Home Care In Castle Rock, CO

Need a ride to a doctor’s appointment, the grocery store, work or another destination? A new transportation option is now available in Castle Rock.

Starting today, Friday, July 31, riders can book free trips anywhere in Castle Rock using the new Link On Demand rideshare service. This app-based, on-demand transportation option is funded by local governments and provides access to Highlands Ranch, Lone Tree, select areas of Parker and now Castle Rock.

Within Castle Rock, riders can travel anywhere within the service area, as well as directly to and from destinations in Lone Tree.

To travel to Highlands Ranch or select areas of Parker, riders will need to use the designated Transfer Hub in the Via app to connect with another Link On Demand vehicle serving those areas.

Hours of operation are Monday through Thursday: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Friday: 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.; Saturday: 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.; Sunday: No service.

Typical wait times range from 10 to 25 minutes per ride, depending on demand.

The service is wheelchair accessible.

Riders must be at least 13 years old. Children younger than 13 may ride when accompanied by a parent or guardian. Car seats are not provided, but riders traveling with children who require one may bring their own.

On Thursday, July 30, the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners joined partners from the Town of Castle Rock, the Colorado Department of Transportation and service provider Via Transportation to celebrate the expansion of Link On Demand into Castle Rock with a ribbon-cutting ceremony at Town Hall.

“Link On Demand is about much more than transportation — it’s a program helping people get to work, make it to medical appointments, run errands and stay connected to friends and family,” said Mayor Jason Gray. “We’re excited to offer this service to Castle Rock and add another amenity that strengthens our community and enhances our residents’ quality of life.”

Earlier this year, Town Council approved an agreement with Douglas County for a one-year pilot program to bring the on-demand rideshare service to Castle Rock. The estimated annual cost of the program is $2 million, with the Town contributing $400,000. Based on projected first-year ridership of 50,000 to 60,000 trips, the estimated cost per ride in Castle Rock is $33 to $40, with the Town’s share estimated at $6.70 to $8 per ride. Castle Rock, Douglas County and a grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation fund this service, which is offered at no cost to riders.

“As a Castle Rock resident, it’s exciting to see Link On Demand become part of our community,” said Commissioner George Teal. “Throughout Douglas County, including in Castle Rock, we heard from older adults, people with disabilities and others that they really needed a way to get to work, doctor’s appointments, to run errands and more. I’m thankful to Castle Rock Council and CDOT for working with us to invest in practical solutions that improve quality of life.”

Getting started is easy. , create an account, enter your pickup and drop-off locations, and request a ride. Riders may also schedule a trip by calling .

Your County. Your News. Get it first.

Be among the first to receive news as it happens. Subscribe to our online news push, and select your specific news focus and delivery preferences. Visit the Live Town Hall page and register for Town Hall notifications to ensure you are contacted to participate in future community conversations about topics important to you. Both services are free, and you can unsubscribe at any time. And don’t forget to follow Douglas County on Nextdoor, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube.

Sign Up Now!

A Castle Rock Town Council meeting Tuesday became consumed by allegations that a councilmember attempted to trade a town policy decision for the withdrawal of a recall effort against him.

The allegations against Councilmember Mark Davis surfaced during public comment and prompted an unsuccessful effort by some of the council to censure him for what they described as “unethical” conduct.

The controversy is tied to a recall effort against Davis launched Aug. 11 by Castle Rock resident and business owner David Miles, who also serves on the town’s Design Review Board or DRB.

Miles told The Denver Gazette the recall was initially driven by disagreements over Davis’ positions on growth and development in downtown Castle Rock and his efforts to eliminate the advisory board.

The board was created in 2010 to review downtown development proposals. Its membership includes representatives from the Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Board, Downtown Development Authority and downtown property owners.

According to town documents, amendments to the municipal code over the years have shifted some of the board’s responsibilities to administrative review and the Town Council. For qualifying applications involving less than 10,000 square feet of new development, the DRB serves as the final decision-making authority, subject to appeal.

