected, the debt was reorganized to approximately $86 million and approved by the Town of Castle Rock, with a “bond sinking fund” designed to retain up to $10 million in reserves. A bond sinking fund is a kind of reserve account that helps pay off large debts. Then, just two months later, in December 1993, the seven metro district boards entered into a separate agreement with bond holders that materially changed the terms of what Castle Rock had just approved.

According to documents uncovered by Castle Rock resident and real estate agent Jim Garcia, who has spent years digging through filings from the 1980s and 1990s, those December changes converted what was intended to be a new 30-to-40-year payoff into a structure that could extend more than 100 years. Bond terms were restructured so that interest would compound without principal reduction for decades. Bonds were issued with options to allow no payment and partial payment when due, meaning the districts were not required to reduce principal…only to service the compounding interest.

The result, as Garcia’s accounting firm documented through a formal financial review, is stark:

• $70,000,000 — Current principal outstanding (of the original 1993 amount)

• $383,832,189 — Unpaid accrued interest as of December 31, 2024

• $453,832,189 — Total outstanding balance as of December 31, 2024

• $202,028,801 — Total interest already paid by homeowners, 1988–2024

Meadows residents have collectively paid more than $200 million since the late 1980s, and the debt has grown — not shrunk — to more than $450 million. In 2023 alone, the seven districts collected nearly $14 million in property taxes plus more than $1 million in car registrations, but the outstanding debt still increased by more than $20 million that year.

The bond holder is an entity called Castle Rock Bonds LLC. According to Garcia’s research, the bond holder is seeking roughly $600 million in total tax revenue before discharging the debt. So a $57 million infrastructure project from the 1980’s is on pace to cost taxpayers more than $1 billion.

Compounding interest on the 1993-restructured bonds is set to continue accruing through June 1, 2029. At that point, all principal and accrued interest must be paid in full to discharge the debt. The final figure is still unknown, but with five more years of compounding between now and then, the number will be substantially larger than the $454 million outstanding today.

Who Approved The Debt

Metro districts are governed by publicly elected boards. But when a district is first formed, the developer and their associates typically hold all board seats; they are often the only people eligible to vote and run, since no residents exist yet. As a community builds out, residents become eligible to join those boards. In most districts, that transition happens naturally. In The Meadows, it largely did not.

For more than three decades, boards for Districts 2 through 7 were controlled by individuals affiliated with the developer and the bond holder. The same names appeared repeatedly across multiple boards. District 1 was the only board that had transitioned to partial resident control. District 4, described as the master district that controls the bond debt finances, remained entirely in developer hands.

Residents who tried to run for District 4 in 2025 were told by metro district attorneys that their properties were excluded from the district’s boundaries and they were therefore ineligible — despite living within The Meadows and paying the tax.

“That definitely inspired me to want to get involved,” said Larry Canepa, one of those rejected candidates, “and then to receive a letter from the attorney for the metro district saying that none of the homeowners were eligible was very upsetting.”

For 35 years, while homeowners paid their property taxes, the boards overseeing where the money went were controlled by the very parties receiving the funds.

Residents Take Control, And Lawyer Up

That changed on May 6, 2025.

After CBS Colorado published an investigation in February 2025 revealing the full scope of the debt, dozens of Meadows residents organized to run for the metro district boards. More than 200 people expressed interest in candidacy. In Districts 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, enough residents ran that they took control of those boards. Districts 4 and 5, where residents say they were blocked or deterred from running, remained under the control of developers.

For the first time in the community’s history, property owners now control a majority of the seven district boards and the bank accounts that flow through them.

Jim Garcia, who had been researching the debt for five years before the CBS investigation, was elected president of the District 1 board — the district carrying the highest individual share of the outstanding debt.

The newly resident-controlled boards moved quickly. By the end of May 2025, District 1 had contracted with a team of attorneys specializing in Colorado metro bond law and litigation. The legal team spent more than three months reviewing original bond documents, intergovernmental cost-sharing agreements, and decades of financial records.

As of the most recent public update, the legal team has eliminated some past legal strategies, identified a limited number of avenues to fix the debt problem, and requested more time to work the problem. Garcia has been clear that all bond payments will continue without interruption while the legal review proceeds. The goal is to understand whether any legal mechanism exists to restructure, reduce, or accelerate the payoff of the debt. On its current trajectory, it will not be discharged in the lifetimes of most current homeowners.

The Metro District Inside the County Seat

The Town of Castle Rock’s role in this situation raises its own questions.

In 1993, the Town approved reorganization of the metro district debt. But when Garcia provided town officials with original legal documents he had uncovered — including the December 1993 agreement that changed the bond terms — Castle Rock stated it had not previously seen or reviewed those documents. The town, which would have been a party to the October 1993 Plan, was apparently unaware of the subsequent modification that brought the current situation to bear.

After conversations with Garcia in late 2024 and early 2025, the Town of Castle Rock retained an outside legal firm rather than engaging substantively with residents on the underlying debt questions. The Town has not publicly explained the 1993 restructuring, its own oversight role during the intervening decades, or what, if anything, it can do now to support the more than 7,500 homeowners in The Meadows.

Colorado Grapples with Metro District Reform

The Meadows is not an isolated case. It is, as John Henderson of Coloradans for Metro District Reform put it, “the poster child” for what can go wrong when metro district structures lack accountability.

According to state Sen. Mike Weissman, authorized but unissued debt by metro districts across Colorado exceeds $1 trillion. About 100 new metro districts are approved every year, and there are nearly 2,500 currently operating statewide.

At the Colorado State Capitol, The Meadows situation drew attention in 2025. State Sen. Lisa Frizell and Rep. Max Brooks, both Castle Rock-area Republicans who sit on the Legislative Audit Committee, pushed for a performance audit of the Department of Local Affairs’ oversight of metro districts. Weissman, a Democrat, also called for an audit.

Rep. Dafna Michaelson Jenet introduced HB 25-1079, which would have expanded the jurisdiction of the state’s Independent Ethics Commission to cover special district board members and their direct hires, creating a formal avenue for ethics complaints. The bill passed the House but was killed in a Senate committee in May 2025 — the third consecutive year a similar measure failed to become law.

Industry representatives say significant reforms have been enacted since the 1980s, including TABOR protections, debt mill levy caps, and new transparency requirements. Kyle Thomas, a managing director at D.A. Davidson Development Finance, acknowledged that “you wouldn’t see that same scenario as The Meadows” under current law — but noted that for existing debt structures, the most realistic path forward is negotiation with the debt holder.

What Homeowners in The Meadows Should Know

A few points that Garcia has emphasized publicly are worth clarifying for current and prospective residents:

• The 35-mill tax rate is fixed and cannot be increased. Developers across Colorado are currently seeking mill authorizations in the range of 70 to 95 mills for new developments — two to three times the cap on what Meadows residents pay.

• No special assessments can be levied on individual properties under the current bond agreements.

• And the metro district boards are entirely separate from The Meadows HOA, which manages community events and shared amenities. The HOA has no role in the bond debt.

What is uncertain is when, or if, the debt will ever be fully discharged. If the legal team finds no viable remedy and no negotiated restructuring occurs, the outstanding balance will continue to grow until the 2029 interest-stop date, at which point the remaining debt must be paid in full. Given that the 7,500 properties currently generate roughly $20 million per year in metro district tax revenue, a lump-sum payoff at that scale is not feasible without some form of restructuring.

The Questions We Need Answered

• Who is receiving the massive interest payments secured by taxpayers?

• Did the metro district boards agree in December 1993 to materially change the bond terms approved just two months earlier by the Town of Castle Rock without Castle Rock’s knowledge?

• Why has not one dollar of original principal on the bond issue been reduced in more than 35 years of property tax payments?

• Why were residents in District 4 — the master district that controls the bond finances — ruled ineligible to run for the board?

• What is the Town of Castle Rock’s current legal position on its responsibilities to Meadows homeowners?

