Greeley council reviews Cascadia West Greeley predevelopment deal, public sharply divided

City of Greeley staff presented a predevelopment services agreement and an interim financing plan for the proposed West Greeley “Cascadia” entertainment district at the April 15 Greeley City Council meeting, asking council to authorize predevelopment work and short-term borrowing while extensive public comment both praised and criticized the project.

The proposal under discussion would authorize a predevelopment services and financing agreement with the developer (identified in staff documents as Troco, Inc., doing business as the Water Valley Company) to advance design and permit work for a mixed-use entertainment district that city staff says could include an 8,600-seat arena, a three-sheet youth ice center, a roughly 350-room hotel and a roughly 100,000-square-foot indoor water park. Staff told council it is seeking authorization to issue interim certificates of participation (COPs) of up to $115 million to fund predevelopment costs and to adopt a reimbursement resolution that would allow project costs to be reimbursed later from permanent financing. Staff also described additional planned financings: development district bonds for site infrastructure (a general improvement district, or GID), and project revenue bonds backed by the arena/operator that staff and consultants described as the likely long-term takeout for the interim COPs.

Why it matters: The scale and proposed financing structure would obligate the city to underwrite early design, permitting and site work for a privately developed entertainment district and to use a mix of interim COPs, GID bonds and later project bonds backed by project revenues and other credit supports the presentation described. Council and the public treated the package as both an economic development opportunity and a potential long-term financial risk to taxpayers and city credit.

What staff proposed and what it would cost - Predevelopment scope: concept refinement, schematic and construction documents for the arena, ice center, hotel, water park and supporting public infrastructure; land control and coordination with the developer. - Interim financing: staff asked council to authorize a certificate-of-participation financing of up to $115,000,000 to fund predevelopment work and initial project costs; council would later consider a public hearing and second reading on that financing at its May 6 meeting. - Reimbursement resolution: staff recommended adopting a resolution to preserve the city’s ability to reimburse predevelopment expenditures from later bond proceeds. - Long-term financing anticipated: the presentation described financing the construction through a combination of project revenue bonds (to be repaid from facility revenues and other pledged receipts) and GID bonds to fund public infrastructure. City staff said the project team expects a permanent bond takeout in 2026 if milestones and market conditions are met.

Public comment: dozens of residents and business leaders spoke during the citizen input period, with organized testimony both opposing and supporting Cascadia. Supporters emphasized job creation, tourism, and expanded recreational opportunities — particularly youth hockey. Opponents focused on the financial risk to taxpayers, water use and potential harm to downtown businesses. - Eric Knutson, president of Northern Colorado Youth Hockey, said, “These 3 new sheets of ice represent hundreds of more kids being able to participate in youth hockey.” - Pam Shattuck, an attorney and former Greeley council member, said she was concerned about the use of a moral-obligation pledge and said moral-obligation backing raises special risks: “If you default on a moral obligation, that's almost worse than defaulting on a legal obligation,” she told council. - Mary Monahan, a longtime resident, urged caution and a public vote: “Don't send $40,000,000 out the door tonight. Money that if the third party analyst comes back with a report that says, this is a no go, we will never get back.”

Council and consultant remarks City staff and outside advisors outlined the structure and identified points of protection they said would limit the city's risk if the project moves forward: - Dalton Kelly (city outside counsel) summarized protections built into the predevelopment agreement and financing plan: the city would obtain control of the project land and the design deliverables paid for with COP proceeds; designs and independent cost estimates would be right-sized to bonding capacity at schematic and construction-document checkpoints; and an anchor tenant lease (the Colorado Eagles) is expected to underwrite a significant portion of project revenue bonds. - Jason Simmons, a municipal finance advisor, said long-run credit effects depend on performance: “The moral obligation itself will likely be on for the life of the bonds ... once the project is open and running and cash flowing, then it's more likely that the rating agencies won't take that into account.”

Points of contention and procedural details - Timeline and exhibits: council members pressed staff on a short city due-diligence window — the draft agreement provided a seven-calendar-day city due-diligence period tied to an imminent land closing — and on missing or placeholder exhibits (schedules and timelines) that staff said would be completed if council authorized the agreement. - Off-ramps and cost checks: staff said schematic-design and construction-document cost checkpoints would permit the city to value-engineer, phase, or stop the project if market or cost conditions made the plan infeasible. Council members asked for recurring status briefings and clearer milestones. - Anchor tenant and land control: the draft predevelopment agreement anticipates a long-term (30-year) lease with the Colorado Eagles as the arena’s anchor tenant and anticipates the city holding or controlling land and design deliverables as part of the protections outlined by counsel.

Votes and other formal actions on April 15 - Consent approvals: Council approved the consent agenda items 9 and 12 (motions by Councilor Butler, seconded by Councilor Olson) by roll call, 6–0 (one member briefly out of the room). Item 12 was an unrelated zoning ordinance introduction (Two Rivers Garden rezoning, 14.41 acres) scheduled for public hearing on May 6. - Items 10 and 11 were pulled from the consent agenda at staff request and will return at a later date; council did not act on those items. - The predevelopment services agreement, the COP financing ordinance and the reimbursement resolution were presented for council consideration and public discussion but no final council vote on those project items appears in the transcript excerpt. Staff said the ordinance and public hearings on financing will be scheduled for May 6.

What’s next City staff said they will return with completed exhibits, refined schedules and additional briefings; the city manager indicated staff would provide more regular updates to council as exhibits and cost estimates are refined. Council will consider ordinances tied to COP financing and supplemental appropriations at a May 6 meeting. If council moves forward later, staff said the anticipated long-term takeout finance and GID financing are tentatively targeted for 2026, subject to meeting market and development milestones.

Context City staff said the city and Water Valley Company executed a memorandum of understanding in August 2024 and that the predevelopment agreement is intended to formalize terms for design, financing options and milestones. Speakers repeatedly compared the proposal to other publicly backed sports/entertainment projects and raised FirstBank Center (Broomfield) and Larimer County decisions as cautionary precedents.

Ending Council members asked staff for a monthly update on exhibits, timelines and cost estimates prior to any final financing vote. The public record shows strong, sustained engagement on both sides of the issue; staff and independent advisors described a range of protections and checkpoints but acknowledged material market, labor and tariff risks that must be managed before any permanent financing is issued.