Broomfield Taxpayer Matters

2024 Annual Financial Comprehensive Report

The City and County of Broomfield’s 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), audited by Eide Bailly, LLP, provides a detailed snapshot of the city’s financial health.

While the report suggests stability, a deeper dive reveals key insights and areas for residents to question. Below, we summarize the critical findings from the ACFR, the Report of Governance, and the related discussion, alongside relevant graphs to illustrate trends.

The trends we highlight below speak to the concerns we have been raising for sometime with respect to property taxes, the city's enterprise funds, and the looming increases in City and County of Broomfield debt.

Audit Overview

The auditors’ responsibilities, outlined in the Letter of Governance, include:

• Expressing an opinion on the accuracy of financial statements.
• Evaluating internal controls to ensure reliability without directly assessing their effectiveness.
• Reviewing major federal program compliance and related internal controls.

Financial Highlights

• Expenditures: Budgeted at $152.87 million, actual spending was $138.24 million (under by $14.63 million).
• Revenues: Budgeted at $160.32 million, actual revenues were $148.88 million (under by $11.44 million).
• Net Position Growth: The city’s net position increased by $70 million to $1.381 billion, driven by higher property tax revenue and capital assets.
• Governmental Funds: The combined ending fund balance rose by $38.5 million to $293.7 million.
• Tax Revenues:
• Property Taxes: Surged 35.99% to $124.14 million from $91.29 million, due to higher valuations, growth, and policy changes. Remember, the Broomfield Council and Broomfield Staff intentionally decided to take the increased property tax revenue to pay for a new Police Department building, partial property tax rebates for certain groups, and to fund the first time homebuyer's down-payment loan program.
• Sales and Use Taxes: Fell 4.3% to $95.45 million, primarily due to lower use tax collections. This at a time where Broomfield's retail areas such as Flatirons Mall are being torn down and replaced by mixed-use. Redevelopment takes time and is costly, in the meantime Broomfield sales taxes are suffering.
• Debt: Total outstanding debt as of December 31, 2024, was $328 million. Debt service coverage ratios for water and sewer bonds remain strong, exceeding policy targets. But wait, there's more. The Broomfield Council is expected to add $181 million more in debt (see page 6) for water infrastructure before the end of the year.,
• Population: Reported as 78,323 (1.7% growth in 2024), though page 165 of the ACFR cites 77,500, raising questions about accuracy.
• Workforce and Economy: Broomfield employs nearly 968 full-time equivalent staff with an average salary of $109,500, well above state and national averages. Median household income is $117,451, and the unemployment rate rose to 4.3%.
• Capital Assets: Additions included 64,000 feet of street infrastructure, 48,000 feet of water lines, and 30,000 feet of sewer lines.
• 2025 Budget Goals: Financial sustainability, environmental stewardship, mobility, diversity and inclusion, and organizational health.

Tax Revenue Trends, Especially Property Taxes

As mentioned above. property taxes and sales/use taxes are the largest revenue sources for the City and County of Broomfield. Since 2020, property taxes have grown significantly, outpacing sales and use taxes, partly due to state-level legislation. The net effect? The cost of living in Broomfield continues to go up.

This graph illustrates the percentage change in tax revenues over time, highlighting the significant, consistent rise in property tax revenue from you to the city.

Specific Ownership Tax (SOT), Tobacco, Business, and Miscellaneous Taxes (light blue circles) increase and decrease from 2015 to 2024. Sales and Use Tax (dark blue circles) increase and decrease with no upward trend

Only Property Taxes (green circles) show a clear increasing trend over time with the largest increase in the past year.

Three Councilmembers Running for the same State Legislature seat. What gives?

Three of your current councilmembers are running for higher office with the open HD 33 legislative seat in 2026. Why? Is it because they see the mess that they have created in their time on the council? Do they see trouble coming for the City and County of Broomfield?

Or, is it because they weren't on council to serve the community; they see the council as training ground and a stepping stone to higher office?

Who on Broomfield Council is running for House District 33?

Well, a shorter answer is, who isn't running for the seat? Sure, running for public office can be a calling and should be one focused on civil service. But, three members of an ultra majority council all running for the same seat? It seems like the Broomfield Council is becoming a political seeding ground for higher public office. Below are the three Broomfield Councilmembers who have thrown their hats in the ring:

Affordable Housing Update - The Grove at Cottonwood

Groundbreaking for this Broomfield Housing Alliance Development was discussed during the July 8, 2025 regular meeting with emphasis placed on housing issues.

“The Grove at Cottonwood,” is a multi-home development focusing on affordable housing for families, including residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Here are some of the general details:

• 40 affordable rental units across five buildings with a mix of one-bedroom and two-bedroom units
• All 40 units are 100% affordable (depending on who can afford them), targeting households with incomes between 30% and 60% which translates to income ranges roughly between $37,230 and $74,460 for a household of four
• the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment in Broomfield County in 2025 ranges between $1,981 and $2,421, so people living in these "affordable" or "income-aligned" units would pay less

So, is this really a good or fair solution to the problem? What are possible arguments against capping rents or for subsidies?

