Developer withdraws extension requests; Broomfield council hears update on Town Square and exclusivity clause

Mayor Pro Tem Jean Lim convened a joint session of the City & County of Broomfield and the Broomfield Urban Renewal Authority on July 16, 2026, for a staff update on Broomfield Town Square, the long‑running redevelopment of the Safeway site. City and county manager Jennifer Hoffman said the developer had asked for an 18‑month extension to pull vertical permits and a separate amendment to extend tax‑increment financing from 2044 to 2050, but the developer withdrew both requests before tonight's meeting, so no council action was required.

Why it matters: The approved site development plan (SDP) and the 2019 redevelopment and reimbursement agreement remain in force; those agreements lock in the project design and the city’s public financing commitments and limit council’s authority to unilaterally alter timelines or impose new milestones. Staff framed the meeting as a transparency update after months of negotiation and external financial review and said staff will continue expedited engineering review of the infrastructure packages.

Staff details and finances: Hoffman said the city dedicated roughly 40 acres and used a tax‑increment financing (TIF) package tied to the RRA that caps public participation at $54,000,000 (land value plus pledged tax increments). Staff explained the originally requested six‑year TIF shift was intended to push more of the $54,000,000 toward the back end of the project, producing an estimated $14,000,000 timing effect rather than an additional sum. City staff and independent bond‑run reviewers examined project financing; staff said bond markets and the need for completed construction drawings and bonding are major hurdles for the developer.

Permits, milestones and the boathouse question: Attorney Nancy Rogers and staff told council that under the SDP a vertical permit is required before the code’s 36‑month deadline and that construction drawings, not just infrastructure or an accessory boathouse/restroom package, qualify as vertical permits. Staff proposed — during prior negotiations that did not reach agreement — that a vertical permit be pulled six months before any extended deadline to show substantial progress; the developer declined those proposed conditions during talks, staff said.

Affordable housing and cash‑in‑lieu: Staff said the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) requires 20% of rental units be affordable and that earlier 2019 cash‑in‑lieu figures (about $27,000 per unit) have risen substantially in the council’s updated calculations (staff cited roughly $109,000–$125,000 per unit based on the current escalator used in Broomfield’s policy work). Staff told council that if the developer sought the time and additional public participation, the city asked for updated cash‑in‑lieu amounts or dispersed affordable units to preserve the original affordability commitments.

Public comment and exclusivity: Multiple residents criticized project delays and urged action on the Safeway building; several speakers raised a published claim that the redevelopment agreement contains a 40‑year exclusivity that would preclude other developers from using the property. Attorney Rogers confirmed the agreement contains an exclusivity provision that runs through 12/31/2044 and that it prevents the city from soliciting other offers for the property during the agreement’s term. Rogers told council the exclusivity is a common contract term used to secure long‑term financing arrangements and that any change to that term would require reopening and amending the 2019 agreement.

Next steps and revocation authority: Staff told council there is nothing to vote on tonight because the developer withdrew its requests; engineering review remains active and staff will continue expedited reviews of infrastructure submittals. Staff said if council wants to act after the Sept. 12 SDP deadline they would need to convene and vote in a future public meeting to consider revocation; revocation is not automatic. Hoffman said the city expects to receive an updated developer plan by July 31, which staff will evaluate before any future council decisions.

What residents said: Public commenters urged the council to prioritize redevelopment of the Safeway, questioned the use of potable water for the proposed lake, pressed for stronger accountability and suggested allowing the agreement to expire and reclaiming conveyed land if the developer fails to proceed. Jason Sharman asked whether exclusivity prevents interim or alternative developments and whether the city could reclaim the site; staff said the exclusivity and the developer's contractual rights mean the city cannot force a new SDP without agreement or revocation proceedings.

The meeting ended with no formal action. If the council wants to consider revocation or other remedies after Sept. 12, it will bring that to a future public meeting.

Quotes (selected): “As mayor Pro Tem had indicated…this discussion was not initiated by staff nor council. It was prompted by the developer’s determination,” City and County Manager Jennifer Hoffman said. City and County Attorney Nancy Rogers said of the exclusivity clause: “It is an exclusive right to develop this property until the end of 2044.”

Ending: Staff said they will continue expedited engineering reviews and will report back with any substantive developer communications; council did not vote on any amendments or extensions tonight.