Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greeley advisory panel hears Catalyst project overview and warned financing risks
Summary
City staff briefed the West Greeley advisory committee on the Catalyst plan—an arena, water park, hotel and plaza—and the complex financing behind it, including COPs, a GID and a 501(c)(3) conduit borrower; staff said a pause in bonding now leaves the city facing a multi‑million dollar refinancing obligation to cover predevelopment costs.
GREELEY — City staff told a newly convened advisory committee that the West Greeley Catalyst proposal—centered on an arena and youth‑hockey center, a resort hotel, a water park and a central plaza—was conceived to reduce retail leakage, diversify housing and spur broader development west of town.
"Catalyst eventually became the destination that addressed tourism, entertainment, retail and dining," John Hall, a city project manager, said while tracing the project’s origins in developer and city conversations. Hall said the concept was meant to act as “a magnet around which housing would develop.”
Why it matters: staff and committee members spent most of the meeting on financing mechanics and the fiscal exposure created by a recent pause in the project’s debt plan. Alina Portis, deputy city manager and chief financial officer, said the city used certificates of participation (COPs) to fund predevelopment work that was originally expected to be reimbursed by a nonprofit conduit borrower and by assessments and revenues from a General Improvement District (GID) and water/sewer enterprise funds.
Portis said the original predevelopment budget was about $115,000,000 and that, after the pause and changes in partners’ ability to issue bonds, the city is now looking at refinancing roughly $72,000,000 (estimates in meeting discussion ranged between about $72 million and $92 million depending on reimbursements) to cover predevelopment expenditures that cannot yet be repaid.
"We would have to refinance $72,000,000," Portis said, describing the city’s near‑term obligation if the 501(c)(3) conduit borrower is not able to issue bonds in the expected timeframe.
How the project was structured: staff described a multi‑part financing plan. A nonprofit conduit (identified in the meeting materials as Provident, LLC) would issue bonds and own the entertainment district for a set period (staff discussed a 40‑year ownership period), a GID would issue debt and levy assessments to pay for public infrastructure, and the water/sewer enterprise fund would pay its share of utility costs with the expectation of later reimbursement by assessments or GID proceeds. City facilities were used as collateral for the COPs while the long‑term debt was to be put in place.
Public concerns and committee questions: members and members of the public pressed staff for clarity on who benefits from property taxes, which jurisdictions collect revenue, and what happens if the city stops the project. John Hall and Portis confirmed much of the residential buildout would lie inside the Windsor School District—meaning school levy revenues tied to new development would go to that district rather than to the city’s general fund. At least one public commenter, Bill Gillard, warned about a pending legal challenge and said the city had already borrowed money related to the project.
Committee members asked for transparent, chronological access to the studies and pro formas used in the budgeting and feasibility work. Staff committed to assembling a single repository, with a table of contents and folders grouped by topic (finance, studies, plans), and to present detailed finance materials at a later session.
What remains unresolved: who ultimately bears excess project shortfalls if revenues fall short, and how much of the predevelopment costs are recoverable vs. sunk. Portis said many assumptions undergird the project’s pro formas and that the pause changed the original plan that would have shifted predevelopment repayment to the conduit borrower and GID bond proceeds.
The meeting wrapped with committee members asking for a plain‑language briefing on the city’s moral obligation, the nonprofit conduit arrangement and the likely long‑term obligations. Staff said audits and the city’s budget materials would be made available and reminded attendees of the next meeting date.
The advisory panel is scheduled to meet again; staff said materials will be posted and that the group will run deeper into financing scenarios at the next session.