Under the Castle Rock Town Charter, voters may seek the recall of a councilmember by gathering signatures equal to at least 25% of the votes cast in the most recent election for that office.

During the council’s public comment period Tuesday, Miles accused Davis of attempting to trade public policy decisions for political concessions.

Miles distributed copies of text messages to councilmembers and alleged Davis contacted both him and the father of another recall organizer after learning of the recall effort.

According to messages reviewed by The Denver Gazette and described by Miles during public comment, Davis sent Miles a text on Aug. 16 stating, “I’ll drop getting rid of the DRB if you pull the recall. Let me know by Monday morning 8 a.m.”

Miles characterized the message as an attempt to exchange an official policy position for the withdrawal of a lawful political action.

“That is quid pro quo,” Miles told The Denver Gazette. “I’ll do this for you, if you do this for me.”

Davis did not respond to attempts to contact him via phone and email on Thursday. Davis did not speak directly to the allegations during the council meeting, in which members voted on the censure proposal.

Miles also alleged Davis contacted the father of another recall participant and discussed development-related matters before asking whether the recall effort could be withdrawn.

One text message reviewed by The Denver Gazette appears to show Davis stating, “I don’t mind playing hardball … It goes with the job.”

Another appears to show Davis asking the individual’s father, “Do you want to talk to your son … and ask him if he wants to pull back that recall.”

At the public comment period, Miles called for Davis’ resignation and an independent investigation into his conduct.

“To me, this is simple,” Miles told councilmembers. “Public decisions should never be offered in exchange for stopping lawful political activity.”

The allegations come amid a broader debate over the future of the Design Review Board.

In a previous discussion, Davis defended his support for dissolving the DRB. He said his intention is not to attack board members but to improve efficiency for a board that had met only four times in the previous 12 months, according to county documents.

“I’m just trying to bring forward efficiency and accountability,” Davis said.

Councilmember Kevin Bracken disagreed with the dissolution of the DRB, noting the issue had been discussed for years.

“Is this an effort to take the power back from the boards and commissions and let councilmembers decide how they want it to look, what they want to do,” Bracken said. “It keeps coming up but I haven’t heard any substance behind the why.”

Mayor Jason Gray also defended the DRB as an opportunity for citizens and business owners who have a vested interest in downtown to have a say in its development.

“I think what is disappointing is, sometimes, as a council, we don’t take seriously the people who really put in the effort and the money into downtown,” Gray said.

Following public comment, Councilmember Ryan Hollingshead made a motion to censure Davis, a symbolic expression of condemnation of a public official’s conduct.

Hollingshead said Davis’ actions violated the council’s code of conduct and reflected poorly on the entire governing body.

“I feel like Councilmember Davis has owned his actions already and apologized for it in some circles, and I think it’s clear that this is what happened,” Hollingshead said. “We’re going to move forward after this, but I do think there needs to be some action taken.”

Town code prohibits councilmembers from soliciting any gift, reward, compensation or gratuity for the primary purpose of rewarding the member for an official action they have taken or may take.

Councilmember Kevin Bracken seconded the motion.

“It’s a very real conversation via text message, and it’s super concerning,” Bracken said. “This is a reflection on all of council.”

Others urged caution.

Councilmember Max Brooks argued the board should consult with the town attorney before imposing disciplinary action.

“I think not having a discussion and rushing to judgment is wholly inappropriate and dangerous,” Brooks said. “We’ve got something in this country called due process and I would want that for everybody up here.”

Councilmember Tim Dietz agreed that more review is needed before taking formal action.

Tensions escalated between Dietz and Bracken when Dietz referenced previous disputes involving text messages, saying, “You’re no peach either when it comes to texting and accusing people of things. Do you want me to let the public know?”

That prompted Gray, the mayor, to intervene.

“Guys, guys, guys, absolutely stop,” Gray said.