Sources & Suggested Reading

• “The Meadows Metro Bond Property Tax,” Jim Garcia Homes

• “The Meadows Metro Bond Tax Fiasco,” Jim Garcia Homes

• “Meadows neighborhood carrying hundreds of millions in bond debt,” CBS News Colorado

• “Dozens of Castle Rock homeowners run for metro district board to tackle $434 million bond debt,” CBS News Colorado

• “State lawmakers weigh metro district oversight bill,” CBS News Colorado

• “Residents of master-planned community win majority control of metro district boards,” CBS News Colorado

• “Special district oversight legislation advances as advocates push metro district reform,” CBS News Colorado

• Special Districts: A Brief Review for Residents, Colorado Department of Local Government

• HB22-1363, Colorado General Assembly

• HB25-1079, Colorado Capitol Watch

• Metro Districts Overview, Home Builders Association of Metro Denver

• Metro District Reform, metrodistrictreform.org

• “Metro district reform bill bars developers from buying own bonds,” Colorado Politics, April 2022

The April 15th meeting of Perry Park Water and Sanitation District (PPWSD) focused on clear communication with residents. Covering a wide range of topics, the meeting ran over two hours, and attendees were encouraged to provide feedback and ask questions. Some of the biggest and most important questions for the District were not addressed.

Residents of Perry Park are facing steeply increasing fees for water and sewer service. On the heels of a Sewer Capital Fee approved in March, Directors announced this week that fee will soon double.

Perry Park is left wondering: Why the additional increase only one month later? And will that be the last of the increases?

Subscribe now

Long Term Capital Improvement Plan

The Sewer Capital Fee of $45 every other month that Directors approved in March was actually an error. They explained that the increase was intended to be $45 per month ($90 on customers’ bimonthly bills), but the lower amount was noticed to the public and approved by the Board as a result of a typo. Directors will restart the mandatory public notice process, and customers can expect to begin seeing the correct $90 fee on their bimonthly bills by the end of summer.

The Sewer Capital Fee is intended to pay the costs of an $8.25 million certificates of participation agreement with a 20-year term for improvements to the Waucondah Waste Water Treatment Plant — that project is already under construction. (The total cost of the project is over $9 million, and the District is funding the difference with cash reserves.) The District has set no end date for that $90 Sewer Capital Fee.

PPWSD Directors shared their Capital Improvement Plan at the April meeting, as part of an effort to maximize transparency with residents. However, a detailed look at the plan raises significant questions about how future improvements will be funded. Those questions did not come out at the April meeting.

Although it was not discussed at the April 15 meeting, the District’s next large capital outlay ($11.5 million) is scheduled to begin in 2032 for the Sageport Wastewater Treatment Plant. That $11.5 million project would begin in year six of the District’s 20-year term on the certificates of participation for the current Waucondah project. If the $90 fee per billing cycle is covering only the Waucondah improvements, where will the funding for the even greater cost of the Sageport improvements come from?

Castle Rock Water Discussions

Directors confirmed that discussions are ongoing for the possibility of selling or leasing the District’s excess renewable water to Castle Rock Water. Due to lower-than-average snow pack, stream flows of that renewable water are currently at about 30% of normal flow, raising questions about whether there will be any excess water available to sell this year.

In years with average stream flows, PPWSD has rights to more renewable water than its current water treatment plant (Glen Grove) is capable of processing. Directors explained this as one reason for exploring the possibility of selling excess water to Castle Rock. Closing any deal with Castle Rock for that water would likely require a trip to water court.

The District’s Capital Improvement Plan includes no scheduled expenditures to increase the capacity of its Glen Grove plant before 2045, and the current estimate for 2045 improvements is nearly $8 million. That project is scheduled to start two decades from now — 13 years after the Sageport project. Meanwhile, the District will continue to add wells as needed and draw from the aquifer groundwater rather than increasing the use of renewable water to meet the District’s needs.

Drought, Water Restrictions, and Wildfire Risk

The 70% reduction in stream flows PPWSD is experiencing is not unique. However, Director Arthurs noted that municipal reserves in Douglas County remain stable for now. Directors discussed increased wildfire risks and various water restrictions and incentives, including Castle Rock’s water rebates to encourage conservation efforts ranging from landscaping and irrigation choices to toilet upgrades. The board asked for feedback from attendees on how to communicate with residents about water conservation and did not take action to initiate incentive programs or restrictions, noting that there have never been water restrictions in the District before.

Perry Park LIDS (Local Improvement Districts)

Although not on the agenda, a brief discussion of Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) occurred in response to a resident question about development and how it affects PPWSD. There are three separate proposals in process with the county that would affect 128 lots in Perry Park designated as “currently unbuildable parcels.” Owners of those parcels have worked together to petition Douglas County to assist in the building of roadways, storm and sanitary sewers, and gas and electric lines to benefit those owners — and to be funded by those owners. This would add users to PPWSD, helping to spread out costs among a larger number of ratepayers, but without cost to the District itself for constructing the necessary infrastructure.

Other Water News in Perry Park

Water Meter Replacement

Concerns about unaccounted for water, possibly due to outdated meters, have prompted the District’s $1.5 million meter replacement project. However, communication issues are slowing that effort, especially for residents with inside meters. Perry Park water customers can contact Flush Plumbing to schedule installation.

Board Vacancy Filled

Directors appointed longtime Perry Park resident, geophysical engineer, and environmental consultant Maggie Bierbaum to fill the vacancy created by the March resignation of Jim Maras. The board noted that the next election will be in May 2027 for three seats; current Directors Gary Peterson and Brian Arthurs will be term limited, and Bierbaum will be eligible to run to retain her appointed seat.

Questions we need answered about PPWSD’s future:

• What risks to PPWSD’s water rights could be associated with going to water court to contract for the sale or lease of excess renewable water to Castle Rock Water?

• What plans does the District have for funding the capital improvements of Sageport Water Treatment Plant ($11.5 million) that are scheduled to begin in 2032?

• What additional fee increases can Perry Park residents expect to fund future capital improvements for the District?

Related Articles:

Colorado is having its worst snowpack year on record. That is not a local quirk or a bad season — water officials are calling it “exceedingly grim,” and the conditions that produced it are unlikely to be a one-time event. For Douglas County, this drought is more than a lawn-watering inconvenience. It is a stress test for a water system that already supports substantial growth in the arid American West, and it is raising urgent questions about whether the county’s development machine is built for a drier future.

Facts On The Ground In April

Colorado’s 2025–2026 snowpack peaked nearly a month early and came in as the lowest on record — worse than anything state water managers have tracked since at least 1941. The South Platte River Basin, which supplies the eastern half of the state and serves as the primary renewable water source for much of Douglas County’s long-term planning, is sitting at roughly 42% of normal. An unusually warm spring has accelerated snowmelt, meaning that thin snowpack is evaporating faster than it can be captured and stored.

State water officials convened an emergency session of the Colorado Water Conservation Board in January. By March, Denver Water — which serves 1.5 million people, including portions of Douglas County’s northern corridor — declared its first Stage 1 drought restrictions since 2013, asking customers to cut use by 20% and limiting outdoor watering to two assigned days per week. It was the utility’s fifth-ever drought declaration.

Aurora Water, which is the primary water supplier for the rapidly growing northwest Douglas County region through its arrangement with Dominion Water, formally declared Stage 1 drought restrictions in early April, targeting the same 20% reduction. Aurora’s reservoirs were sitting at approximately 68% capacity as of late March — representing only about 1.5 years of usable supply, with officials warning that Stage 2 restrictions requiring 35% reductions could follow if goals are not met.

The drought is already generating real costs for households. Denver Water imposed drought surcharges in April that will add anywhere from $7 to $76 to a summer bill depending on how much outdoor water a customer uses. Castle Rock Water is preparing its own tiered surcharges subject to town council approval, starting at roughly $6.91 per thousand gallons and rising to $10.31 if conditions worsen. One economic reality behind these fees: when utilities ask customers to use less water, they collect less revenue — Denver Water estimates a potential $30 to $70 million loss in revenue this year — and they pass some of those operating costs back to ratepayers through drought pricing. Customers are asked to conserve, and then asked to pay more for reduced use.

