Myths vs. Fact

Myth: This project will not cost Greeley taxpayers any money.

Fact: Greeley has admitted that if project revenues fall short, the City may need to step in to cover gaps—meaning taxpayers are on the hook for this high-risk project. 

Myth: Catalyst/Cascadia will create thousands of jobs for Greeley.

Fact: Most of the jobs will be short-term construction jobs, entry-level and part-time jobs.  Even though Greeley foots the bill and the risk, many jobs created may not benefit Greeley residents exclusively, as the project draws from a regional labor market including Windsor, Johnstown, Loveland, and Fort Collins.  

Myth:  Catalyst/Cascadia will boost our local economy with new retail spending and revenue.

Fact: The independent, actuarial firm Newmark notes "potentially up to 80%' of retail spending from project visitors may occur outside Greeley's city limits at established retail centers along I-25 in Loveland, Johnstown, and Fort Collins, rather than benefiting Greeley businesses.”

Myth: Cascadia promises to be a regional tourist attraction.

Fact: Cascadia doubles down on risk. Theme parks are among the highest risk developments by nature. They are built around highly speculative visitor expectations and are highly susceptible to economic downturns. But Cascadia is fraught with even more risk. Its hotel is competing against a number of new, nearby hotels averaging less than 70% occupancy. According to the city’s own studies, Cascadia needs to achieve 82.5% capacity to meet its rosy projections. Meanwhile, Catalyst/Cascadia’s ice arena will be competing against the refurbished “Ranch” complex in nearby Loveland.

Myth: The Cascadia/Catalyst projects will support downtown Greeley’s revitalization.

Fact: The truth is that the supposed job and revenue benefits from the project draw resources away from downtown Greeley.

Myth: Trying to force the City Council to fight for a better deal for Greeley taxpayers is actually increasing the cost of this project.

Fact: City Council is responsible to protect the taxpayers’ interests by properly evaluating cost/benefits, especially to major projects like Catalyst. If the deal proceeds as it has been proposed, it could cost taxpayers enormously, according to independent studies.

  • A comprehensive review by Newmark Valuation & Advisory has identified serious problems with the feasibility studies used to justify Greeley's proposed Catalyst development. Here's what independent experts found:

    • 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.

Myth: The folks behind 1A are from outside of Greeley.

Fact: This is a 100% Greeley-driven initiative. 

Myth: This is backed by Greeley’s Republican/Democratic Party.

Fact: Many Republicans are concerned about the terms of this project and its risk to taxpayers, but so do many Democrats and Independents. The truth is that this deal is so obviously bad for taxpayers that it has transcended political ideology. A vast majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Unaffiliated voters support freezing Cascadia. Polling results here.

Myth: Even if the zoning is repealed through the passage of 1A, the developers can immediately reapply for zoning.

Fact: No referred ordinance repealed by Greeley voters may be readopted by the Council for one year after the date of the election on the referred ordinance. The City’s own description of the ballot question admits, “If Ordinance 30, 2025 is repealed, the property owners would be required to submit a new application for zoning of the property, and the Council would be prohibited from applying Planned Unit Development zoning to the property for a period of one year from the date of the repeal.”

Myth: Similar projects have been successful.

Fact: Similar projects in neighboring cities have failed. The 1stBank Center in Broomfield is an excellent example. 

Myth: The City has been open and transparent about this project and its financial risks.

Fact: The City has worked hand-in-hand with the developer to undermine the efforts of concerned citizens to freeze Cascadia since day one. Citizens deserve full transparency about how such an unprecedented deal was negotiated, especially given arrangements like city staff being flown on the developer's private jet to view other projects.

Myth: The Cascadia project is financially feasible and self-sustaining.

Fact: The project’s debt service, estimated at $41.5 million annually, cannot be covered by the city’s proposed revenue sources in the first nine to sixteen years, according to the City Council’s own consultant study. Based solely on operational performance, the project does not appear financially feasible at this time.

Myth: The proponents of 1A simply don’t want to expand Greeley and are anti-development.

Fact: That’s false. Most proponents of 1A, to freeze Cascadia, are fine with development, but simply want it done responsibly. Cascadia might be a cool project, but it’s a bad deal for taxpayers. According to the Newmark study, there are no documented examples of municipalities fully financing arena/indoor waterpark developments and bearing all construction, operating, and market risk. Typical public incentives range from 10-50% of development costs.

Myth: The zoning ordinance is just one ordinance of many that led to this project’s progression, so the project will not stop just because of this one ballot measure.

Fact: The contract between the City and the Developer is contingent on the zoning.

If the ordinance is repealed, there can be no comparable zoning, and the project will not move forward.

Myth: This project will bring in money for Greeley schools.

Fact: The project site is served by Weld County RE-4 (Windsor schools), not Greeley-Evans School District 6, meaning property tax revenues would benefit Windsor schools – but Greeley taxpayers bear all the risk.

Myth: Publicly-funded stadiums are a safe and sound use of taxpayers’ dollars.

Fact: Stadiums are one of the most volatile, high-risk investments a city can make. 

Myth: Greeley is so flush with cash that the City has really no other use for this money.

Fact: The deal structure forces taxpayers to maintain a $33 million annual reserve fund—money that could otherwise address critical infrastructure needs. Greeley shares many of the challenges that cities across Colorado face – affordability, attainable housing, rising insurance costs, increasing food costs, infrastructure repairs, underfunded schools and more. There are many uses for this money that would benefit the entire Greeley community, including the $250 million postponed for renovations to the Recreation Center/Civic Center renovations, and critical road and transportation improvements that are the voters' #1 priority. 

Myth: The developer and the City of Greeley both have skin in the game with this deal.

Fact: Only Greeley taxpayers are on the hook for any losses, while the developer stands to gain tens of millions of dollars in development fees regardless of the project’s success. For the politically-connected, out-of-city developer, it’s a true “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario. To reiterate the Newmark study, there are no documented examples of municipalities fully financing arena/indoor waterpark developments and bearing all construction, operating, and market risk. Typical public incentives range from 10-50% of development costs – not 100% as Greeley is doing.