Gray ultimately supported censure, arguing immediate action was warranted.

“I think two more weeks is too long for a censure,” Gray said. “I think this is going to be tried in public. It’s going to be tried on social media and eventually maybe even tried in a court of law.”

The initial censure vote failed, with Hollingshead, Bracken and Gray voting in favor, while Davis, Brooks, Dietz and Mayor Pro Tem Laura Cavey voted against.

After discussion about whether Davis should participate in a vote involving his own conduct, the council revisited the matter. Davis recused himself, but a subsequent vote produced the same result, leaving the motion short of a majority.

Miles told The Denver Gazette that organizers are now refiling the recall effort with allegations focused specifically on what they characterize as misuse of public office and attempted political bargaining, rather than solely on policy disagreements over growth and development.

If successful, the recall would trigger a special election in which Davis would be eligible to run.

Douglas County School District is grappling with a change in law in one of its most populous communities. The Castle Rock Town Council passed an ordinance Tuesday night changing the way land and funds dedicated to schools are allocated.

Historically, developers have dedicated land or funding for future public schools. The town holds these assets until the district is ready to build a school, but now the district will need to meet certain conditions and timelines, or the land may be used for other purposes.

There are currently 13 sites in Castle Rock planned for schools. The ordinance cites "changing demographic trends, school enrollment patterns, and long-range capital planning" as reasons many of them may not be developed into schools for a long time, if ever. The town has also suggested some of the sites are unsuitable for schools.

Under the ordinance, the school district must plan and finance a school before the town will give them the land.

"We have to prove that we funded a school before they will give us a site. However, the funding for a school comes from a voter-approved bond election, and our voters won't be interested in voting on a bond for a new school without having a site," said Erin Kane, superintendent of the Douglas County School District.

Once land is conveyed, the district will have three years to build a school, or land will revert back to the town.

"We're worried about kind of the tight timelines as well as just the chicken-and-egg requirements," said Kane.

If a school site is still undeveloped after 10 years, a public hearing will be held to determine if the land should be used instead for parks or open space.

The change also gives Castle Rock more discretion over how cash set aside for schools by developers, known as cash-in-lieu, can be used.

"I'm not suggesting that's their intent, but under the ordinance, they can direct the land and the cash in lieu to other purposes," said Kane.

The motion passed 4-3 Tuesday night, after numerous public commenters and school district representatives spoke against it. Councilmembers Bracken and Hollingshead voiced support for waiting and involving the school district in conversations about the ordinance; they voted against the ordinance along with Mayor Jason Gray.

Of the 13 sites in Castle Rock earmarked to become schools, a town memo marks seven as sites to be considered for a park or open space. Those sites are in Red Hawk, Plum Creek South, Sapphire Point, Crystal Valley North, Castlewood Ranch, Castle Oaks and Bella Mesa South. The memo notes sites in Dawson Trails, Pine Canyon, Montaine, Crystal Valley South and Cobblestone Ranch as still being planned to house a school.

Kane suggested Crystal Valley and the incoming Dawson Trails neighborhoods are particularly in need of schools. She says a bond ask is years away, and those decisions have not yet been made.

The ordinance comes just one week after the Douglas County school board voted to refer a $54 million mill levy override to voters.

"Holding on to our teachers is the secret sauce for our academic success and all the opportunities that we're able to provide to our students," said Kane.

The measure would cost homeowners $236 a year for a $700,000 home. The funds would go to school security, student programming and teacher pay, which is still the lowest in the metro area, despite the passage of a mill levy in 2023.

"Thanks to that 2023 mill levy override, our turnover went from about 26% four years ago to about 13% now. We're incredibly grateful for that, but we also need to keep it that way," said Kane. "We are still 7% below the market, but we made so much progress thanks to our voter support. This mill levy override would put our teachers just slightly above Jeffco, so we would at least get into the market."