How Drought Restrictions Work, and Who Decides

Douglas County has no single water utility. Water is delivered by a patchwork of more than 20 entities — municipal departments, special districts, and metro districts — plus roughly 10,000 homes are on domestic wells. Each provider sets its own drought response policy, triggered by its own standards, approved by its own governing body. There is no countywide switch that someone flips.

The three largest providers — Highlands Ranch Water, Parker Water & Sanitation District, and Castle Rock Water — together serve about 70% of county residents. Each has a drought response plan structured in stages, with increasingly restrictive mandates at each level:

A Drought Watch is the earliest stage — voluntary conservation, public outreach, no mandatory restrictions. Highlands Ranch Water declared a watch on March 1, citing severe drought and predicting customer demand 22% above normal. Parker Water and Castle Rock issued conservation advisories around the same time, recommending customers delay sprinkler activation until mid-May and fix leaks before the season begins.

A Drought Stage is mandatory. Stage 1 typically means outdoor watering is limited to two or three assigned days per week with restrictions on what hours of the day water can be used on lawns. Stage 2 escalates cuts further, often requiring a 25–35% overall reduction, with commercial customers included. Castle Rock Water is preparing a Stage 1 request for council approval. Highlands Ranch is expected to watch conditions through spring before deciding.

The key variable is reservoir storage — specifically, how many months of usable supply a utility currently holds. Aurora Water’s threshold for Stage 1 is a 19- to 24-month supply. Denver Water’s is measured similarly. When a utility’s board or council votes to declare a drought stage, that action triggers mandatory rules. Violations can result in fines.

For homeowners on domestic wells, who are almost entirely unaffected by utility drought rules, the picture is different — and in some ways more precarious. Wells that draw from shallow aquifers can see yields drop significantly in drought years. Homeowners on wells are largely on their own.

How Douglas County Sources Water and Plans Ahead

To understand how drought hits Douglas County, it helps to understand that the county draws from two fundamentally different kinds of water, each with its own vulnerability.

Non-renewable groundwater from the Denver Basin aquifer system was the original backbone of Douglas County’s explosive growth. These deep bedrock aquifers sit beneath the Front Range from Greeley to Colorado Springs. They are non-renewable in the sense that the water that fills them fell as precipitation thousands of years ago and replenishes on geologic timescales, not human lifetimes. Pumping them is mining. Each well draws from a finite pool. As that pool shrinks, wells must go deeper, pumps work harder, and costs rise.

The good news is that deep Denver Basin groundwater is largely insulated from the current drought. You can’t fill it back up with a wet winter, but you also can’t drain it with a hot, dry summer. For utilities that still rely heavily on groundwater pumping — particularly smaller metro districts serving newer developments — this year’s drought is not an immediate crisis at the tap because they rely heavily on pumping groundwater, not siphoning off rivers.

Renewable surface water is the other half of the story, and it’s where drought lands hardest. Over the past two decades, Douglas County’s major providers have been working to shift their supply portfolios toward renewable sources: South Platte River water stored in reservoirs, recycled water for irrigation, and regional exchanges like WISE (Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency), which enables traded water deliveries among Aurora Water, Denver Water, and suburban partners.

Renewable water sources have tremendous upside for cost and sustainability, but are vulnerable to drought, climate change, and disasters. The South Platte River’s yield is near zero in dry years. The river’s flow, and therefore its yield, can swing from near nothing in drought years to 55,000 acre-feet in a wet year. Planning around flow variability requires substantial reservoir storage as a buffer.

The Platte Valley Water Partnership, a $780 million project anchored by Parker Water and recently joined by Castle Rock Water, is designed precisely for this problem: capturing high-flow South Platte water in wet years, storing it in northeastern Colorado reservoirs, and piping it south for use in Douglas County. That project is still years from completion.

The Aurora Water Connection: A Critical Vulnerability

One of the least-discussed but most significant water dependencies in Douglas County runs through the City of Aurora. Aurora Water is the primary supplier for Dominion Water & Sanitation District, the entity that provides water to Sterling Ranch — one of the fastest-growing master-planned communities in northwest Douglas County, and a development with new approvals to build thousands of additional homes.

Sterling Ranch is growing, it is served by Dominion Water, and Dominion Water depends on Aurora. Aurora Water just declared Stage 1 drought restrictions, with officials warning Stage 2 could follow.

This chain of dependencies is a structural vulnerability in Douglas County’s growth story. Aurora Water’s general manager told city lawmakers in March that the utility had “about a year and a half worth of usable supply” in its reservoirs — a thin margin that leaves limited room for error. Aurora’s supply portfolio draws from mountain watersheds that are all being battered by the same historic drought affecting every other Front Range water utility.

Douglas County’s draft 2050 Water Plan does not squarely address what happens if Aurora Water, under pressure from its own growth and drought conditions, is unable or unwilling to expand deliveries to Dominion on the timeline that Sterling Ranch’s development projections require. It is an open question that the county has not yet answered when granting approvals for new development.

How Douglas County’s Water Supply Has Changed in the Last Decade

Ten years ago, a larger share of Douglas County’s water came from groundwater pumping. That has changed as utilities invest in renewable sources and reuse initiatives.

The major providers have made real progress. Castle Rock Water now operates one of the most diverse supply portfolios on the Front Range, combining local surface water, recycled supplies, regional imports, and strategic groundwater reserves. Highlands Ranch Water has built a system that treats groundwater largely as an emergency backup rather than a primary supply. Parker Water has invested heavily in renewable supply infrastructure, including its WISE partnership and its participation in the Platte Valley project. These are meaningful shifts, made over years of sustained investment and multi-jurisdictional cooperation.

The picture is murkier with smaller water providers — metro districts that often serve newly approved developments. Many of these districts still rely primarily on Denver Basin groundwater, and the county’s approval of new developments frequently depends on water commitments from districts that have not yet secured long-term renewable supply. The 2050 Water Plan acknowledges this dependency but does not establish a clear threshold at which groundwater reliance becomes too high to justify new development approvals.

The other major change in the last decade is efficiency. Per-home water use across the county has declined as newer homes are built to tighter standards and as utilities have invested in smart irrigation, rebates for turf conversion, and tiered pricing that penalizes heavy use.

All in, water is the currency for growth in Douglas County.

What Drought Means for Growth

If droughts like this one become the norm rather than the exception, at what point does water availability constrain growth? The draft 2050 Water Plan does not treat that as a question worth asking. Growth is assumed and treated as a constant — roughly 150,000 new residents and nearly 70,000 new households by 2050 — water is a variable, and water planning is framed as the exercise of finding a way to approve growth plans, not a question to answer before beginning construction. The plan’s own numbers show the buffer between supply and demand shrinking: demand up 30%, supply up only 12% through 2050. That math works today, but not if dry years reduce renewable surface water deliveries and increase the cost of groundwater alternatives at the same time.

The 2026 snowpack illustrates what a supply squeeze looks like. When snowpack collapses and renewable water deliveries fall, utilities that depend on those deliveries have two options: pull more from groundwater reserves (which pushes up costs and accelerates depletion) or tell customers to use less. Both options cost money. Both options make water more expensive. And more expensive water is a cost that ultimately falls on ratepayers.

For housing development to continue at its current pace under increasingly dry conditions, Douglas County would need one or more of the following: much larger reservoir storage to buffer renewable supplies, faster completion of projects like the Platte Valley Pipeline, efficiency standards that are enforced, and for climate conditions to hold steady.

The 2050 Water Plan calls the approach it recommends “sustainable.” The Drought of 2026 is a preview of what it will look like when optimistic math gets tested in reality.

The Questions We Need Answered

• How are Douglas County’s utilities coordinating their drought responses with Aurora Water and Denver Water, given how many county residents depend on those external providers?

• What are the water conditions under which Douglas County would halt or slow new housing development approvals?

• If Aurora Water restricts deliveries to Dominion Water during a Stage 2 or Stage 3 drought, what does Sterling Ranch do?

Part One of our water series: “Following the Water: How Douglas County Relies On Water It Does Not Control.”

Part Two: “Following the Water: The County’s Draft 2050 Water Plan.”

