Supporters of the proposed Catalyst entertainment district and Cascadia mixed-use developments in west Greeley cheered Monday’s unanimous Colorado Supreme Court ruling in a case involving the town of Telluride, hoping that it invalidates the citizen-initiated measure approved Feb. 24 by Greeley voters that repealed the planned-unit development zoning for the projects that was approved last September by the Greeley City Council.
However, an attorney for the groups supporting the repeal said she doesn’t believe the state high court’s decision applies to the Greeley election.
In a statement emailed to BizWest Tuesday afternoon, the City of Greeley stated that “we have just become aware of the ruling and are reviewing the decision and its implications. Because the ruling was just issued, we are not in a position to comment on the effect, if any, on the Feb. 24 election or on Council’s recent decision to pause while a new partner is identified.
“We’ll evaluate all information and possible paths forward in the coming days once we have an opportunity to fully evaluate the ruling,” the statement said.
Horizontal construction had already begun on the projects being spearheaded by Windsor-based developer Martin Lind’s Water Valley Co.
The Catalyst project 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 Lind’s privately owned Cascadia residential and commercial project, a master-planned residential and commercial community that would surround it.
At issue before the state Supreme Court was whether an action on a PUD by a local government is “legislative,” which could be reversed at the polls under Colorado law, or “administrative,” which is not subject to voter override. In an opinion written by Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter and approved by the other justices, they ruled that PUD agreements are not legislative in character and thus are not a proper subject of the initiative process.
“We believe the Supreme Court has ruled that this kind of ballot measure is illegal under the state Constitution,” said attorney Christopher Beall of Denver-based Recht Kornfeld PC, who represents Windsor-based developer Martin Lind and Greeley Forward, the citizens group that campaigned against the repeal.
“A PUD agreement is not a legislative action,” Beall said. “It is an administrative contractual matter and not subject to voter repeal. The holding strikes down an effort to repeal a PUD agreement in Telluride.”
In “Kavanaugh v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners Committee,” the justices reviewed whether a citizen-led initiative can rezone a specific PUD, after a 2024 state Court of Appeals ruling that deemed rezoning a legislative act subject to referendum. The case centered 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, argued that it undermines specific, long-term development contracts such as PUDs, while proponents argued that it is a valid, voter-driven process.
Attorney Suzanne Taheri of West Group Law and Policy, who represented the Cascadia and Catalyst opponents as well as the defendants in the Telluride case, disagreed that the ruling could overturn the Greeley election.
“I don’t think the Telluride case has any impact on Greeley,” she said. “The Telluride case was about a rezoning. In the Greeley case, there’s no contracts that are in place because it never was vested.
“It doesn’t mean the city won’t try to come up with some creative plan with the developers,” she said. “The city and the developer have been marching together all along, and the developer seems willing to litigate anything, whether it’s frivolous or not.”
On the eve of the election, entities controlled by Lind sued the City of Greeley in Weld District Court. The complaint alleged that the office of City Clerk Heidi Leatherwood and the Greeley City Council should not have allowed the petition-driven initiative to be placed before voters before the state Supreme Court resolved the Telluride question.
Monday’s high court ruling is “part of the puzzle,” Lind said, “but it’s frustrating because we’d be pouring concrete by now.
“Needless to say, to have the state Supreme Court make this unanimous decision makes an extremely strong statement that this should never have been allowed to be voted on because of the technicality of it,” Lind said.
“We’ll be excited to see the zoning put back in place properly, like we had been approved for,” he said, “but I know some legal proceedings will probably have to take place.
“Unfortunately, the election has significant impacts on the financial model that was proposed originally,” Lind said, “and it’s public knowledge that the underwriters are telling Greeley they need to find a partner now. What the underwriters want is minimal risk.
“But having the zoning back in place is one giant box to check off for no more risk.”
The City Council in May 2025 approved an ordinance outlining the financing plan for the 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.
Lind and the city had structured the plan, he said before the election, so that “100% of Greeley’s investment is paid back to Greeley when we issue the bonds in June. The liability of this project leaves Greeley and it goes to the bondholders in June.”
But the election scuttled that plan.
Deputy City Manager Allena Portis told the council in April that proceeds from the certificates would have been reimbursed through the general improvement district, water and sewer fees, and a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
That $115 million “would have been reduced to zero by 2027, and those buildings would no longer be used as collateral under this plan.”
Instead, she said, the city also has to deal with the rising estimated cost of the project, which has risen from more than $910.6 million in March 2025 to more than $959.4 million as of last February. She said the city is now $127 million short of being able to pay off the project’s total cost.
Bill Rigler, a spokesman for Greeley Forward, said in an email that, “We applaud the Colorado Supreme Court’s muscular ruling in support of local control and decision-making over economic development and housing issues. Today’s unanimous decision does not undo the severe damage caused to Greeley’s credit rating or the nine-figure debt obligations it was forced to absorb following the special election, but it does create a pathway to move Cascadia forward through a stipulation with the City of Greeley.
“All eyes now turn to Secretary of State Jena Griswold and the ongoing investigations of the semi-anonymous donors who bankrolled this unconstitutional effort and cheated Greeley out of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic impact.”
What will happen now?
“Lind filed a lawsuit to challenge that repeal. We now have to see what the city wants to do,” Beall said. “Can the City Council see the writing on the wall and understand that the repeal voters approve is not legally effective? The question now is whether the city will acknowledge the ruling or whether we’re going to have to ask the court to decide.
“We filed the lawsuit,” Beall said. “We haven’t done anything on it yet, but we’ll wait to see what the council’s decision is.”
Lind agreed.
“It’ll go through the lawyers, so I don’t have any educated hypothesis of where it goes.”
Catalyst, he said, “is the city’s project. It’s their decision.
“But Cascadia won’t be built if the Catalyst project isn’t built,” Lind said. “We can’t risk any more money until we know the anchor project is moving forward.
“We’re going to exhaust efforts to bring this project to Greeley and Weld County and whoever wants to see it land in Weld County.”
Taheri said she and her clients “haven’t discussed whether to intervene. It will depend on the city’s position. But we’re not going to let them secretly settle on something behind the backs of the taxpayers that doesn’t even apply here.”
In the meantime, she said, she’ll continue to represent those who opposed the project. “I’m still tied to those until all of this stuff is resolved,” she said.
Asked for comment on Taheri’s stance, Lind said, “It’s impressive that she still has an anonymous client paying her to try and stop the project.”
Taheri shot back, “Who says I’m being paid? I have never abandoned a grassroots client when they run out of money.”
She said the ruling in the Telluride case was “part of the attack on the judicial process. You can’t just ignore the people.”