A year after the 2023 mill levy override, voters passed a bond in 2024. It is funding two new elementary schools set to open next year in Sterling Ranch and Ridgegate.

"Obviously, times are expensive. It can be challenging, especially in Douglas County, for people to approve a property tax increase. What's your response to someone who's like, 'why should I vote for this again?'" CBS Colorado's Olivia Young asked Superintendent Kane.

"I would say a really strong school system is why we have such incredible property values here in Douglas County, and we want young families moving to our county. That's the future. Young families with young children are the future of our county to continue to thrive. I also want to recognize that our taxpayers have seen a lot of increases over the years, over the recent years, and so we're just incredibly grateful for their support for our school system, and their support is why our school system is so strong right now," Kane said.

"Our tax rate for Douglas County School District has continued to slowly go down, and that's because our bonds and our mill levy overrides are based on fixed dollar amounts that are being spread over more and more homeowners as Douglas County continues to grow."

Even with the hope of more funding, the district faces an uncertain future when it comes to planning for new schools.

"We don't have any sense of control," said Kane. "Unfortunately, this makes it really difficult, if not impossible, for us to build new schools in Castle Rock. I am confident that we will be able to work with the town and town council to find a path forward, but the language in the ordinance makes it very, very challenging."

Ordinance No. 2026-027

Page of

Undeveloped Public Land Dedication Areas planned for Future School Site

Page of

An effort to censure a Castle Rock town councilman for alleged ethics violations failed Tuesday night.

Councilmember Mark Davis represents downtown Castle Rock (District 4). He was elected in 2024 and his term expires in 2028, but some Colorado business leaders say he needs to be taken off the job now.

Tuesday night's controversy stems from texts the councilman sent to a business owner who is leading the charge to recall him. While that censure failed, the recall effort is still pending. It's being led by downtown business and property owners, who are unhappy with Davis's efforts to restrict high-rises and other development downtown.

David Miles lives, runs a business and owns property in downtown Castle Rock.

"We've seen awesome growth, and really, downtown area is about community," Miles said.

But he claims Castle Rock Town Councilman Mark Davis has been stalling development there for years.

"I call it squashing development," Miles said. "He doesn't seem to want to actively listen to what we're telling him."

Davis has supported restriction on high-rise development downtown. He recently motioned to dissolve the Design Review Board, made up of downtown stakeholders like Miles, which reviews development applications.

Davis told CBS Colorado that board has only met once this year and has "repeatedly permitted development that threatens the character inappropriate scale of Wilcox and Perry Street."

"Giving that authority back to the town council means he's empowering himself instead of empowering the people," Miles said.

Miles and two other petitioners are now seeking to recall Davis from his seat.

After filing the paperwork, Miles says he got this text from Davis:

"Simply says, 'I'll drop getting rid of the DRB if you pull the recall. Let me know by Monday morning at 8 a.m.,'" Miles said.

Miles says similar texts were sent to others about the recall, and that the texts constitute quid pro quo, a major ethics violation.

"Quid pro quo is the phrase, is what he has done in those text messages, and that makes me highly uncomfortable to have to do something for my politician to get him to do something for the people," Miles said. "There should not be conditional government operations. If you do this, I'll do this. I don't want to see that in any government."

In Tuesday's council meeting, Miles passed out copies of the texts and called on Davis to step down.

"I'm here to say that this conduct is unacceptable from an elected official at any level of our government," Miles said in the meeting. "I call upon every member of this council to join me in asking for Councilmember Mark Davis to resign."

Another constituent spoke in favor of Davis.

"Recalling a representative simply because he's fulfilling his campaign promises and standing up for his voters is a direct attack on our local democratic process. The pressure to build high-rises downtown isn't coming from the people who live here, it is being driven by outside investors and builders who may not even call Castle Rock home. They see our town as a profit margin. We see it as our community," he said during public comment.

Some councilmembers agreed with Miles that the texts were an ethics violation.