Sources & Recommended Reading

• Colorado Water Conservation Board meeting, January 27, 2026 — Michelle Garrison, state water resources specialist: “Things are looking exceedingly grim.” YouTube recording

• Colorado Sun, “Colorado water officials plan for ‘exceedingly grim’ drought forecasts, low reservoir levels,” Shannon Mullane, Jan. 28, 2026. Link

• Colorado Sun, “Front Range water utilities impose restrictions and push conservation to combat drought this summer,” Shannon Mullane and Michael Booth, Mar. 25, 2026. Link — Highlands Ranch Water drought watch; Castle Rock Water Stage 1 consideration; Parker Water’s Ron Redd: “Using water wisely is something we can all practice every year.”

• Colorado Sun, “Even if Coloradans slash their water use, their bills will likely rise during drought,” Jerd Smith, Apr. 3, 2026. Link — Denver Water $30–$70M revenue loss estimate; Castle Rock surcharge rates ($6.91–$10.31/thousand gallons); Aurora Water spokesperson Shonnie Cline: “We always thought that 2002 was the worst possible year, but we are expecting something worse this year.”

• Colorado Sun, “Denver’s lawn-watering costs are going up for the drought. Here’s how much,” Michael Booth, Apr. 9, 2026. Link — Denver Water surcharge tiers; average customer cost $45–$52 extra; “hopes for a Miracle May snowstorm are dimming.”

• Sentinel Colorado, “When In Drought: Aurora prepares for a year of severe water restrictions,” Mar. 25, 2026. Link — Aurora Water General Manager Marshall Brown: “We have about a year and a half worth of usable supply there.” Aurora reservoirs at ~68% capacity.

• Denver7, “Douglas County residents question if county has the water to sustain growth,” Mar. 2026. Link — Highlands Ranch Water Sam Calkins on conservation value; Parker Water Ron Redd on demand increasing 5x in summer; Parker resident Kristin Ionga: “We’re not concerned for our lawn or anything like that, but we’re concerned more about the growth of our area.”

• CPR News, “What to know about water restrictions across Colorado,” updated Apr. 16, 2026. Link — Statewide restriction tracker; South Platte Basin at 42% of normal; Colorado River Basin at 55% of normal.

• KDVR FOX31, “Mandatory watering restrictions ordered for Denver amid drought.” Link — Denver Water spokesperson Todd Hartman: “We are in a really tough spot, we aren’t trying to alarm people but they need to realize this is a record low snowpack.” Denver’s 2026 declaration is its fifth-ever Stage 1.

• City of Aurora, Stage 1 drought declaration, April 2026. Link

• Denver Urban Gardens / Water Conservation FAQ, updated April 1, 2026. Link — Regional drought restriction summary; Douglas County status as of April 1.

• Douglas County Draft 2050 Comprehensive Water Plan. Douglas County Water Plan page — Supply/demand projections (77,000 to 100,000 AFY demand; 143,000 to 160,000 AFY supply through 2050); quote: “if water is used in the same ways and at the same levels that it has been in the last 25 to 50 years, it elevates the risk that sufficient supplies may not be economically available to fully meet demands.”

• Platte Valley Water Partnership project overview. Link

• Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency (WISE), Denver Water. Link

“A hot mess, in a dumpster fire, on a train wreck.”

That was the text message one of my fellow delegates showed me as we stood in line for nearly four hours waiting to get into the Colorado Republican State Assembly in Pueblo. I didn’t read about this online. I was there—as a returning delegate—and from the moment I arrived, it was clear something wasn’t right.

More than 2,000 delegates from across the state gathered to nominate candidates for the primary ballot. I arrived at 8:30 a.m. for a 9:00 start and found a line stretching roughly half a mile. Word filtered back that internet connectivity had failed, and the credentialing process—the system used to verify delegates—was being adjusted in real time.

Ironically, that raised an immediate question in my mind. Manual processes weren’t new. In fact, similar assemblies had used paper-based credentialing in the past without issue. Why the sudden dependence on a system that couldn’t function without connectivity?

Eventually, around 1:30 p.m., the assembly began.

Where Things Broke Down

For those unfamiliar, the assembly process starts with credentialing—verifying that each delegate is authorized to vote. Delegates present identification, receive credentials, and are processed into the system. That count becomes the baseline for how many votes should ultimately be cast.

Inside the venue, the process appeared orderly. Delegates voted using paper ballots, deposited into sealed containers, and monitored by volunteers and campaign observers.

But when votes were tallied, a problem emerged: the number of ballots exceeded the number of credentialed delegates. The number circulating among delegates was 87.

At first glance, that sounds alarming. But here’s an important distinction: discrepancies like this are not uncommon in large assemblies. They don’t automatically indicate fraud—they indicate a reconciliation problem.

In previous assemblies I attended, similar discrepancies were resolved by going back to paper records—signature logs or manual credentialing sheets—and verifying the count. In those cases, the issue wasn’t extra ballots. It was an undercount in credentialing.

That option didn’t exist here.

Because portions of the credentialing process relied on electronic scanning—and because some delegates who had technical issues were processed manually without being scanned—the system lacked a complete, auditable backup. When the discrepancy appeared, there was no reliable way to reconcile it in real time.

And that gets to the real crux of the issue.

The Real Issue: Voting Machines vs. Vote Counting

Much of today’s political debate centers on “machines,” but that term is often used too broadly.

There is a critical difference between:

• Voting machines that record votes electronically without a paper trail, and

• Technology used to count or process paper ballots

The concern is not the use of technology itself. In fact, technology—like optical scanners—can dramatically improve speed and consistency in counting.

The concern is auditability.

Systems that replace paper ballots or fail to produce a verifiable record make it difficult—or impossible—to independently confirm results. That’s why election experts across the political spectrum emphasize the importance of voter-verifiable paper ballots.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, systems that rely on paper records allow for meaningful audits and recounts, while purely electronic systems without such records do notⁱ.

Similarly, the National Conference of State Legislatures notes that post-election audits depend on physical ballots or records to verify outcomesⁱⁱ.

What happened at the assembly wasn’t a failure of “machines” in general—it was a failure to maintain a system that could be independently verified when something went wrong.

The Debate That Followed

A few days later, I listened to the Jeff & Bill Show on KNUS 710 AM, where gubernatorial candidate Maria Orms and a host discussed what had happened.

The conversation eventually turned to vote counting accuracy.

One claim suggested that hand-counted ballots are more accurate than machine tabulation. Another claimed that hand counting could be off by as much as 25 percent.

Both statements sounded authoritative. Both couldn’t be right.

So I went looking for the data.

The Real Problem: Defining “Accuracy”

What I found is that most debates about election accuracy are built on a misunderstanding: people are talking about different things.

“Accuracy” in elections can refer toⁱⁱⁱ:

• Machine tabulation precision

• Human counting reliability

• Recount differences

• Final certified outcomes after audits

Without clarifying the metric, statistics can easily be misinterpreted.

What the Data Actually Shows

Across multiple studies and election audits, a consistent pattern emerges^iv:

• Machine tabulation systems, especially optical scanners, are highly accurate under federal testing standards

• Hand counting tends to introduce more variability at scale due to human factors

• Recounts typically show small differences—often tenths of a percent—driven by interpretation, not systemic failure

• Audits consistently confirm that final outcomes are accurate within very small margins

The takeaway is straightforward:

The system is not perfect—but it is designed to detect and correct imperfections.

How Election Accuracy Actually Works

Election integrity depends on layered safeguards:

• Paper ballots create a verifiable record

• Machines provide efficient counting

• Audits verify results

• Recounts resolve close contests

Accuracy doesn’t come from one step—it comes from the system checking itself.

In Pueblo, that redundancy broke down—not in the voting itself, but in the inability to verify credentialing when something went wrong.

Why This Matters Locally

For voters in Douglas County and across Colorado, confidence in elections matters as much as the mechanics themselves.

Even when discrepancies are explainable, visible confusion can erode trust. And when trust declines, participation often follows.

That’s not a partisan issue. It’s a civic one.

Why It Matters Even More to Gen Z and Young Voters

This issue carries particular weight for younger voters.

Gen Z has grown up in a world filled with competing narratives and constant information flow. They are more skeptical of institutions—and more likely to question systems they don’t fully understand.

