Greeley mayoral and council candidates at a League of Women Voters forum expressed sharply different views on the Cascadia/Catalyst development, a multi‑component project that candidates and residents have debated for months.

Why it matters: The project — repeatedly described at the forum as having roughly a $1,000,000,000 price tag by one candidate — is framed by supporters as a major economic-development opportunity and by critics as a fiscal risk that has eroded public trust. Candidates said missing cost details and limited community buy‑in have made the proposal contentious.

Several candidates who opposed or sought to slow the project argued the city must do more to ensure benefits for local residents. Ward 2 Council candidate Deb Debuti, who said she voted against the project on council, told the forum: “I voted against the Cascadia project because I don't believe in the economics and how we're financing it. But my vote didn't prevail on city council.” She added that third‑party studies and “off ramps” remain and that unknowns include construction and labor costs and whether the market will support the proposed hotel, entertainment district and water park.

Mayoral candidate Tiffany Simmons said the city should “slow down” and negotiate a community benefits agreement so that jobs and wages go to Greeley residents and developers help cover downside risk if projections fall short. “At a $1,000,000,000 price tag … asking Greeley and allowing Greeley residents to make that decision was important,” Simmons said.

By contrast, Mayor pro tem and mayoral candidate Dale Hall described Catalyst as a city‑owned asset and said public engagement has been substantial. “Catalyst is a city owned property. We've already had over 15 public meetings about that over the last year and a half,” Hall said, and he encouraged residents to use the city’s speakupgreeley.com portal for information.

Candidate Amberlee Gregor framed the development as high risk for local taxpayers and urged contractual protections for the city and local businesses. At the forum she offered financial scenarios she said demonstrate downside exposure: “Best case scenario is that for the first 10 years, we will get up to $12,000,000 in revenue. But on the flip side, if we have a 5% underperformance, we will lose $96,000,000,” Gregor said, adding that she favors local‑vendor requirements and living‑wage protections.

Other candidates said the council must rebuild trust by increasing transparency and disseminating clear, timely information. At‑large candidate Ryan Roth said he would press staff to “over‑communicate” construction timelines, contract details and potential hiccups so residents are informed. Ward candidates and others urged the city to publish clear cost and financing data and to explain what protections — if any — are built into agreements with developers.

Context and next steps: Forum speakers repeatedly referenced the possibility of “off ramps” — contractual or study‑based ways the project could be scaled back or halted if third‑party analyses find it unviable. Several candidates said job and vendor guarantees should be written into contracts if the project proceeds.

The League and the city provided the forum as a voter‑information event; no formal vote occurred at the meeting. Candidates repeatedly urged residents to review materials posted on city channels and to weigh the tradeoffs between potential revenue and long‑term fiscal commitments.

Ending: The Cascadia/Catalyst project remains a central issue in the municipal campaign, with major differences among candidates on pace, oversight and protections for Greeley residents. Several speakers urged voters to demand clearer financing details and enforceable community benefits if the project moves forward.