"The actions of Councilmember Davis unfortunately are unethical. They go against our code of conduct. He is not a bad person. He made a mistake, but unfortunately, that mistake gives us all a bad look. It causes distrust in the town of Castle Rock and elected officials," said Ryan Hollingshead, Castle Rock Town Councilmember for District 1. "This action was not OK. So because of the unethical behavior and violation of our code of conduct, I move to censure Councilmember Davis moving forward."

Councilmember Bracken seconded the motion, with Max Brooks and Tim Dietz speaking against it.

The discussion led to some tense moments.

"You're no peach either when it comes to texting and accusing people of things. Do you want me to let the public know?" Dietz said to Bracken.

"Guys, guys, guys, absolutely stop. Absolutely stop," Castle Rock Mayor Jason Gray said. "I think that this is going to be tried in the public. It's going to be tried in social media, and eventually maybe even tried in a court of law. And I just think that the censure is something we should do now."

Ultimately, the mayor joined two others (Bracken and Hollingshead) in voting for the censure. The remaining councilmembers, including Davis, voted against it, and the motion failed 3 to 4.

Later in the meeting, members raised concerns that Davis should have recused himself, so another vote was taken. No one changed their votes, so the motion failed 3 to 3 with Davis recusing himself.

Also at the meeting, the discussion about Davis's motion to dissolve the Design Review Board was moved to a later date after some heated discussion.

"I don't hate anybody on the DRB. I'm not trying to get rid of it to be mean. I'm just trying to bring forward efficiency, accountability, that kind of thing. So this is not an attack on anybody specifically. This is just trying to be efficient," Davis said during that discussion.

Mark Davis declined to comment on the quid pro quo allegations, but told CBS Colorado:

"This recall effort is not about misconduct. It is a political response to my efforts to reform a development review process that has failed to protect our community. I support eliminating the current design review board because it is repeatedly permitted development that threatens the character in appropriate scale of Wilcox and Perry Street. I am also working to establish reasonable restrictions on high-rise development in these areas. Those positions have placed me in the direct conflict with politically connected individuals who benefit from preserving the status quo. The design review board has only met one time this entire year. The board meetings are scheduled for twice each month. I was elected to represent the residence of District 4, not trenched in political relationships, or unelected interest. I will continue asking, difficult questions, demanding accountability, and defending responsible development, even when doing so creates powerful opposition. Residence deserve to know what this recall is truly about. It is an attempt to remove an elected official for challenging a system that needs to reform. I stand by my record and respectfully as voters to reject political retaliation, disguised as public accountability."

Miles plans to amend the recall petition to include the text messages. Then he will have 30 days to collect 1,360 signatures to initiate a special election on recalling Councilman Davis.

The Castle Rock Town Council passed an ordinance Tuesday that gives the council broader authority to repurpose land and cash designated for school facilities.

Douglas County School District officials argue the move would allow the town to do so without compensating the district and would “effectively prohibit construction of new schools in Castle Rock.”

The town code requires that new developments designate land or pay cash-in-lieu fees for public facilities used for public services including schools, water providers and fire departments. Previously, designations were required to be used for the specific purpose for which they were designated.

The amendment now allows the town to use designated land and fees for any public purpose, regardless of the original designation made at the time of development.

In letters to the council, during public comment periods, and at a recent school board meeting, school officials raised concerns about provisions that specifically affect school-related land and cash dedications.

District officials argued that the new ordinance would allow the Town Council to redirect land designated for future school use without compensation and give the council sole discretion to use funds specifically dedicated to schools for any public purpose.

Castle Rock officials said the amendment is intended to address several properties currently held for school purposes that they believe are unsuitable for future school development because of their size, location, proximity to other schools, or changing community needs. They emphasized that any redesignation would require a public hearing before a determination is made.

Officials said they want to provide certainty to nearby residents about future land uses.

Town documents show 13 properties dedicated for future school sites, including one near Castlewood Ranch that has been designated for a school since 1999. According to town staff, the town also possesses $230,000 designated for a school in the Red Hawk development.

