In a last-ditch effort to save their citizen-initiated ballot issue that would ask voters to repeal the $1.1 billion city-approved financing plan for the Catalyst entertainment district, the leaders of Greeley Deserves Better have asked Weld District Court to overturn a hearing officer’s Sunday ruling that their successful petition drive was invalid.
Their attorney, Suzanne Taheri of Englewood-based West Group Law + Policy, filed the motion Tuesday morning, asking the court for an expedited review because the deadline for placing an issue on the Nov. 4 municipal ballot is Friday.
After four Greeley residents protested the validity of the petitions, a hearing was held last week at the Greeley Municipal Courts building before city-appointed arbiter Karen Goldman. After hearing Taheri and the protesters’ attorney, Christopher Beall of Denver-based Recht Kornfeld PC make their cases, Goldman ruled Sunday that ordinances such as the one passed by the City Council in May to approve the financing plan for the west Greeley project were administrative in nature, not legislative, and thus cannot be repealed by voters.
According to a news release it issued late Tuesday, the Greeley Deserves Better campaign said it “has filed its appeal in District Court to overturn a city-appointed municipal hearing officer’s decision that would silence over 5,500 voters who want a say over Ordinance 2025-15. Ordinance 2025-15 authorizes mortgaging nearly all of the City of Greeley’s buildings to build an entertainment complex and minor league hockey ice arena, up to $115 million in debt. The plaintiffs are requesting that the District Court allow the petition to proceed to ballot.”
The ordinance approved May 6 by the City Council authorizes the financing plan for the entertainment district dubbed “Catalyst” on city-owned land near Weld County Road 17 and U.S. Highway 34 that would include an ice arena, hotel and water park and anchor Windsor-based developer Martin Lind’s proposed Cascadia mixed-use project. The plan includes $115 million worth of “certificates of participation” to lease several high-profile city facilities to Salt Lake City-based Zions Bancorporation as collateral to pay for the first phase of the entertainment district on city-owned land.
The news release said appealing the hearing officer’s decision in court is the procedure established in the Greeley City Code. The protesters also could have filed an appeal if the ruling had gone against them.
“The first question Greeley residents should ask their elected officials is, ‘Why doesn’t Greeley want to have this debate?’ Colorado law and Greeley’s charter is pretty clear: the City of Greeley cannot mortgage nearly all of its buildings to build an entertainment center that enriches one specific developer without a vote of the people,” Taheri said in a prepared statement.
“We are confident that the District Court will recognize this petition as the legislative action it clearly is,” she said. “The City of Greeley issued a statement of sufficiency and certified 5.538 signatures; the facts were uncontested; drawing of debt is legislative, not administrative; the ordinance itself is legislative and, thus, its repeal must be legislative – literally every element of this initiative is legislative in nature.
“Even worse, this decision has denied the petitioners their constitutional right to access the ballot, and it’s critical to stand up for what is right in this situation,” Taheri said. “Voters have a sacred right to challenge the city’s decisions.”
In a statement emailed to BizWest, Beall called the appeal “sour grapes.”
“An independent hearing officer upheld Colorado’s constitutional requirements in Greeley, but the petitioners have chosen to appeal based on not liking the outcome,” he said. “We anticipated this action, and we believe the district court will recognize the wisdom of the independent hearing office’s ruling and affirm her decision.
“From the beginning, we followed the city’s established, standard process, and an impartial and independent hearing officer validated that process,” Beall said. “If there were genuine concerns about the procedure, the plaintiffs should have raised them before the ruling.
“Instead, this appeal is simply a sour-grapes reaction to an outcome they don’t like. The district court will have every reason to agree with the independent findings from the hearing officer and affirm both the integrity of the process and the future opportunity that the Cascadia project represents for Greeley.”
In the 10-page appeal, Greeley Deserves Better cited two sections of the ordinance: section 3, which “contains a finding by the Greeley City Council that the actions of the Council related to the drawing of debt to advance the Catalyst project are in the best interest of the inhabitants of the City and “hereby authorizes and approves the same,” and section 4, which “specifies the property pool that may be added to the leased property.” The appeal contends that “sections 3 and 4 are the heart of the ordinance and are legislative, not administrative matters.
“Section 3 of the ordinance constituted a legislative act in providing the issuing authority necessary to finance the eligible costs of the Catalyst Project under the terms in the Pre Development Services and Financing Agreement Site Lease, Lease and Indenture.”
The appeal states that Colorado law “requires that financing agreements including leasehold agreements must be concluded by an ordinance duly enacted by the municipality. Only a legislative body may enact an ordinance.”
Reached Tuesday afternoon, Bricker said “I feel bad for the people of Greeley. This just goes on and on. I’m just sad. How many years have I been doing things in Greeley, and this is all for this one man, Martin Lind. What has he ever done for Greeley?”
Bricker said she planned to make a statement before the Greeley City Council at its regular meeting Tuesday night.
Greeley Deserves Better also has one other avenue to overturn the city’s financing plan for the Catalyst project: It still has a pending lawsuit against the city that contends that the plan is unconstitutional because it violates Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
Even if the repeal issue doesn’t make the ballot, Bricker said, “We’re going to have an election coming up, and we’re going to get some new people on council.”
This article was first published by BizWest, an independent news organization, and is published under a license agreement. © 2025 BizWest Media LLC.
Hence then, the article about catalyst financing foes appeal ruling that axed repeal petition was published today ( ) and is available on GreeleyTribune ( Saudi Arabia ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Catalyst financing foes appeal ruling that axed repeal petition )
Also on site :