A myriad of issues face both the Greeley city government and the developer in the wake of Tuesday’s municipal election, in which voters repealed city-approved planned-unit development zoning for the proposed Cascadia and Catalyst projects.
With 54% of voters approving Ballot Issue 1A for the repeal, a referendum placed on the ballot through a petition drive conducted by citizens’ group Greeley Demands Better, zoning for the 833 acres near U.S. Highway 34 and Weld County Road 17 reverts to “holding agriculture,” and the city is barred from rezoning it for a planned-unit development for a year.
“The people of Greeley have sent an unmistakable message: They demand transparency, fiscal responsibility, and a real voice in decisions that affect their community’s future,” Brandon Wark, co-chair of Greeley Demands Better, said in a statement issued Wednesday. “This is a historic victory for every Greeley family that refused to be steamrolled. For nine months, citizens collected signatures — twice, weathered lawsuits, overcame intimidation, and stood firm against a campaign backed by limitless developer money. Last night, the voters proved that democracy still works in Greeley.”
The other co-chair, Rhonda Solis, added that “This was never about being anti-development. This was about stopping a bad deal that put all the risk on taxpayers and all the profit in the developer’s pocket. The voters understood that, and they acted.”
The subject is sure to come up in next Tuesday’s regularly scheduled Greeley City Council meeting, where five of the seven members are staunch Cascadia supporters.
Horizontal construction had already begun on the project being spearheaded by Windsor-based developer Martin Lind’s Water Valley Co., and the decisions made soon both by Lind and the city will determine whether those workers can stay on the job.
Catalyst was proposed to include a hotel, water park and an ice arena that would house the Colorado Eagles minor-league hockey team owned by Lind. That city-owned tract would anchor the privately-owned Cascadia residential and commercial project that would surround it.
The city and Lind agreed to a 40-year lease for the Eagles to begin playing in the new arena in fall 2028. That lease would be in question if the arena deal is canceled. The Eagles currently play at Blue Arena on Larimer County’s Ranch Events Center east of Loveland.
Water Valley, in partnership with PCL Construction and Level5 Collaborative, held a “Greeley Area Small-Business Outreach Event” to entice local contractors, suppliers and small businesses “interested in learning more about upcoming construction-related scopes” associated with the Cascadia entertainment district and what it called “3,800 Cascadia construction opportunities.”
“If 1A passes, it’s bad,” Lind told BizWest recently. “It’s a timing issue, and all projects are reliant on timing. There’s always a Plan B, but it doesn’t fit into the timing.
“It’s a terrible thing if 1A passes,” he said. “It’s going to be a gut-punch to the project and an economic disaster for Greeley, but it’s also going to be a long-lasting tattoo on Greeley’s forehead, saying ‘We’re not open for business.’
“We have this structured so 100% of Greeley’s investment is paid back to Greeley when we issue the bonds in June,” Lind said. “The liability of this project leaves Greeley and it goes to the bondholders in June. If that doesn’t happen and if this referendum is successful, that June date’s off, and I can’t tell you when it comes back into play.”
The City Council last May approved an ordinance outlining the financing plan for the $1.1 billion entertainment district. That plan authorized the use of $115 million worth of certificates of participation to lease several high-profile city facilities as collateral to pay for the plan. One task the council will face is how to pay off the COPs.
COPs are also being used to finance the downtown Civic Campus project, which will include city, county and school district offices, as well as police facilities.
Certificates of participation are a financing tool used for new government buildings in Colorado. The idea behind using such financing tools is to find ways to build new community buildings without increasing taxes on residents.
For Catalyst, former mayor John Gates told BizWest, the COPs are one piece of a four-step process in which a nonprofit group would pay off the COPs and issue bonds. In the future, a general improvement district fee collected from the new development would go to repay debt. The city would make an annual economic development payment — previously reported at $12 million per year — to establish reserves to ensure the debt payment.
Bill Rigler, a spokesman for Greeley Forward, a group that had urged a “no” vote on Ballot Issue 1A, echoed Lind’s fear, noting what he sees as “the adverse impact all of this will have on the city’s reputation and its ability to attract new businesses, high-quality development and investment.
“Basically, if this passes, it tells the world that Greeley is closed to business and that if for some reason you want to undertake business in Greeley, you will be subject to an untenable process, indeterminable requirements, high costs and voter-induced ambiguity,” Rigler said. “With all the competing communities and opportunities in NoCo, what business in their right mind would subject themselves to this type of treatment?”
Rigler said “the city’s plan for its civic campus is completely predicated on the availability of funds via the issuance of COPs. If the city defaults on the current COPs, there is not a prayer of the city raising any money for the civic campus, which will completely derail the project.
“In addition,” he said, “amortizing the COPs over a 20-year period and the associated estimated $10 million annual payments, will have a significant adverse impact on the city’s fiscal condition and its ability to service any debt or other costs associated with the civic campus. If all this happens and the city cannot pursue its portion of the civic campus, this may force Weld County to reconsider its plans for its new courthouse.”
Solis dismissed that fear at a Friday forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Greeley-Weld County, noting that “all I know is that there’s growth, and when there’s growth, businesses start.”
In Wednesday’s statement, Greeley Demands Better urged the City Council “not to feel pressured to act hastily. The voters did not speak in a whisper — they spoke clearly and decisively. This is a moment for council to pause, reflect, and listen to the community that elected them. There is no emergency that requires rushed decisions. There is no deadline that justifies bypassing the deliberation this moment demands.
“To that end, Greeley Demands Better calls on the City of Greeley to immediately cease all discretionary spending related to the Cascadia and Catalyst projects. The voters have spoken. Continuing to spend taxpayer dollars on a deal the public has rejected — or allowing the developer to pressure accelerated spending to create ‘facts on the ground’ — would be a direct affront to the democratic process. Every dollar spent now deepens the hole and narrows the city’s options. Stop spending. Start listening.”
But will the results of the election stand?
Three Lind entities on Monday sued the City of Greeley in Weld District Court. The complaint alleges that the office of City Clerk Heidi Leatherwood and the Greeley City Council should not have allowed the petition-driven initiative because the council’s Sept. 16 approval of the PUD zoning was administrative, not legislative, and thus not subject to repeal by voters according to state law.
Any effect on Ballot Issue 1A’s validity hangs on the outcome of a pending case in the Colorado Supreme Court. In “Kavanaugh v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners Committee,” the justices are reviewing whether a citizen-led initiative can rezone a specific planned-unit development, following a 2024 state Court of Appeals ruling that deemed rezoning a legislative act subject to referendum. The case centers on whether such initiatives act as an improper “end run” around established, contract-based land-use codes.
Opponents of the appeals court’s ruling, including Telluride town clerk Tiffany Kavanaugh, argue that it undermines specific, long-term development contracts such as PUDs, while proponents argue that it is a valid, voter-driven process.
“As City Council considers the path forward,” the Greeley Demands Better statement said, “we believe they must confront a fundamental question that this campaign has laid bare: Does this City Council want to continue doing business with this developer at all?
“Consider what Greeley has experienced over the past year. A developer who sued the very citizens whose tax dollars he sought to spend. A developer who funded an army of lawyers to prevent voters from having a say — and then filed suit on the eve of the election to try to nullify the result. A developer whose project was brought to Greeley only after Larimer County rejected it because the terms violated the basic parameters of a public-private partnership. A developer who demanded 100% public financing while absorbing zero financial risk himself.”
If the council “opts to proceed with a project at all,” the statement said, “they should explore whether another developer — one with higher standards, genuine financial commitment and a real respect for this community — might be the right choice for Greeley’s future.”
Lind has not returned requests for comment.