1. Distorts the housing market and reducing supply
2. Inefficiently allocates benefits to a narrow income band
3. Potentially lowers property maintenance quality
4. Creates disincentives for tenants to earn more
5. Incurs high administrative costs (as we saw in the previous article)
6. Limits scale of housing units compared to housing needs
7. Risks gentrification in desirable areas

We need our councilmembers to look at the consequences of their policies, not just pay lip service to underserved communities while excluding those who pay full price without their consent. Broomfield's 77,000 residents all deserve more affordability, not just the groups that the Broomfield Council deems worthy.

Enterprise Fund Update!

The 2nd Quarterly Update on the Enterprise Funds will be discussed during the Study Session on Tuesday, July 15, 2025. The presentation and memo are linked for convenience.

This second Quarterly Enterprise Update includes:

1. Updates on enterprise-related capital projects;

2. Updates for ongoing maintenance operations programs;

3. Enterprise revenues, expenses, and fund balances;

4. Steps for ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of the enterprise funds

5. Overview of development projections

6. Status on launching the Enterprise Fund Advisory Committee

7. Future Rate Recommendations

Broomfield's in the middle of another policy issue. And citizens are none to happy.

This time, it's around wildfire policy being handed down from the state level. It’s not wildfire itself, but a wildfire prevention policy that many say has gone too far.

In recent years, Colorado legislators passed a suite of wildfire resilience laws, beginning with Senate Bill 23-166, which created the Wildfire Resiliency Code Board and directed it to develop minimum fire-resistant building standards for homes in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) zones. That directive culminated in the 2025 Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code, which took effect statewide on July 1, 2025. The new standards require strict defensible space regulations, use of ignition-resistant materials, and mandatory vegetation removal in high-risk areas (SB 23-166).

Like all Colorado jurisdictions, the City and County of Broomfield must comply. But it’s how Broomfield is implementing the policy that has drawn criticism from homeowners, real estate professionals, and even some city councilmembers.

Earlier this year, Broomfield unveiled a draft wildfire risk map that designated hundreds of homes as being within the WUI. These designations triggered costly requirements: retrofitting exteriors with fire-resistant siding and roofing, creating wide “defensible zones” free of vegetation, and in some cases, replacing wood fences or decks. Insurance premiums have increased, and real estate transactions have been disrupted as buyers become wary of the burdens that come with these designations. What is as concerning many is the lack of transparency and accountability in the process. It appears that residents weren’t notified directly and discovered the changes only after seeing higher insurance bills or being told by contractors and inspectors about new code implications. City officials acknowledged at a May 20, 2025 study session that public outreach had been limited and that the wildfire mapping criteria were not clearly explained.

Further complicating the rollout is the timeline. Although the state’s wildfire code is now in effect, Broomfield has delayed full adoption until early 2026, citing the need for additional hearings and policy development. In the meantime, residents live in limbo—subject to changing rules, without a clear path for appeals or adjustments to the wildfire risk maps. Broomfield is choosing bureaucratic compliance and is just now pushing back and advocating for citizens.

Broomfield will be holding a Community Meeting on July 21st from 2-3PM at the Broomfield City and County Building (that's middle of the day) regarding the issue. Is this too little too late?

Are we governed with our consent?

In this recent article for the Denver University Law Review, David Kopel argues that the Colorado Supreme Court has systematically nullified key taxpayer protections embedded in the state’s 1876 Constitution and the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR).

The provisions were designed to limit corporate welfare, special privileges for big business, and government debt without voter approval. However, Kopel contends that the court, often in collaboration with other branches of government, has overridden these safeguards.

The Colorado Constitution explicitly prohibits corporate welfare and special privileges through language banning government aid “directly or indirectly” to corporations. Yet, the court has replaced this clear text with a lenient “rational basis test,” allowing such practices as long as the legislature deems them beneficial.

Similarly, TABOR’s mandate for voter approval on taxes and debt has been weakened. The court has ruled that taxes labeled as “fees” or debt termed “Certificates of Participation” bypass the need for public votes, with nearly three-fourths of state spending now classified as “fees.”

Additionally, TABOR’s strict standard to “reasonably restrain” government growth has been replaced with a nearly unattainable “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold, favoring government interests.

Kopel’s critique highlights a broader erosion of democratic consent, as the court’s rulings effectively amend the constitution without voter input, undermining the principle of governance by the people.

This is the real Constitutional crisis.

Broomfield Taxpayer Matters is Accepting Donations!

Your generous donation helps us help to hold our local city officials, elected representatives, and politicians accountable!