Frequently asked questions.
What is this YES on 1A campaign about?
The "Greeley Demands Better" campaign is a citizen-led initiative to repeal the zoning for the Cascadia/Catalyst project, which puts Greeley taxpayers at risk for over $1 billion while protecting private developers from financial risk. We believe Greeley deserves a fair deal that doesn't mortgage our essential city buildings or expose taxpayers to unlimited liability.
We are asking voters to Vote YES on 1A.
When is the election?
The election is on February 24 when you can vote in person, and you also should receive a mail-in ballot beginning on February 3, 2026.
How do I find my poll location?
Visit the website here: Special Election - Ordinance 30, 2025
Remember: You must be a registered Greeley voter to vote.
How did we get here?
The City of Greeley passed Ordinance 2025-15, which authorizes the City to mortgage essential public buildings as collateral to take on over $1B in financial obligations for the Cascadia. This measure exposes Greeley taxpayers to unlimited liability, but protects profits for developers, even if the project fails.
Greeley Deserves Better attempted to sue to block the project from moving forward by repealing Ordinance 2025-15. While that was moving forward through the court system, we also filed to repeal the zoning. The zoning lawsuit made faster progress and made the ballot.
The election is on February 24, and the ballot title is 1A. To save Greeley’s public buildings, you must vote YES on 1A.
What exactly does Ordinance 2025-15 do?
Ordinance 2025-15 authorizes the city to:
Mortgage dozens of essential public buildings (including City Hall, Police Department, and Fire Stations) as collateral
Take on over $1 billion in financial obligations for the Cascadia project
Pay the developer $25-30 million in guaranteed fees regardless of project success
Maintain a $33.2 million annual reserve fund
Expose taxpayers to unlimited liability if the project fails
What is the Cascadia project?
The Cascadia project is a proposed $1.1 billion entertainment district on the west side of Greeley that includes a hockey arena, 12-slide water park, hotel and convention center, and future housing and retail development.
Are you against the Cascadia project itself?
Not at all! The project vision looks exciting. This isn't about being anti-development or anti-progress. This is about getting a fair deal that doesn't put our essential city services and buildings at risk while guaranteeing profits to private developers. Cool project, bad deal. We just want the deal renegotiated to reduce risk to taxpayers and to ensure developers who stand to profit from this deal have skin in the game for this deal.
What buildings are at risk?
The city has mortgaged dozens of essential public buildings as collateral, including:
City Hall
Police Department
Fire Stations
Ice Haus
Other critical city facilities
If the city can't meet its debt obligations, these buildings could be lost.
How much money are we talking about?
The total financial exposure exceeds $1 billion, including:
$115 million in Certificates of Participation (secured by mortgaging city buildings)
~$832 million in bonds
$129 million through General Improvement District
$55 million from water/sewer funds
$25-30 million annually in guaranteed developer fees
$33.2 million annual reserve fund requirement
What risks does the developer take?
Virtually none. The developer:
Receives $25-30 million in guaranteed fees regardless of project success
Provides no financial guarantees
Takes on no personal or corporate liability
Profits from selling land to the city
Owns surrounding development land for future profit
What will repealing the ordinance accomplish?
Repealing the zoning ordinance will:
Halt progress on the construction of the project until taxpayers can vote
Force renegotiation of financing terms more favorable to taxpayers
Potentially require the developer to invest their own money or provide financial guarantees
Could require a public vote on any new deal
This doesn't necessarily kill the project—it forces a better deal.
Why wasn't this put to a public vote originally?
Despite over $1 billion in taxpayer risk, the City Council structured the financing to avoid requiring voter approval. Over 30 citizens requested a public vote at council meetings, but the council voted 5-2 to approve the deal anyway.
What do polls show about public opinion?
Polling shows:
87% of likely voters support repeal after learning key facts about the deal
92% believe the developer should provide financial guarantees
69% oppose the current financing approach
78% would sign a petition to put repeal on the ballot
Is this a partisan issue?