Councilmember Max Brooks defended the ordinance by noting that the amendment does not redesignate any land; rather, it creates “a mechanism to review each individual property.”

“We’re not deciding what’s happening with the sites tonight,” Brooks said. “That will come in the future, and each one of those sites will have its own public hearing.”

Since the 1980s, the town has collected land and fees from residential developments for school facilities. The land and fees are held and managed by the town until requested by the district for construction of a planned school.

Under the previous ordinance, if the town determined that land previously acquired for schools would better serve another public need, it could compensate the district for the land. School officials argued this provision already allowed the town to repurpose school-designated land if it provided compensation.

“Allowing the town to take property currently held in trust for the school district without compensation, on the other hand, will steadily erode the school district’s ability to serve Castle Rock’s constituents,” Superintendent Erin Kane wrote in a letter to the council.

The amendment places additional requirements on the district before land is conveyed and establishes deadlines under which the town can reclaim the property through a reversion clause. These include a 10-year use deadline and a three-year construction deadline, after which the town retains a right of reversion.

Additionally, the district must obtain approval for a site development plan and demonstrate that it has sufficient funding to complete construction.

During public comment, members of the district’s Long-Range Planning Committee said the timelines imposed by the ordinance did not reflect the district’s planning and funding mechanisms.

“It has taken almost 15 years from when we first said, ‘Gee, we may need a school at some point where this place is being built, called Sterling Ranch,’ to where we actually put the last steel beam in last week,” Rudy Lukez, a member of the Long-Range Planning Committee, said, referencing a nearly completed school in Sterling Ranch.

School construction is funded primarily through voter-approved bonds, which can require years of planning before approval, in addition to construction timelines that can take six years or more. District officials argued the combination of timelines, planning requirements, and reversion rights leaves school construction solely in the hands of the town.

“We wouldn’t be able to designate a site without securing funding for building a new school,” Kane told the council. “We can’t ask the taxpayers for funding for a new school without telling them what that site is and having that site dedicated for that purpose. It puts us in a chicken-and-egg cycle.”

Councilmember Kevin Bracken and Mayor Jason Gray expressed similar concerns about the imposed timelines.

“They can’t request the funding until they’ve identified the site,” Bracken said. “And if our timeline is too tight, then it really precludes them from building a school. So we’re in a catch-22, in my opinion.”

School officials also raised concerns about the use of fees designated for school facilities. New developments can pay cash in lieu of land, which is held by the town until the district requests it for school construction.

The new ordinance changes language regarding cash-in-lieu fees that previously stated “cash … will be utilized” to purchase land for the school district to “cash … may be utilized” to purchase land.

“Developers, and ultimately homebuyers, paid these fees expecting them to support school construction, not to sit in municipal coffers indefinitely or to support other uses,” Kane wrote in a letter to the council. “The ordinance would let the town collect money under the banner of school funding while spending it however it chooses.”

District staff also argued that if the town applied these amendments to existing dedications, it would violate the state constitution’s prohibition on retroactive legislation.

Councilmembers repeatedly stressed that the amendment was not designed to take land from the school district or prevent new schools from being built in town.

“I am a little put off by what I would consider to be not just hyperbolic verbiage, but wildly hyperbolic claims that we’re talking about never building another school in Castle Rock,” Councilmember Brooks said. “That is not what we are discussing here.”

Councilmembers stressed that the ordinance did not redesignate land at this time and expressed a willingness to work with the school district on any future decisions.

“We’re not trying to take property from you,” Mayor Pro Tem Laura Cavey said. “I think we can still work together.”

The motion passed 4-3, with Councilmember Ryan Hollinghead, Councilmember Bracken and Mayor Gray voting no, and Councilmember Mark Davis, Councilmember Brooks, Councilmember Tim Dietz and Mayor Pro Tem Cavey voting yes.