The Broomcorn Express, Quarterly Publication of the Broomfield Historical Society
Vol. 5, No. 1, June 2025
BY FORMER BROOMFIELD MAYOR, PATRICK QUINN
Broomfield’s admirable commitment to preserving open space started in a field. The property now affectionately referred to as “the Field” consists of 115 acres east of Main Street where the famed Brunner Farmhouse now sits. The land had originally been zoned for 2,120 housing units, but in 1980 the property was rezoned to allow a Western Electric Training Facility. Western Electric and stakeholders had envisioned a campus-like facility with a few buildings surrounded by a sea of open lands, but that was not meant to be.
In 1992 the Field was optioned to a real estate development company who presented the city with plans for 433 single family homes. The response to the development, and the Field’s ultimate acquisition in 1997, changed Broomfield’s character forever and led to Broomfield’s ambitious 40 percent open lands goal.
Fast forward to 2018, Money Magazine named Broomfield the 18th best place to live in the U.S. saying the city boasts 10 parks, four trail systems and a variety of green spaces with ponds, fishing decks and outdoor art exhibits.
This article is the story of the Field.
EARLY YEARS
The origins of modern Broomfield go back to the development of Broomfield Heights in 1956. It was a master-planned bedroom community in every sense of the word. As Carol Turner wrote in her book, Legendary Locals of Broomfield, “The postwar transition from farm community to city was relatively swift. A new generation of young families began arriving, purchasing brand-new homes, often via the GI Bill. There was no city government, no infrastructure, no community services, so the citizens created these things themselves.”
In 1951, Bal Swan was President of Empire Savings and Loan and was the brainchild and founder of the Turnpike Land Company which developed Broomfield Heights. In 1955, Time Magazine wrote about the Broomfield Heights plan “… to build a $100 million model community of 6,000 brick houses, shopping centers, parks, schools and churches outside of town, along the turnpike running between Boulder and Denver.”
At the time, Bal Swan and his partner Aksel Nielsen were friends with President Dwight Eisenhower who became an investor in the project. Swan and Nielsen “… were joint owners of the ranch where Ike trout fishes.” reported Time in its article on Broomfield Heights. Broomfield’s library was named after Ike’s wife Mamie Doud.
The residents of Broomfield Heights started creating necessary infrastructures almost immediately, incorporating as a city in 1961. Mayors and City Councils were elected and the town grew in size and population.
RAPID DEVELOPMENT
Prior to 1993, City Council tended to approve residential development after residential development: Broomfield Heights filing numbers one and two, Lac Amora, Northmoor Estates, Greenway Park, Gate N Green, Westlake Village, among others.
So Broomfield grew, expanding from Boulder County into Adams, Jefferson and Weld counties over the years. The population grew to 7,281 in 1970; 20,730 in 1980 and 24,638 in 1990, an increase of 238% in some twenty years. Whereas Colorado’s population increased 49% during the same period and, Boulder County, which grew even faster, increased 71%. To be sure, the residents of Broomfield were feeling the pressure and consequences of rapid growth.
The undeveloped Field was surrounded by single family homes from Broomfield Heights to Northmoor and Highland Park South. Broomfield had become known as a “bedroom community” where citizens lived but did not work. According to George DiCiero, City Manager from 1968 to 2011, in the early years the city was delighted to get a McDonalds, as the city had virtually no sales tax base. And like elsewhere, sales taxes are the life blood of cities in Colorado.
Broomfield’s original town hall was located in the Garden Center, off Highway 287 and Midway Boulevard. By 1989 the city had outgrown its town hall and was actively searching for a new location.
Broomfield sought to acquire 27.736 acres from Betawest (owned by U.S. West, an entity spun off from ATT in the 1980s) for its new City Hall as Western Electric had announced they had abandoned plans to build a training center in Broomfield.
Not only was Betawest willing to sell the site for a new town hall, but it offered to sell the City of Broomfield the entire parcel, a total of 167 acres for $2.9 million.
However, the city didn’t have the wherewithal to purchase the entire 167 acres, so they declined to purchase the rest of the site.
