Greeley residents press council for transparency and pause on Cascadia project ahead of special election

Dozens of residents used the council’s public-comment period to press elected officials for more information and to question the timing of a special election tied to the West Greeley/Catalyst (commonly called "Cascadia") project.

Tiffany Simmons told the council that the Hotel and Leisure Advisors report, which she said recommended the catalyst project was not feasible, arrived after the fall election and that a promised comprehensive financial report will not be released until after the special election. "If the studies supported the project, I would have to imagine that there would be a push to release them," Simmons said, adding that delaying the financials "undermines confidence" in the council.

Other speakers echoed concerns about transparency and potential financial risks. Evan Peterson called the project "a poor gamble with our tax money" and urged that funding be redirected to community programs. Bill Gillard, who said he supports the project in principle, criticized the council’s communication, asking for clear information on liabilities and prior investments.

Several residents asked the city to negotiate a binding community benefit agreement. Jennifer Andrews said she was "not anti progress," but requested commitments including a state-registered apprenticeship program, best-value contracting, and resident input on infrastructure, and announced a public meeting to gather resident priorities.

Rhonda Solis described recent litigation connected to the public debate and recited aspects of a court finding she said were adverse to a plaintiff involved in the campaign debate; the court language was presented as background to concerns about the project’s public process.

Council members and staff did not vote on the project during the meeting; several council members acknowledged the concerns and said they would provide more information where possible. City staff explained the delay of the comprehensive financial model as tied to refining the General Improvement District funding assumptions and unanswered questions about interchange funding.

The meeting produced no immediate policy change on the Cascadia proposal; public comments and calls for a community benefit agreement will likely shape the council’s next procedural steps and public outreach ahead of the special election.