No. Polling shows opposition to the current financing approach crosses party lines. This is about fiscal responsibility and fair deals for taxpayers, not partisan politics.
What if I support the project but have concerns about the financing?
You're exactly who we're fighting for! You can support the project vision while demanding a fair deal that protects taxpayers. Voting YES gives you a voice in ensuring any development serves the entire community responsibly.
Newmark: Independent Analysis Exposes Major Flaws in Catalyst Feasibility Studies
Arena Projections Are Overly Optimistic
· Based on comparable arenas, experts expect the facility will either:
o Lose $250,000 to $1.2 million annually, OR
o Break even to modest surplus of $0-$1.2 million under best-case scenarios
· These figures don't include debt service, capital reserves, or opportunity costs
Maintenance Costs Are Severely Underfunded
· H&LA assumes only 3% of revenue for capital replacement reserves; CBRE assumes 5% of revenue
· Industry research shows 9% of revenue is actually needed for proper maintenance
Debt Service Numbers Don't Add Up
· When corrected for actual debt service, the project shows negative cash flow of over $313 million by end of bond term
Economic Impact Claims Are Inflated
· Greeley lacks destination retail (no Costco, limited major retailers) so visitors will likely shop elsewhere
· Up to 80% of projected retail spending may occur outside Greeley city limits
Project Costs Far Exceed Expected Value
· Private investors won't fund projects where cost exceeds value without substantial public subsidy
100% Public Financing Is Unprecedented
· Typical public incentives for similar projects: 10-50% of total cost
· Catalyst proposal: 100% public financing
· No comparable examples exist of municipalities fully financing both arenas AND waterpark resorts without significant private capital
· This level of public assumption of risk is far outside industry norms
What This Means for Greeley Taxpayers
The independent analysis confirms what many residents suspect: the Catalyst project's financial projections are unrealistic and the risks to taxpayers are enormous. When costs exceed value by hundreds of millions of dollars, when operating income can't cover debt service, and when maintenance is underfunded, taxpayers become responsible for covering shortfalls for decades to come.
The Bottom Line: This project doesn't make financial sense. Vote YES on 1A to repeal Ordinance 30 and protect Greeley taxpayers.
What happens if the measure passes in February?
If voters approve the repeal:
The current financing arrangement would be invalid
Any new financing would require renegotiation
The developer would likely need to provide financial guarantees or invest their own money
What about the jobs and economic development the project promises?
We like jobs and we support smart economic development that doesn't put taxpayers at unnecessary risk. Great projects should be able to attract private investment. The question is: why shouldn't the developer invest their own money in their own project?
Cascadia / Catalyst benefits Windsor at least as much as Greeley:
The supposed job and revenue benefits from the project draw resources away from downtown Greeley. Estimates include weak job opportunities for Greeley residents:
3,800 primarily part time, low wage, temporary, seasonal
Non-career based
Not exclusively Greeley hires
Haven't similar projects failed elsewhere?
Yes. Similar entertainment projects have failed across the country, including Broomfield's 1stBank Center, which is being demolished after only 19 years. Under the current deal, Greeley taxpayers would be responsible for the debt even if this project fails.
What essential city projects are being delayed?
The current financing arrangement defers critical infrastructure needs:
$250 million needed for Recreation Center/Civic Center renovations
$125-160 million for a new City Hall
Essential road and infrastructure improvements:
No funding for A Highway 34 / County Road 17 interchange needs to be built for this project.
The cost is estimated $102.2 million in road projects and $63.4 million just for the interchange.
How can I volunteer to help?
Visit our website: Greeley Demands Better
Sign up for text updates, please, scroll to the bottom of the page and sign up!
Attend community meetings and events.
How can I stay informed?
Visit our website: Greeley Demands Better
Sign up for text updates, please visit the homepage of our website, scroll to the bottom of the page and sign up!
Attend community meetings and events.
Together, we can ensure Greeley gets the development it deserves without putting our community at unnecessary risk.