In a letter sent to Betawest’s legal firm Otten Johnson, dated November 17, 1989, the City Attorney’s office offered to purchase 27.736 acres for $19,000 per acre and stated, “Council is not interested in purchasing the entire 167 acres, nor is it willing to discuss land uses on the remaining property …”
CHALLENGING THE TOWN AND COUNTRY VILLAGES DEVELOPMENT
Not surprisingly, Betawest put the balance of their property on the market. They optioned the property in 1992 to Johnson Development Company (“Johnson”).
In Colorado, quasi-judicial processes for land use decisions are legal proceedings in which city councils act in a capacity similar to a court. City councils apply existing laws, building codes and land use regulations to specific facts when a development is proposed. Broomfield requires the developer to first get the approval of Planning and Zoning Commission (“P and Z”) and then the City Council that has a prescribed public hearing process. Council’s decision to approve or deny a development application has profound implications and the applicant, who can, if denied, appeal to the Courts. So the process is prescribed to ensure the council has been presented with the information it needs to make a decision in a balanced matter.
Often developers will test the waters first to see if a city is receptive to their proposed development and in particular if they are proposing variances from existing codes, rules and regulations. Broomfield process includes a “concept review” where a developer can have a joint study session with the P and Z and city council at the same time. The development process is very expensive. The direct and indirect costs include environmental, traffic and other studies along with elaborate planning documents, summing to the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Johnson tested the waters at a Concept Review in the fall of 1992 and made their initial, informal presentation to P and Z on October 5, 1992. According to the October 8, 1992, Broomfield Enterprise newspaper, “… the Denver firm’s plans for 450 upscale homes on 140 acres in the center of Broomfield seemed to impress the commissioners.” Michael A. Beitzel of Downing, Thorpe & James Inc., representing Johnson at the P and Z meeting, presented the plans. In his summary of the project he presented the vision of “Midway as a meandering, scenic parkway-type arterial, with abundant landscaping, a desire expressed by commissioners and council members and Broomfield Mayor Bob Schulze at a recent joint session.” The article also states, “… the development includes a 20-acre park in the northeast … with a greenbelt winding through the property …” Beitzel went on to say, “We’re excited about this, we’re aware this is a key piece of property in Broomfield.”
After the October 1992 Planning and Zoning (P and Z) meeting, arguably, Johnson had a green light to fully prepare development plans to formally submit their plan to the city for approval. At the public hearing in 1993 Johnson Development Company said they had spent $325,000 on the studies and planning documents for Town and Country.
At the close of October 1992 P and Z meeting, Beitzel said that “If the public hearing and approval process goes smoothly, construction will begin next spring.”
Johnson formally submitted their plans for the development later in the fall of 1992.
After rigorous staff reviews, formal development plans are then submitted to the P and Z for their approval.
On January 18, 1993, P and Z held a formal public hearing for the now 433-unit Town and Country Villages Development. Plans were moving along.
The January 21, 1993, Broomfield Enterprise article on the meeting began with this: “Neighborhood opposition to the planned Town and Country Villages subdivision was near complete Tuesday. Sixteen of 17 people addressing the P and Z voiced complaints about 433 upscale homes proposed for a 125-acre parcel east of Main Street. However, the five commissioners present, after devoting four and a half hours to the Johnson Development Co. application, unanimously recommended approval, suggesting the City Council might appease some who expressed their distaste for the development. If this week’s hearing was any indication, council members should brace for a long night Feb 9, when they are to consider the zoning request.”
Steve Waldman, the Enterprise reporter wrote a follow-up article for the Enterprise that was published on February 4. According to the article the “… sixteen Broomfield residents that spoke out against the plan for a wide spectrum of reasons –overcrowded schools, traffic and the need for open
space …”
According to the article, Councilmember Bob Sakaguchi seemed to support the development as he expressed legitimate concerns about the “… lack of housing quality in our community … to continue attracting corporate citizens such as Hunter Douglas, a wide variety of adequate housing must be available.” Council member Bill Berens was quoted as saying “I think the city budget is such that it’s going to be very hard, if not impossible, to purchase raw open space.”