In my recent book, The Next Greatest Generation: A Fatherly Conversation Between a Gen X Dad and the Men of Gen Z, I argue that rebuilding trust in institutions will be one of the defining challenges for this generation.

But trust requires clarity.

Election integrity isn’t just about whether votes are counted correctly—it’s about whether people believe they are.

Final Thought

The events in Pueblo were frustrating. Disorganized. At times, chaotic. But they were also instructive.

Because what felt like a “hot mess, in a dumpster fire, on a train wreck” wasn’t proof of a broken system.

It was a reminder of something more important: when systems fail, the ability to verify them matters more than the failure itself.

And next time, hopefully, we can do it without the four-hour line.

Leave a comment

Dr. Jeff Hogan is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with more than three decades of experience in operations, analysis, and defense contracting. After his military career, he spent over a decade developing technical papers, proposals, and strategic assessments for Department of Defense programs. His background in systems analysis informs his writing on public policy, governance, and economic trends. A Colorado resident since 1990, he currently lives in Parker, Colorado.

Footnotes

i Brennan Center for Justice. “Voting Machines at Risk in 2022.”
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-machines-risk-2022

ii National Conference of State Legislatures, “Post-Election Audits,”
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits

iii U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Voluntary Voting System Guidelines,”
https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines and U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Complete Logic and Accuracy Testing Manual,”
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/Logic_and_Accuracy_Testing_Manual_Final_v1.4.pdf

iv Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Error rates in election audits for the 2020 U.S. election,”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2419633122 and Brennan Center for Justice, “Post-Election Audits: Restoring Trust in Elections,”
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/post-election-audits-restoring-trust-elections

In recent months, residents of Perry Park, near Larkspur, have expressed growing concerns about their rapidly increasing water bills — and their concerns about water quality are even more well-established.

The typical monthly meeting of Perry Park Water and Sanitation District (PPWSD) is quiet and uneventful, including only Board Directors and staff. But the District’s most recent meeting on March 18th swelled to nearly 40 in-person and online attendees and lasted nearly three hours.

With a town hall feel, the meeting included extensive opportunities for attendee questions and comments throughout. This led to some tense exchanges, not only between Directors and residents but even between the attendees.

Subscribe now

Concerns about Cost

New PPWSD fees have increased bimonthly water and sanitations bills by a total of $137 for residents who use both water and sewer services. According to former PPWSD Director Jim Maras, the average total water bill for Perry Park residents was around $150 every other month in 2010. Currently residents’ bimonthly bills run around $425 — before water and sewer rates are added. Use of water and sewer only adds to that base cost - and rates for both water and sewer increased on March 18th.

Concerns about Quality

In late 2024, the District discovered radium levels more than twice the EPA’s acceptable standard. Levels have since returned to compliance with the EPA’s standards.

One resident at the March 18th meeting voiced ongoing concerns about brown water. Board Treasurer, Brian Arthurs, acting as a spokesperson for the Board, responded to an inquiry about that concern:

“Regarding the rare occurrence of ‘discolored water,’ we encourage residents to contact the District office directly for an investigation into their specific service line. The district has never experienced a water quality violation.”

About Perry Park Water and Sanitation District

Due west of Larkspur, PPWSD is a special district serving residents of Perry Park and surrounding areas of unincorporated Douglas County. The nearby Town of Larkspur has its own separate water and sewer system. The most recent version of the District’s Water and Sewer Master Plan is dated April 2016.

Established as a special district in the late 1960’s, PPWSD is a nonprofit government entity with an elected board of directors. The elected Directors are required to be registered to vote and permanently reside or own property in the District. According to the District’s website, Directors are elected for 4-year terms and can serve up to two consecutive terms.

The District’s website, lists the following Board Directors:

Gary Peterson, President

Tony Lucas, Vice President

Brian Arthurs, Treasurer

Julia McCusker, Director

The District’s board members are essentially volunteers. Paid a $100 stipend per monthly meeting, they oversee the work of the District Manager, Diana Miller, who has been conducting the daily management of the District full-time for decades. However, residents are concerned about the District Manager’s engagement in the role, and the Board’s responsiveness to those questions was one reason for the March 6th resignation of former Director Jim Maras.

Radium mitigation fees

Most groundwater in Douglas County contains some level of the radioactive element radium. Naturally occurring uranium and radium are common in the rock and soil across much of Colorado, and those elements leach into nearby groundwater. Perry Park’s groundwater sources contain naturally occurring radium at levels that have historically remained within EPA guidelines, despite the 2024 episode. However, Board Vice President Tony Lucas clarified in the March 18th meeting that as the District’s non-renewable aquifer water levels are decreasing, the concentration of radium in the remaining groundwater will naturally increase.

In July 2025, the District implemented a $2.5 million radium mitigation project and a $92 bimonthly ($46 per month) Radium Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Fee to cover the cost. Director Arthurs clarified that the $2.5 million reflects the cost of essential infrastructure upgrades. The fee is for those infrastructure construction costs and is expected to terminate in 2028. According to Arthurs, “Once the facility is constructed, any ongoing maintenance will be classified as a standard operational expense and folded into the base water rate.”

Fee and Rate Increases

At the March 18th meeting, Board Directors discussed and approved a new bimonthly Sewer Capital Fee of $45 ($22.50 per month). The Sewer Capital Fee has been created to help offset the costs of an $8.25 million loan with a 20-year term for capital improvements According to Arthurs, this fee has no expiration date. It is only billed to customers who use the District’s centralized sewer system, as some residents on the water system maintain their own septic systems.

The total cost of the upgrades is estimated at $9.25 million. Director Arthurs explained that the District is expecting to fund costs exceeding the loan amount (an estimated $1 million) with cash, and added, “We are moving quickly to avoid further project delays and cost escalations.”

To ensure that new customers pay their fair share of the improvement costs of the District, Directors voted unanimously in November 2025 to increase tap and development fees by 2.8% for water service and by a whopping 56.1% for sewer service. In addition to those fee increases, Directors approved rate increases on March 18th of 5% on water rates and 15% on sewer rates.

One meeting attendee asked why rate increases are happening again so soon when rates were just increased last summer. In response, Director Tony Lucas clarified that the District is nonprofit, essentially owned by the residents of Perry Park, and the District is setting rates at a level necessary to keep the water system running.

Share

Aging infrastructure and a small customer base

The overarching problem for Perry Park Water and Sanitation is not whether there is enough water. The District owns senior water rights to nearly twice as much water as it currently uses. Those water rights have an estimated value of $30-40 million, according to Maras.

The problem is money. Aging infrastructure is requiring updates and repair all at the same time — and the cost for improvements is being spread across a small number of existing users. The system’s original infrastructure was built in the 1960’s and 1970’s with the total buildout expectation of 3,400 users. Half a century later, the District serves less that half that number — only about 1,600 for water service and 1,300 for sewer service -- that places an even higher cost burden on those existing users.

The costs keep mounting. Already juggling costs for radium mitigation and wastewater treatment upgrades, the District is also in the early stages of a $1.5 million water meter upgrade. Director Arthurs explained, “The $1.5 million investment in Smart Meters is critical for addressing water loss caused by aging, inaccurate meters.”

Even though Perry Park’s water rights could provide enough renewable water to nearly replace the community’s groundwater supply, Director Lucas quoted a cost of $6 million in upgrades to the water treatment plant before the District would be able to use all of its available renewable water. Actual costs could run much higher.

The District has explored two alternatives that could relieve some of the cost burdens from Perry Park residents. As “a first step toward a more collaborative relationship” with nearby Castle Rock, the Board is exploring the possibility of leasing excess renewable water to the town, which relies primarily on non-renewable groundwater. Directors estimate that arrangement would generate, at most, a few hundred thousand dollars in revenue. The District has also pursued state and federal grants, including two requests to Rep. Lauren Boebert’s office.

Questions about professional management

Several attendees at the March 18th meeting voiced concerns about the performance of District Manager Diana Miller. According to Former Director Jim Maras, the District Manager has decades of experience working in the District, but after receiving Board permission to work from home two days per week due to a health situation, she has recently been out of the office most if not all days for several weeks. Maras notes that the District has short-term and long-term disability benefits as well as Family and Medical Leave Act benefits available to help employees who experience extended health issues.

