New bonds issued for large capital projects
Debt service increased due to rising interest rates after 2021
Overall payments are climbing as older debt matures and new borrowing replaces it.
Locks in higher costs for decades

Jumped +112% due to:

—- roads

— water/sewer

— stormwater

Increased by +57%
HR, IT support, communications, internal audit, and central administrative overhead
Higher staffing costs and technology upgrades
City/Program expansion

Section 3: How the Gap is Covered (Commercial Subsidy)

What are the sources of revenue for the CCOB in 2017 and 2026?

From the 2026 Budget document:

Sales tax share grew from 20% to 36% (much greater reliance on commercial activity).
Property tax share grew from 13% to 26%.
Charges for Services dropped from 29% to 15%.

Commercial activity (especially sales tax from the mall, offices, restaurants, and visitors) subsidizes residential services. Even though residents ultimately spend the money, commercial properties generate far more revenue per acre than homes.

The CCOB has become more dependent on commercial sales tax over the last decade.

Who pays for the sales tax, residents or non-residents?

Sales taxes are ultimately paid for by residents, visitors, and anyone shopping in Broomfield. However, businesses collect sales tax at the register and pass the economic burden along to the taxpayer through prices, wages, or reduced profits.

Residential single-family homes generate:
- Their property taxes (only ~24–25¢ of every $1 goes to CCOB)
- Their share of sales tax from what those same residents spend locally
Commercial properties & businesses generate:
- Full commercial property taxes
- Sales tax from everyone who shops in Broomfield — including:
  - Non-residents / visitors
  - Workers who commute in
  - People shopping at Flatiron Crossing, offices, restaurants, etc.
- Much higher revenue per acre or per employee than a house

Section 4: Changes since 2017

2017: Commercial subsidy was already significant, but residential property taxes were automatically lowered every few years by the Gallagher Amendment.
2021–2026 (post-Gallagher repeal): Residential property taxes rose sharply (no more automatic assessment-ratio reductions). This gave the city more residential revenue than if Gallagher had stayed in place.
However, spending grew much faster (capital projects, staffing, inflation, parks, human services).

Is CCOB spending more on non-traditional government programs?

Yes, there are clear drivers of why costs are outpacing population (+15% since 2017).

The biggest increases per single-family home are in quality-of-life / social programs rather than core “traditional” government functions (police, roads, basic utilities):

Recreation, Parks & Open Lands: +281% (new facilities, trails, Discovery Lab, Makers Space, cultural programs)
Human Services & Public Health: +78% (senior services, rental assistance, veterans programs, wellness, self-sufficiency)
Economic Development & Community Development also expanded (affordable housing incentives, business grants)

These are now permanent parts of the budget. The city says they are not adding brand-new programs beyond mandates, but the expanded ones have grown substantially.

Section 5: How the CCOB could cut costs

- The two departments with the largest per-home cost increases since 2017 are:
  - Recreation, Parks & Open Lands (+281%)
  - Human Services & Public Health (+78%)
- The city could:
  - Slow new facility expansions and cultural programs
  - Prioritize maintenance over new builds
  - Limit growth in rental assistance, wellness programs, and senior services unless offset by new revenue or user fees
These are the areas driving most of the cost growth beyond inflation and population.
- Capital spending is extremely “lumpy” (big spikes in 2021 and 2026).
- Strategies:
  - Spread large projects (new police/court building, water/sewer upgrades, parks) over more years
  - Pause or scale back non-essential replacements (vehicles, equipment)
  - Require new development to pay higher impact fees so growth “pays for itself”
This would flatten the big jumps in per-home costs we saw in the graphs.
- Shift more costs directly to users instead of the general fund:
  - Higher recreation program fees
  - Adjusted water/sewer rates and stormwater fees
  - Increased permitting and development fees
The 2017 budget relied more on “Charges for Services” (29% of revenue). By 2026 that dropped to 15%. Bringing it back up would reduce the subsidy needed from sales/property taxes.
- Target the “Organizational Services” and back-office areas:
  - Technology upgrades and automation (IT, HR, permitting)
  - Shared services or regional partnerships
  - Hiring pauses or attrition management (the city has already started some of this in 2026)
These areas grew steadily but slower than the big service departments.

Section 6: Privatization - Lowering Cost Per Home

Privatization and competitive contracting of non-core services offer one of the most practical ways to shrink the net fiscal loss per single-family home. Here are realistic, conservative savings estimates based on Broomfield’s current spending and benchmarks from similar Colorado cities.

These changes focus on non-essential programs and back-office functions while keeping core public safety and mandated services public. The city is already moving toward more competitive bidding and efficiency reviews in the 2026 budget.
What do you think?

Would you support more privatization in recreation and human services?

Section 7: Closing and References

Understanding Broomfield's budget through these transparent numbers empowers residents to engage in meaningful discussions about fiscal priorities, growth, and long-term sustainability for our community.

Sources and Links (all direct from official City and County of Broomfield public documents):

2017 Annual Budget Book (full PDF with Table 2 – Revenue Summaries and department details)
https://www.broomfield.org/DocumentCenter/View/49678/2017-Annual-Budget-Book
2026 Annual Budget Book (proposed/adopted, including revenue breakdowns and current service allocations)
https://www.broomfield.org/DocumentCenter/View/49678/2026-Annual-Budget-Book
Long Range Financial Plan (updated for 2025–2026, source of the Project Impact Model, net loss figures, and per-unit analysis)
https://www.broomfield.org/3925/Long-Range-Financial-Plan
2026 CIP Long Range Plan (capital-focused companion document with infrastructure and debt projections)
https://www.broomfield.org/DocumentCenter/View/49672/PUBLIC_-_2026_CIP_Long_Range_Plan_Proposed_FINAL_UPDATED-10302025
Budget Reports Page (central hub for all years’ budgets and financial plans)
https://www.broomfield.org/3924/Budget-Reports

All data, percentages, and net-loss calculations are sourced directly from these documents. No external or third-party estimates were used.

website - broomfieldtaxpayermatters.com

Made with Squarespace

email - broomfieldtaxpayermatters@gmail.com

Broomfield Taxpayer Matters is organized as a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Broomfield Taxpayer Matters educates Broomfield City and County taxpayers on local issues that impact us civically and financially.

Broomfield Taxpayer Matters is not associated, affiliated, or funded by any political party or political party organization.

Broomfield Taxpayer Matters cannot advocate for or against the election of any political candidates.

Paid for By Broomfield Taxpayer Matters

Section 2: Department Costs Over Time

Section 3: How the Gap is Covered (Commercial Subsidy)

Section 4: Changes since 2017

Is CCOB spending more on non-traditional government programs?

Section 5: How the CCOB could cut costs

Restrain Spending Growth in the Fastest-Rising Departments

Better Capital Planning & Project Phasing

Increase User Fees and Charges Where Possible

Improve Operational Efficiency

Section 6: Privatization - Lowering Cost Per Home

Section 7: Closing and References