The February 9th meeting of the City Council would be a public hearing, the final part of the quasi-judicial process. Public hearings start with staff presenting the applicant’s plans and opening a discussion of the variances requested. The applicant then has a chance to present, and then the public has a right to comment on the proposed application. Finally, the Council has a chance to ask questions of staff, the developer, and others before they deliberate and vote on the application. Public hearings for development applications can range in length from an hour to several hours, but the City had never experienced the interest and dissension the Town and Country Villages application would encounter.
So, on February 9, City Manager George DiCiero presented the Staff’s summary of the development. Planning Director Kirk Oglesby reviewed the history of the property and presented an overview of the proposed development plan. Community Development Director James Black discussed the Traffic Impact Analysis, noting that traffic on Main Street and Midway Boulevard will exceed the Master Plan estimated volumes. Don Orr, Director of Planning, Boulder Valley Schools District, discussed current school enrollment capacities and the anticipated impact of the project. He stated that the District expects a classroom shortage.
Mike Beitzel again represented Johnson at the public hearing emphasizing the quality of the development, including a framework of open space features, as he had to P and Z.
As expected during public comments, twenty-five residents spoke that night in opposition to the development. According to the Minutes of that evening, the opponents cited “concerns about the impacts of this development, including school overcrowding, increased traffic and air pollution … Many of the speakers noted the wildlife currently inhabiting the property and urged that the City preserve this property as open space.” All of the opponents were residents of Broomfield. Paul Walover, Burns Errebo and Gordon McKellar would later help form Broomfield Citizens for Parks and Open Space.
Four citizens spoke in favor of “well-planned growth, and the need for residential growth to attract retail and business development and to expand the tax base.” Speakers in favor included Clif Harald, Executive Director Broomfield Economic Development Corporation, Jack Terhar, Jr. owner of the Ford Dealership in Broomfield, David Smith Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce.
Not surprising, the desire to be heard was so great that the comment period went past midnight. The council continued the public hearing to February 19th at the larger Lakeshore Room in the Broomfield Senior Center.
The public hearing was reopened on Friday February 19 at the Lakeshore Room. According to the February 19th Minutes, over 50 residents spoke in opposition to the proposed development citing and expanding on the previous opposing comments that were made on February 9. According to the Minutes, people expressed “… objections to private development of this property versus acquisition … for open space and/or parks … impacts on the wetlands area and local wildlife… general concerns about the effect of continued growth on Broomfield’s “quality of life” and “unique community identity.” Many of the speakers—George Brandt, Marlene Erickson, Dena Brinkman, Carrie and Thelma Banschbach—were or would become active in the Broomfield open space community, serving on ad-hoc and formal city-formed committees.
Only sixteen citizens spoke in favor of the project primarily representing the Broomfield business community including a banker, realtors and owners of construction companies.
Once again, the public comments continued past midnight, and the Public Hearing was continued to the February 23, 1993 regular city council meeting where several citizens opposed the plan, and other citizens spoke in favor.
Tyler Johnson strongly defended Johnson on February 23. They had spent 8 months with City Staff, the P and Z, and adjacent property owners. “Neighbors within 500 feet of the property were invited to a meeting which was well attended, and they also conducted follow-up meetings” with property owners adjacent to the project. He noted that the P and Z “… unanimously recommended approval of the Plan with six conditions which the Applicant has now met.” It was noted that Johnson had an investment of $325,000 in developing and presenting the application.
The Public Hearing was closed at 11:30 p.m. The City Council then began their deliberations on this controversial project. And once again the consideration of the Town and Country Application was continued to March 2nd, 1993. City Council adjourned at 1:55 a.m.
With the Public Hearing closed, the purpose of the March 2 meeting was to answer any additional questions and proceed to Council’s findings and decisions made as a quasi-judicial body.
Prior to the Council business meeting on March 2nd, Council held an Executive Session which is allowed for seeking legal advice from the City Attorney, Roy Howard. At this point the Council knew there was a possibility that the application for Town and Country would be denied. Council can deny applications only under certain circumstances, which, as mentioned, can be challenged in court.
Indeed, the application was denied because it did not meet the City’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan review standards. The motion to deny listed 13 separate findings of fact to support the denial including failure to meet standards for traffic, lack of compatibility of adjacent land uses, overcrowding of the public schools serving Town and Country, lack of provision for recreational and educational facilities, and negative impacts on wildlife.