Maras alleges that the District Manager has been collecting full pay and benefits while the volunteer Board has tried to take over the professional management of the District due to her absence. He says contract negotiations and ongoing management of contractors have been compromised and points to examples of improper delegation of duties as clear issues. Maras points to the Board’s unwillingness to “take prudent action and do what’s right for the District” as the primary reason for his resignation.

Several attendees at the March 18th meeting voiced concerns about the management of the District. In response, Director Lucas noted that board members had met in executive session with legal counsel and were advised against commenting on the current situation, because it is a personnel issue, but that the board is working toward a resolution. The District’s website shows three executive sessions — on February 26th, March 5th, March 6th (the date of resignation for former Director Maras) — between the Board’s February 18th and March 18th public meetings and an additional executive session on March 24th. Minutes from those meetings confirm that the Board has been discussing delegation of duties, personnel issues related to the District Manager, and Colorado Open Meeting Laws.

In recent days, a new message has appeared on the District’s website, announcing the March 2027 retirement of District Manager, Diana Miller, and efforts to ensure a seamless transition to her successor.

Questions about board governance

Board governance is also a matter of contention according to Maras, who believes the board could benefit from a requirement for Directors to engage in board training — he noted that the Special Districts Association of Colorado and the National Rural Water Association both offer board training sessions, but that the current board has not participated in formal board training.

In an apparent effort to allow ample opportunity for attendee questions and comments, the March 18th board meeting went off-agenda several times. Rules of order were flexible in some board discussions, and one specific comment from a Director raised questions about whether the Board is fully informed on decisions before they take a vote. In discussions of contracts , board members revealed confusion about change orders. One Director commented about an already-approved change order, saying, “We voted in favor of it, but I don’t understand it.”

One resident, Aaron Mathewson, detailed the questions around governance and operations that he planned to submit in a CORA (Colorado Open Records Act) request, and Directors tried to answer those concerns verbally in the public meeting with little success. Mathewson has been leading efforts to inform and engage residents in the area about water quality, fee increases, and board governance over the course of several months through Facebook posts and community meetings. We reached out to Mathewson for comment but did not receive a response. Another resident expressed appreciation for the efforts and positive intent of board directors, concluding, “We need good management, not good intention.”

What’s Next?

The Board has a 60-day window to fill a vacant seat. Perry Park Water and Sanitation District meets again on April 15th at 2 p.m. at 5676 W. Red Rock Drive Larkspur, Colorado. Agenda, packet, and remote attendance information can be found here when they are posted.

Related Reading

Perry Park Water and Sanitation District website

Concerns rise over record high radium levels in Perry Park water (9News, October 17, 2024)

Larkspur Sentinel, February 2026 (page 13)

Last week, Kim and I sat down with Emily Suyat to discuss Zebulon for two episodes of Red County, Blue State. Catch up on the County Commissioner’s special meeting for Zebulon approvals.

This March marks the one year anniversary of the County Commissioners launching the (doomed) Home Rule initiative. Those actions eventually led to the founding of The Lantern.

The Numbers

In the last six months, The Lantern’s paid subscriber revenue has more than doubled and our total subscriber numbers have increased 80%! We have had a steady interest in opinion columns, but we are also eager to find more guest contributors to our news coverage. If you’re interested in writing for The Lantern send an email here.

What’s Ahead

We are currently working on several big stories including coverage of the Perry Park Water District, our ongoing deep dive into Douglas County’s water infrastructure, developments with Zebulon and more.

You can send tips, leads, and ideas for stories here.

CORA Tracker

At the request of community organizers, The Lantern is sponsoring an online CORA request tracker at DougCoCora.org. It is still in a beta test but if you are submitting CORA requests, or want to see what others have requested, we hope you’ll eventually find the database to be a worthwhile resource.

Wildfire Tracking App

As wildfire season approaches after a historic drought, we highly recommend downloading the app Watch Duty to see potentially life-saving updates about wildfires in your area.

Recommended Reading

• Colorado appeals court overturns Tina Peters’ sentence in election security breach, The Colorado Sun

• Appeals court says DougCo commissioners violated sunshine law, Parker Chronicle

On March 31, my husband and I attended the County Commissioners’ special business meeting regarding funding for the Zebulon Sports Mega Complex. I went with questions, hoping to better understand the proposed multi-year funding plan slated for approval that evening.

As someone who is an avid sports person, and values recreation in our communities, I am not opposed to investing in land and facilities that further opportunities for increased access to these in Douglas County. However, these decisions need to be carefully evaluated with both short term and long term impacts to our communities and pocketbooks.

My concern began with the agenda itself. It indicated the Commissioners intended to approve funding despite the TABOR requirement that multi-year financial commitments be approved by voters. The meeting notice stated that “public comment will be welcome,” (see below) which offered some reassurance—especially given how limited opportunities for meaningful public input have become outside of elections.

When signing up to speak, attendees were required to indicate whether they were “for” or “opposed” the proposal. As someone still seeking information, I could not honestly select “for,” so I registered as “opposed.” But being forced to “pick a side” creates a false binary that discourages genuine inquiry.

At the start of the meeting, Commissioner Abe Laydon emphasized that the Board works for the public, values community input, and hoped the discussion would remain focused on what is best for our children and community. Those are admirable sentiments.

Unfortunately, what followed did not reflect them.

A series of speakers was presented, some addressing topics unrelated to the matter at hand, while time steadily slipped away. When public comment finally opened, several hours after the start of the meeting, speakers were called primarily from the “for” list, with just a few from the “opposed” list. Then, abruptly, the Commissioners announced they had “run out of time” — without hearing from all residents who had signed up to speak in opposition or with concerns—and proceeded directly to a vote.

This was not an accident; it was a choice.

If public comment is only heard when it aligns with a predetermined outcome, it is not truly public comment. It is theater.

I left the meeting discouraged, but not deterred. Residents who ask questions or express concerns deserve to be heard—not sidelined. We are not obstacles to be managed; we are constituents the Commissioners are elected to represent.

I will continue to attend, to speak when allowed, and to submit comments even when ignored. Accountability requires persistence. Our elected officials should expect nothing less.

Carol Sorensen

Douglas County has two major projects running simultaneously in its northwest corridor this year: the Zebulon Sports Complex and the first county-run biochar facility in the nation. Zebulon is the proposed sports mega-complex to be built on 46.5 acres in Sterling Ranch, on land that was once part of a century-old explosives manufacturing facility.

The Douglas County Biochar and Waste Diversion Site is an $8 million facility in Sedalia that broke ground in July 2025. County officials describe it as the first county-operated biochar plant in the United States.

The county has presented these as separate initiatives serving distinct purposes. Zebulon is about youth sports. Biochar is said to be about environmental sustainability and potentially generating revenue.

But a quick glance at the main environmental concerns about Zebulon and the primary uses for a biochar facility’s products point to a connection between the two projects.

A Brief Explainer on Biochar

A biochar facility takes things like wood debris and feeds it into a reactor to be heated at high temperatures without oxygen, which leads to a rapid decomposition. The resulting product is a type of charcoal that can be mixed with soil, among other applications. Biochar has tremendous soil additive benefits. Biochar is hailed as an environmental win-win: it is a sustainable way to dispose of wood, particularly wood remnants from wildfire mitigation, and the resulting biochar helps capture greenhouse gases, improve crop yields, clear soil contaminants, and much more.

Zebulon’s Once and Future Contamination Problems

As we have previously reported, the parcels designated for Zebulon were once part of or adjacent to a 1,500-acre explosives manufacturing complex operated by DuPont, and then Chemours, from 1908 until 1989. This was not a typical industrial site. Over more than 80 years, the facility manufactured dynamite, nitroglycerin, pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), dinitrotoluene (DNT), and a range of other explosive compounds and chemicals.

In October 2025, a controversial land exchange put 46.5 acres of this potentially contaminated land back in the hands of Douglas County taxpayers.

