Developers seek 18‑month extension for Broomfield Town Square; staff flags a roughly $22M financing gap

BROOMFIELD — Developers of the Broomfield Town Square project asked the City and County Council for an 18‑month extension to the three‑year site development plan, arguing lenders and bond buyers need certainty after a January clarification that halted momentum. City staff presented a due‑diligence review that identified notable gaps in the developer’s financial materials.

Manager Hoffman framed the question as whether the developer has shown sufficient progress, financial clarity and alignment with community expectations to justify more time. Staff noted the original redevelopment and reimbursement agreement (November 2019) committed city land and tax‑increment support and that the site development plan (SDP) approved September 12, 2023, started the statutory 36‑month clock and expected building permits to be issued within that window.

What staff found: Jeff Romine, the city’s economist, told council that staff’s review of developer bond runs and revised financing scenarios identified about a $22 million shortfall. That amount came from two items: (1) an apparent six‑year extension beyond the originally documented TIF term that added roughly $14 million of revenue in the developer’s bond runs without documented council approvals, and (2) a mill‑levy discrepancy that created an approximately $8 million difference in projected property‑tax increment. Romine said those assumptions were not clearly supported in the materials the developer submitted and therefore raised reliability concerns.

Staff also flagged other underwriting questions: unusually high sales‑per‑square‑foot projections tied to a proposed boat‑house and beer‑garden components, and changed assumptions about who will pay for parking structures. Staff emphasized that the March 23 horizontal engineering package was a significant step (roughly $30 million of infrastructure) but not the same as building permits for core mixed‑use buildings; no permits had been submitted for the Safeway market‑hall redevelopment, the primary mixed‑use buildings or parking structures.

Developer response: Joe Verries (developer) and partners pushed back on staff’s tone and framed the project as the community’s long‑expressed vision. Verries said the project had endured shifting market conditions — from pandemic impacts to higher interest rates — and that the city’s January interpretation of what counted as a qualifying building permit “stopped the project cold.” He said bond markets will not buy infrastructure bonds while a project’s entitlements are in question and urged council to honor the 2019 agreement and approve the 18‑month extension to restore investor confidence.

Underwriters and partners (DA Davidson, Rangewater, McBroom Companies) described their underwriting work, letters of interest from operators and restaurant/retail prospects, and the multi‑layer financing stack (two metro districts, a business improvement district, TIF, and a proposed Public Improvement Fee). Developers said they had refined bond runs and restructured bond scenarios and that staff completed a fast first round of comments on the March engineering submittal.

Public comment: More than 40 speakers — mostly local residents, business operators and housing advocates — urged the council to grant the extension, warning that denial could put the project into years of uncertainty and that the community has waited for a downtown for decades. Several speakers urged Council to use negotiation, not revocation, to address staff concerns.

Why it matters: The project involves major public investment and long‑term revenue commitments: staff noted a $74 million public commitment in the 2019 agreement (land value plus tax‑increment support) and a $20 million property‑tax contribution from the local school district as part of the redevelopment plan. Differences in underwriting assumptions affect estimated bond proceeds and the city’s fiscal exposure and risk analysis.

Actions at issue: The developer formally requested an 18‑month extension to move the SDP building‑permit deadline from Sept. 12, 2026, to approximately March 12, 2028. Council did not vote at the session; the formal decision is scheduled for May 12. Staff and the developer agreed to provide clearer documentation before that vote: staff reiterated its $22 million concern and the developer committed to more detailed underwriting exhibits and a clearer schedule for bond marketing and permit submittals.

Next steps: Council will consider the extension on May 12. If the extension is approved, the developer indicated it will ask for additional changes to public‑finance terms — including resetting the effective TIF clock and addressing mill‑levy mechanics — but that those would require separate negotiations and council action. If the extension is denied, both developer and staff warned of risks: developers said lenders would withdraw, while staff said revocation would be a judgment about readiness under code and council discretion.

Provenance: Staff and developer presentations and the public comment record are the primary evidence for claims in this article. Staff’s due‑diligence memo and Romine’s bond‑run review were cited repeatedly; the developer’s claim that a January interpretation disrupted financing was the developer’s explanation for the request.