The motion to deny was approved 6 to 3. Councilmembers Sakaguchi and Berens had been persuaded; they voted to deny.
The Broomfield Enterprise March 4, 1993 edition summarized it this way: “After absorbing many arduous hours of testimony from the public, the vast majority of it in opposition—the Johnson Development Co and city staff, the council took only minutes to knock out Town and Country Villages, nixing the rezoning of the request and site plan.” Councilmember Larry Cooper was quoted as saying, “I think the Council really made a statement about quality of life in Broomfield.”
Charles Ozaki, the Deputy City manager in 1993, remembers the denial of the Town and Country development in an April 4, 2018 panel discussion: “It was quite the experience, a 20-hour meeting over 3 days … We had to move the meeting to the Lakeshore Room at the Senior Center to accommodate all who wanted to participate.”
NOT WITHOUT A FIGHT
As expected, almost immediately, on March 31, 1993, Betawest and Johnson filed a lawsuit against the City of Broomfield challenging the denial of the Town and Country development.
Many of the citizens that lobbied City Council now became activists. George Brandt, Marlene Erickson, Burns Errebo and Paul Walover formed the Broomfield Citizens for Parks and Open Space (BCPOS) in 1993 which was a campaign committee organized to pass two ballot initiatives placed on the ballot by City Council for the November 1993 election. The first issue was a sales tax of .25 of 1% or twenty five cents for a $100 purchase. The second issue was to allow the City to issue bonds to purchase the Field, with the approved sales tax to repay principal and interest.
Marlene and Rick Erickson moved to Broomfield from Baltimore so Rick, a Kaiser Permante doctor, could be close to his work. Marlene opposed Town and Country because “the mass of humanity in that location seemed overwhelming.” Burns Errebo recruited her to the BCPOS to be on the “t-shirt” committee.
At the April 4th panel discussion, Rick Erickson stated he had gotten involved in BCPOS after looking over Marlene’s shoulder and noticing that BCPOS was in the red. He told Marlene, “You need help.” All the campaign funds were in t-shirts, and not that many had been sold.
Rick also stated that the “Blue Book” which explains ballot initiatives to citizens had a critical error in calculating the cost of the tax per household.
The ballot to increase bonding capacity passed, but the sales tax increase did not. It failed by 28 votes out of 5,282 votes cast.
Erickson recruited residents Ellie McKinley, Jean Patterson, and Gordon McKellar to help in his effort to pass two new issues to be placed on the 1994 ballot.
McKinley and Patterson were longtime friends.
Patterson moved to Broomfield in 1969 when her husband was transferred to Western Electric on 120th Avenue. Patterson “… fell in love with the Field, as open space, didn’t want it cut up and covered. The Field could become our Central Park.” It was her opinion that the 1993 campaign efforts “… weren’t very organized.”
McKinley moved to Broomfield in 1967. Her dad was born in the same town where Patterson grew up. McKinley’s Dad was a “tremendous volunteer.” Volunteering became McKinley’s passion as well. McKinley, who is often referred to as the “Queen” of Broomfield open space, first got involved in open space because of the 1993 battle to save the Field.
McKinley was the “money tree shaker” of the three. According to campaign finance reports BCPOS raised $4,191, with over $2,000 going to ads in the Broomfield Enterprise.
CAMPAIGNING FOR OPEN SPACE
But more importantly, as McKinley stated in a July 29, 2021 interview, “We were battling against some very influential people, including the Board of Realtors and Chamber of Commerce, so we did everything in the books. Nobody worked as hard as we did to get something passed. We divided the City into several sections and assigned volunteers to each section, which made it very, very personal. We didn’t leave a brochure without making personal contact first.” The admittedly clever slogan of the campaign became, “Keep the Field in Broomfield.”
Also, the four of them sent out several newsletters to educate the public and make sure they had the facts on the upcoming two ballot initiatives.
There had been opposition to the 1993 ballot initiative by members of the parks and recreational community, so in 1994 it was agreed to split the increase in sales tax: “80% of the proceeds of the increase to be spent for the acquisition of land for open space and 20% of the proceeds of the increase to be spent on acquisition of lands for parks and for park development.”