In 2010, a detailed report on contaminated areas inside the former Chemours land was completed by the US Department of Health & Human Services. The findings were significant.

Arsenic was found at concentrations up to 3,500 mg/kg. The EPA’s residential cancer risk screening level for arsenic is a staggeringly lower 0.39 mg/kg. Lead was found at up to 130,000 mg/kg at the surface — 325 times what you might expect at a residential site. The estimated cancer risk from arsenic exposure for industrial workers exceeded the upper bound of the acceptable range. The report found that lead concentrations at this level could harm the developing fetus of pregnant workers who came into contact with the soil.

At former DNT storage areas near the site, 2,4-dinitrotoluene was found at concentrations above acceptable ranges for industrial workers. And nitroglycerin, a sensitive explosive material, was a documented historical contaminant around the chemical plant.

Two critical points about all of these findings: 1) At least some mitigation has been done on the site since 2010; to what extent, on what parcels, and for what contaminants is not especially clear; 2) the 2010 inspection modeled exposure risks for trespassers, industrial workers, and construction workers. It did not model exposure for children — because children were not expected to be present on inactive, industrial land. At the proposed Zebulon sports complex, children would be the target demographic.

Clarifying What A 2022 “Closure Letter” Actually Means

Douglas County’s Zebulon webpage quotes a December 2022 CDPHE closure letter prominently stating, “no further remediation is required at the Site.” This framing requires important context.

A “conditional closure” under CDPHE’s policies is not a declaration that a site is clean. It is a finding that contamination no longer requires active remediation — provided that specific land use restrictions remain legally in place. The closure was granted because Chemours placed a Notice of Environmental Use Restrictions (NEUR) on the property: essentially a deed restriction limiting how the land can be used and requiring ongoing maintenance of fencing, signage, and protective well caps.

The entire closure framework was designed around restricted industrial and commercial uses. No part of the restrictions evaluated the site against a standard appropriate for a children’s sports complex.

What the County’s Own Environmental Assessment Found

When land negotiations began for Zebulon, Douglas County conducted its own environmental assessment. The county’s Zebulon FAQ acknowledges this — and reveals something important:

“The County completed its own environmental assessment and found four areas where chemicals were still present.”

The FAQs section states those areas are not included in the Zebulon parcel — with one exception: “a small amount of PFAS (a chemical commonly found in cookware and firefighting foam) – which, at this time, is not required to be remediated.”

The county confirmed active contamination on or near the Zebulon parcel during its own due diligence. PFAS are compounds the EPA classifies as hazardous at extremely low concentrations, and which have no safe level of exposure established for children.

We have also reported an email from county staff in June 2025 indicated known contamination issues and anticipated problems with the Zebulon site.

All of this is to recap that clearly contamination on the Zebulon site has been a known factor in the development of the sports complex, but a solution for how to explicitly deal with the contamination has not been on the agenda for the Board of County Commissioners.

Enter The Biochar Facility

In July 2025, the same period the Zebulon land transfer was being finalized and contamination questions were becoming public, Douglas County broke ground on its originally $3 million, later reported as $8 million by the Denver Gazette, biochar facility. The new facility sits off Highway 85 in Sedalia, about five miles south of the Zebulon site.

At the groundbreaking ceremony, Commissioner Abe Laydon made a specific claim worth noting:

“These magical carbon products can... remove forever chemicals like PFAS.”

PFAS is the only county-confirmed contaminant at the Zebulon parcel and it was cited specifically by a county official at the biochar facility’s launch.

What Biochar Can Do For Zebulon

Biochar has several applications for cleaning up soil contaminants documented at the Zebulon site:

• Arsenic and lead are biochar’s strongest use cases. Biochar reduces these heavy metal quantities in soil.

• DNT (dinitrotoluene) is a compound similar to TNT, and biochar has documented effectiveness in immobilizing these explosives through carbon-to-carbon molecular interactions.

• PFAS, a type of “forever chemical,” can be remediated by biochar to immobilize rather than destroy the PFAS compounds; meaning the chemicals remain in place rather than being eliminated, but that still puts the PFAS in a much more manageable state than underneath a little league field, unaddressed.

A Connection the County Commissioners Have Not Advertised

When you consider that none of the current County Commissioners ran for office as innovative environmentalists - biochar’s major proponents see it as a way to combat climate change - it raises the question of why they chose to pursue a first-in-the-nation environmental remediation facility at taxpayer expense. Three facts are hard to ignore:

1. The biochar facility broke ground in July 2025, the same period when Zebulon contamination questions became public and the associated land transfer was being finalized. Both Zebulon and the biochar facility had been in the works for years by that time.

2. The county’s own environmental assessment confirmed PFAS contamination on or adjacent to the Zebulon parcels. PFAS remediation is one of the major use cases for biochar soil additives.

3. Commissioner Laydon specifically highlighted biochar’s capacity to address PFAS at the new facility’s public launch a short drive south of Zebulon. The biochar produced in Sedalia can arrive at the Zebulon site in about 10 minutes.

Here Are The Questions We Need Answered

The products of a biochar facility could do a tremendous amount of good for Douglas County and serve as a model for more environmental sustainability elsewhere. It is worth noting that Aurora Water, which ultimately supplies the water for Dominion Water and, therefore, Sterling Ranch, also pitched in to help build the biochar facility in Sedalia.

But despite the upsides of biochar, the connective tissue between the problems with Zebulon and the motivation for biochar is compelling:

• Will Zebulon land be remediated using the new biochar facility’s products?

• Was the taxpayer-funded biochar facility built to make Zebulon environmentally feasible?

• What is the County going to do about any PETN and nitroglycerin contaminants documented at the site that cannot be remediated through biochar?

• Why did the price tag of the biochar facility jump from $3 million to $8 million in a year?

Sources and Suggested Reading

• Report on Dupont Site, US Department of Health & Human Services + Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, 2010

• Article on Biochar Applications, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

• PFAS Destruction Using Biochar, University of Illinois

• Containing Contaminants, International Biochar Initiative

• “A critical review of biochar for the remediation of PFAS-contaminated soil and water,” Science Direct, 2024

The City Council intends to consider Resolution No. 26-23 at their March 24th meeting. According to a statement on the City’s website, “The intent of this policy would be to establish criteria, informed by resident input, to guide future decisions on annexation applications submitted by property owners. If Resolution No. 26-23 is approved on March 24, public engagement to help develop the policy will be gathered later this year.”

All previously scheduled meetings and hearings related to the Crowsnest annexation are canceled. Since the petition has been withdrawn, the process would need to be restarted if the applicant should opt to resubmit.

According to the City’s statement, “Restarting this process would involve resubmitting a petition to annex the property, reviewing the petition for substantial compliance with State law, conducting an Eligibility Hearing, and holding first and second readings for the annexation and annexation agreement.”

Click here for the City’s complete statement.

What is flagpole annexation?

The Crowsnest proposal requires a “flagpole” annexation because it would not otherwise meet requirements for contiguity with existing city limits. Typically, municipalities annex land that is fully contiguous with their borders to increase the size of the municipality. Flagpole annexation allows a municipality to expand to a non-contiguous parcel of land (the flag) if it is connected by a narrow band of land, often a road (the pole). In the request for the City of Castle Pines to annex Crowsnest, that narrow band connecting the 795 acres to Castle Pines would be Crowfoot Valley Road.

Crowsnest (the blue Proposed Annexation Area in the map above) is situated in unincorporated Douglas County, contiguous to the southern border of the Town of Parker. Without the legal provision for flagpole annexation in Colorado state statute, Ventana would be forced to seek annexation from the Town of Parker in order to develop the land slated for Crowsnest.

Flagpole annexation tends to be controversial with residents. In 2025, the Colorado Springs City Council approved the Karman Line annexation, but voters reversed that decision in a June 2025 election with an overwhelming 81.8% vote against the annexation.

The concern? Water.

What are the concerns about Crowsnest?

Castle Pines residents have banded together to form People Against Annexing Crowsnest. Their concerns include destruction of wildlife corridors, higher density in Crowsnest relative to existing Castle Pines neighborhoods, and the distance between the proposed community and existing Castle Pines boundaries. Ventana’s original Crowsnest Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) estimates 4,000 single family homes and 50 acres of retail space to be developed. On that developed land, most single family units would be built on dense, 40-foot wide lots; only 140 units (less than 5% of the total) would be built on lots larger than 70 feet.

