Mattel Deal Can't Save Cascadia: New Studies Exposed as Recycled Failures
The city’s own consultant admits project "does not appear financially feasible" – even with Barbie and Hot Wheels
GREELEY, CO (January 20, 2026) – The City of Greeley and developer Martin Lind are hoping Barbie can save their billion-dollar boondoggle. She can't.
Greeley Demands Better Co-Chairs Brandon Wark and Rhonda Solis today delivered a letter and independent financial analysis to Greeley City Council exposing fatal flaws in the city's latest attempt to justify the Catalyst project. Four new city-commissioned studies – including the much-hyped Mattel licensing option – are built on the same faulty assumptions independent experts have already debunked. Worse, the city's own paid consultant now explicitly admits the project "does not appear financially feasible at this time."
"They're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic," said Brandon Wark, Co-Chair of Greeley Demands Better. "This analysis makes clear that the Catalyst deal is a ticking time bomb for Greeley taxpayers. The city threw four new studies at Council, added a Mattel deal, and hoped no one would notice they're all built on the same broken foundation. We noticed. And so will voters on February 24th."
The Mattel Mirage
The proposed Mattel Wonder Indoor Waterpark—featuring Barbie Beach, Hot Wheels water slides, and a Ken surf machine—was unveiled as the solution to the project's massive funding gap. It's not:
Still requires $42 million in taxpayer subsidies to cover debt service shortfalls through Year 9
Reduces years of losses from 16 to 9—but doesn't eliminate them
Adds $2.6 million in annual royalty payments to Mattel, money that could otherwise offset debt
Zero proof of concept—not a single Mattel-branded indoor waterpark is operating anywhere in the world
"The Mattel deal is window dressing meant to sweeten the deal and shift the narrative," said Rhonda Solis, Co-Chair of Greeley Demands Better. "The developer and the city couldn't make the numbers work, so now they want us to believe slapping Barbie's face on a waterpark will magically generate $24 million a year. There's not a shred of evidence to support that. This isn't a business plan—it's a fantasy funded by taxpayers."
City's Own Consultant Delivers the Verdict
"What's truly mind-boggling is that the City Council won't act when their own consultants explicitly state in December's feasibility study that the project 'does not appear financially feasible at this time' and requires 'additional measures to bridge the deficit' for the next nine to 16 years," Solis added. "To be clear—this isn't our interpretation. It's the city's own consultants, Hotel & Leisure Advisors, on pages A-24 and G-26."
An independent analysis commissioned by We Are Greeley and prepared by Newmark Valuation & Advisory examined the feasibility studies and financial models from RBC, CBRE, and HLA, revealing:
The project cannot cover its debt service. HLA projects a $15.7 million annual shortfall—a gap that must be filled by city tax revenues that could otherwise fund roads, public safety, and services Greeley families actually need.
Arena revenues are overstated by $2-3 million annually versus comparable venues.
Development costs are understated by $130-235 million, masking the true risk.
Capital reserves are dangerously low—3% versus the 9% industry standard.
100% public financing is unprecedented—no comparable example exists anywhere.
Four New Studies, Same Broken Foundation
All four city-commissioned studies—HLA Feasibility, HLA Economic Impact, EPS Commercial Demand, and Zonda Residential—rely on the same underlying RBC financial model and CBRE/OVG projections that Newmark identified as flawed.
The numbers don't add up: the studies use $665-675 million in development costs, while actual project costs run $830-900 million. That's $130-235 million in understated costs.
"This independent study is critical because the city's studies only provide market analysis assuming the project proceeds—they never independently evaluated financial feasibility or whether it should go forward at all," explained Suzanne Taheri, attorney for Greeley Demands Better. "We urge council to consider these findings as they evaluate available off-ramps."
Taxpayers Will Pay the Price
Neither the Mattel deal nor any of the new studies changes the fundamental problem: Greeley taxpayers bear 100% of the risk while the developer bears none.
"We asked them to find a single example of any city in America that has 100% financed an arena and waterpark while bearing all construction and operating risk," Wark said. "They couldn't—because it doesn't exist. No municipality has ever been reckless enough to do what Greeley is being asked to do."
Because of low capital reserve assumptions and debt service shortfalls, taxpayers will likely have to cover the gap through alternative funding sources – including the most likely scenario: a tax increase for Greeley residents.
"Greeley taxpayers deserve a deal that protects their interests, not one that places all risk on the public while guaranteeing private profit," Wark added. "We urge council to give these analyses the serious consideration they deserve."
February 24: Voters Decide
Polling shows 82% of informed voters support repeal—cutting across party lines with 81% of Republicans, 75% of Democrats, and 87% of Independents in agreement.
"The city spent taxpayer money hoping consultants would rubber-stamp this deal," Solis said. "Instead, they confirmed what 14,000 petition signers already knew: this doesn't pencil out. Not without Mattel. Not with Mattel. Not ever. On February 24th, we stop this."
About Greeley Demands Better
Greeley Demands Better is a bipartisan, citizen-led campaign that collected nearly 14,000 signatures to place the Catalyst financing referendum on February 24, 2026, ballot. Co-chairs Brandon Wark and Rhonda Solis are joined by thousands of Greeley residents demanding fiscal responsibility and voter input on billion-dollar decisions.
Studies and supporting documents available at GreeleyDemandsBetter.com