Council agreed to place two new issues on the 1994 ballot: issue 2B, which was the increase in sales tax, and issue 2C, which was for the issuance of $5,740,000 in parks and open space bonds. The sales tax was to be sunset after 21 years.
In the meantime, according to the May 19, 1994 Enterprise, Johnson submitted plans for a revised, smaller Town and Country Development. And the lawsuit advanced in the Courts.
On June 14, 1994, the Courts ruled against Johnson and in favor of the City. The Broomfield Enterprise article on the ruling stated: “A yearlong Town and Country lawsuit against the city of Broomfield has been partially resolved in the city’s favor.” Boulder District Judge Morris Sandsted Jr. Ruled, “The City Council’s findings and subsequent decision to deny the Town and Country development were supported by the facts presented.” The article quotes City Attorney Roy Howard as saying, “The principal issue of the case has been resolved. The question is whether the attorneys want to proceed on the remaining issues.”
Also different in 1994 was that a citizens’ Open Space Committee prepared a list of top ten sites that would be acquired for open space/parks if funds were available.
Auto dealer Jack Terhar opposed the 1993 ballot initiatives and said in a Letter to the Editor the weekend before the 1994 election, “As a Broomfield businessman and citizen I hate tax increases. However, this current proposal for open space … is one I can support based upon quality of life for all citizens of our community . … The current proposal identifies 10 locations throughout our community that would be easy for everyone who is interested in access.”
In a 2021 interview, McKinley stated, “There was no party on election night. Erickson and Patterson went over to City Hall to look at results. When Westlake went for it, we knew we had won. We did not celebrate because we were so tired.”
On November 8, 1994, Broomfield Ballot issues 2B and 2C pass decisively.
However, the battle for the Field was not over. There was still a court case pending and the City needed to “condemn” the property and establish a fair price before the acquisition could be completed.
In December 1994, Johnson asked the court to set a trial date and the City Council voted to condemn the north parcel allowing acquisition of the Field through using the City’s eminent domain powers. In April 1995, the City Council voted to condemn the south parcel.
The lawsuit was dismissed by the Courts on September 27, 1995 but it still took nearly two years to finalize the purchase. Finally, on April 4, 1997, the 115-acre Field was formally purchased by the City of Broomfield for $4.6 million.
LOOKING BACK AT HOW FAR WE’VE COME
It is interesting to note that a 167-acre property was offered to the city in 1989 for $17,500 per acre, and after the city said no, 125 acres were optioned to a developer in 1992 whose proposed project was, in turn, denied in 1993. The city purchased 115 of those acres, known as the Field, for $40,000 per acre 8 years after rejecting Betawest’s offer.
The difference was determined citizens taking the initiative to purchase the Field by showing up in force at City Hall and then deciding to pass a tax on themselves to make it happen.
This battle forever changed the character of Broomfield. The 1995 Master Plan update included the formidable goal of 40% open lands at build out for the city. It’s been a long, arduous and worthy battle. Here we are in 2025, and Broomfield is close to achieving that goal.
The Battle for the Field Bibliography
1. Money Magazine August 28, 2018
2. Legendary Locals of Broomfield by Carol Turner published 2014
3. BizWest: Milestones ICON: BalSwan September 19, 2011
4. Staff Memo dated October 12, 1999 Timeline
5. Broomfield Enterprise October 8, 1992
6. Broomfield Enterprise January 21, 1993
7. Broomfield Enterprise February 4, 1993
8. Broomfield Enterprise March 4, 1993
9. Broomfield Enterprise May 19, 1994
10. Broomfield Enterprise June 30, 1994
11. City Council minutes February 9, 1993
12. City Council minutes February 19, 1993
13. City Council minutes February 23, 1993
14. City Council minutes March 2, 1993
15. Panel discussion April 4, 2018, https://youtu.be/wExe1hQHJnk
16. BCPOS minutes dated September 27, 1993
17. BCPOS Report of Contributions and Expenditures December 2, 1994
18. Zoom video meeting July, 29, 2021with Pat Quinn interviewing Jean Patterson and Ellie McKinley
19. November 8, 1994 Ballot
20. Memo from Kristan Pritz dated August 27, 2021