Home values in Crowsnest are estimated to start at $575,000. Castle Pines currently has a median home value of $875,000 according to data from Zillow. In ongoing negotiations with the City of Castle Pines, Ventana revised the proposal in early March to reduce the number of homes from 4,000 to 3,646 and to nearly double the dedication of open space.

People Against Annexing Crowsnest also expresses concern about the city’s obligation to provide emergency services to a remote area and the strain on resources that obligation would create. Crowsnest would be required to dedicate land to South Metro Fire District for a future station to be built at the fire district’s discretion. Until then, existing resources would serve the new community. The City of Castle Pines would provide law enforcement through its existing agreement with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office. A 4.5 mills property tax currently funds law enforcement for Castle Pines.

Castle Pines residents aren’t the only ones worried about Crowsnest. Mayor Joshua Rivera and other citizens of Parker have raised concerns including population density and the increased use and maintenance requirements for Parker roads and parks that would be created by residents of the proposed development.

Mayor Jason Gray of nearby Castle Rock has also weighed in with concerns related to traffic, water supply, and wildlife in a letter addressed to Mayor Tracy Engerman and the Castle Pines City Council.

The question about where the planned development would get its water — and at what cost — remains unanswered. In an overview of the Crowsnest Annexation request, The City of Castle Pines notes a requirement that Crowsnest be included in the Parker Water & Sanitation District:

“Water and Sewer – Prior to any development, the developer will be required to be included into the Parker Water/Sanitation District so the City is assured that the development will have the necessary water and sewer services.”

However, the letter from Mayor Gray asserts that the developer does not have a “will serve” letter from Parker Water and Sanitation District for water and sewer services. He goes on to state that without a will serve commitment from the utility, Crowsnest may be forced to rely on access to non-renewable groundwater supplies, which would negatively impact Castle Rock’s access to that same non-renewable source.

The document Ventana Capital has provided to the City of Castle Pines labeled “Water Supply Evidence” on the city’s website is included below. Not only is there no commitment to provide service, but the final paragraph of the letter from Parker Water & Sanitation also clearly references an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between Parker Water and the Town of Parker that could prevent such service.

What are the possible benefits of annexing Crowsnest?

The primary benefits to the City of Castle Pines would be increases in projected tax revenues and one-time fees for the city. However, an impact analysis conducted for the city by consultant Tischler Bise concluded that the developer’s initial estimates grossly overestimated those revenue increases. For example:

• While the Crowsnest Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) estimates a 236% increase in annual property taxes for the city, the city’s own consultant corrected that rate to a much more modest 55% gain.

• Crowsnest FIA estimates of a 102% increase in sales tax revenues were also “drastically overstated” according to the Tischler Bise analysis.

• The Crowsnest FIA projected a $10 million net surplus after all service costs, but Tischler Bise calculated a only 1/3 of that value — a $3,309,249 net surplus.

The property tax projections rely on absorption schedule estimates. “Absorption Schedule” is a measure of the number of homes that will be built and sold per year so that they can begin to fully contribute to a municipality’s property tax base. Ventana’s projected growth and absorption rate is an aggressive 667 housing units per year over 6 years. That exceeds the city’s highest ever annual development rate of 620 in 2021 and triples the average rate of just under 200 units per year since 2021. For context, The Canyons in Castle Pines, slated for 5,000 homes, began building and selling homes in 2019 and is now about halfway built out, according to the Denver Post. That calculates to an average absorption rate of around 350 homes per year over that 7-year period. Ventana is proposing development of Crowsnest at twice the absorption rate of The Canyons.

Subscribe now

Population growth resulting from annexation is estimated at around 10,000 with Ventana’s 5th Amendment reduction from nearly 4,000 single-family homes to 3,646. That represents a 58% increase in the city’s estimated population of about 17,300.

Three separate fiscal impact analyses were conducted: one on behalf of Ventana, one by City staff, and the Tichler Bise study commissed by the City. An overview of the findings from all three concluded that “Crowsnest development is projected to generate revenues that exceed the estimated cost of providing municipal services. As a result, the proposed development is projected to produce positive long-term fiscal outcomes for the City

What’s next for the Crowsnest proposal?

March 26 @ 5:30pm - Castle Pines Library: The Planning Commission will consider Ventana’s proposed Planned Development zoning in order to make a recommendation to the Castle Pines City Council.

The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is April 7th at 5:30pm at the Castle Pines Library.

Questions We Need Answered

• Why is Ventana pursuing annexation to Castle Pines instead of Parker?

• How effectively does Ventana’s most recent amendment to the annexation proposal — decreasing the number of homes to be built by about 10% and doubling the dedication for open space — address the concerns of Castle Pines and surrounding communities?

• Since Crowsnest is required to be included in the Parker Water & Sanitation District prior to beginning any development, what happens if the city annexes Crowsnest and then Parker Water & Sanitation declines to provide service?

• Based on the concerns of Castle Rock over groundwater resources, what entities would be subject to legal action taken by Castle Rock to protect those resources if the City of Castle Pines decides to annex Crowsnest?

Sources & Recommended Reading

• City of Castle Pines

• Ventana Fiscal Impact Analysis

• Tichler Bise Fiscal Impact Analysis

• Denver Post: Resistance grows as developer seeks ‘flagpole’ annexation to Douglas County city for 3,650-home project

• Denver Gazette: Parker mayor raises concerns over potential ‘dense’ Douglas County development

• CBS News: Court sides with Castle Pines in Colorado development dispute over a McDonald’s

• Colorado Public Radio: New Colorado Springs annexation is approved, but water and other concerns remain

• The Fence Post: Colorado Springs voters reject Karman Line Annexation amid lower Arkansas Valley water concerns

Douglas County Commissioner Kevin Van Winkle held a town hall citizen meeting last Thursday evening at the Franktown Elementary School. It was the first local town hall event held by the county in years.

In a packed gymnasium, Van Winkle introduced key elected officials and county staff who presented updates o…

Read more

Submit an Opinion Column by reading our submission guidelines and emailing editor@dougcolantern.org.

Read more

I was trying to wait to release our January recap because I believe we’ll have some exciting organizational news very soon, stay tuned!

If you haven’t already, check out Olivia Young’s coverage of yesterday’s BOCC meeting. The meeting was another solid entry in the drama of the County Commissioners.

Read more

Read Part One of our coverage on Douglas County water issues, which includes an explanation of several key terms.

Read more

Q: It’s only February, and elections are months away, so why are we talking about the power of a vote?

A: Because it’s Caucus and Assembly season!

Read more

Submit a Letter to the Editor by reading our submission guidelines and emailing your letter to editor@dougcolantern.org.

Read more

As Commissioner George Teal takes the reins of the Board of County Commissioners as its new chair, more change is on the way. The agendas for the Business Meetings and Land Use Meetings held by the Commissioners now show no time for public comment. Public comment last appeared on the agenda for the January 13th, 2026 meeting.

For decades the Board of County Commissioners has allotted time in meetings for the public to give comment to their elected officials. That public comment was credited with putting pressure on the Commissioners to not allow camping at Sandstone Ranch, to lobby against a proposed asphalt plant in Louviers, and to hear resident concerns about developing the Backcountry Wilderness Area in Highlands Ranch.

In recent months, the Commissioners have reliably ensured their agenda extends beyond allotted time and used that as a pretense to cancel public comment. Jefferson, Arapahoe, Elbert, El Paso, and Teller Counties all have time set aside for public comment during their Commissioner meetings. City councils, metro districts, and the Douglas County School Board also allow time for public comment.

The Commissioners have also installed a new velvet rope separating their dais from the public. Although they officially ban signage with political statements, the Commissioners allowed signage in support of their agenda at their October 14th meeting. A Castle Rock woman was escorted out of a later Commissioner meeting for wearing a political sweatshirt during public comment. Other displays of civic engagement have been forbidden as the Commissioners increasingly face pushback.

Read more