Town Council - Regular Meeting

Order the town council meeting on June 23rd, 2026. Will you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty

Okay, will the town clerk please take roll?

Mayor Pro Tem Bell? Here. Councilmember Fair? Present. Councilmember Mortallaro?

Here.

Councilmember O'Connor?

Present.

Councilmember Pessimarelli? Present. Councilmember Hobart? Here. And Mayor Moore?

Here.

Mayor, you have a quorum.

All right, thank you. All right, do we have a motion to approve the agenda tonight? So moved. Second. A motion and second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. Motion carries. We have an agenda. We've got a number of items on the consent agenda, so bear with me as I read through these. The first item is 2026-408, approval of the May 26, 2026 Town Council Meeting Minutes. Item 2026-405, Proclamation of Parks and Recreation Month, sponsored by Mayor Potem Bell and Councilmember O'Connor. Item number 2026223, a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Erie approving the agreement for services with Western Plains Construction for asphalt maintenance services. Item 2026364, a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Erie approving the first amendment to the construction contract with Goodland Construction Incorporated for the downtown infrastructure improvements. item 2026 367 an ordinance of the town council the town area mending sections 912 and 914 of chapter 1 title 9 of the area municipal code to correct and update internal cross references item 2026 369 a resolution of the town council of town area approving an amendment to construction contract with geo solutions for the erie lake dan dam seepage rehabilitation item 2026 374 a resolution of the town council of town erie approving a fourth amendment to con to the construction contract with hdr engineering incorporated for the erie lake dam seepage rehabilitation investigation analysis and design Item 2026.378, a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Erie approving a First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with CTL Thompson for the Engineering Services for Erie Town Center. And last on the consent agenda tonight is item 2026.389, a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Erie approving a First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Kimberly Horne for the On-Call Multimodal Transportation and Traffic Planning Contract. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Motion and second. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. All right, we'll go into public comment. And I know there is a lot of public comment here tonight. Because so many people have signed up, we're reducing the time to two minutes per person. Please remember that public comment is not an interactive question and answer forum, but rather a time for you to state your comments on a particular item or issue. Public comment provides the opportunity to discuss items that are not public hearings. Please sign up using the kiosks in the lobby. If you have a handout, please give it to the town clerk. They will distribute it to council and include it in the meeting record. When called upon, please state your full name and location for the record. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person. Excuse me, limited to two minutes per person. You'll be given a 20-second warning when your two minutes are almost up. At the two-minute mark, you'll be asked to wrap up your final sentence. I think all of you were handed a card tonight just to set expectations. If you didn't get a card, they're out there, but I'm going to read it right now. We know that this is a contentious topic, and so it's important that we all respect each other and allow opinions to be stated here tonight. So to ensure everyone feels welcome to share their comments, it's imperative that we respect the process and do not disrupt the proceedings with disruptive behavior.

We ask that you refrain from cheering, clapping, booing, or loudly talking from the audience.

Overly disruptive behavior which interferes with the meeting will not be tolerated. Those disrupting the meeting will be asked to stop their disruptive behavior. Refusal to comply may result in being removed from the council chambers. And so we're just asking everybody to be respectful of everybody's views that are in the room tonight. OK, with that, I'll look to our town clerk to see who has signed up tonight.

So our first speaker is Blue Spikes, followed by Don Colosino and Nita Chettier.

So if you're being called on deck, if you can just maybe line up over here, that'll help us keep it moving. We also know there are some people in the overflow area, so this gives them a time to make their way here to the chambers.

Welcome. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Blue Spikes. I've lived in Erie with my family since 2013. During that time, most of Erie's oil and gas reserves have been developed through horizontal drilling, and we've lived here through most of that. I have a PhD in geology and I own a geological consulting company here at Erie. Mineral Evaluations is one of the services that I provide. While I have no involvement in this transaction, I have done my own kind of quick evaluation. This is something I do on a regular basis, so I thought I should Take a look since it's in my own backyard, and I can see that this agreement is beneficial to the town. Erie gains surface acreage, upfront cash, royalty revenues, and the plugging of 39 wells, 17 of those prematurely. Selling mineral rights isn't always a good idea, but in this case it does make sense because the surrounding minerals are about to be depleted and the city's acreage position is too small and disjointed to retain any real value once that occurs. That is a real consideration. The 3% royalty rate is higher than i normally see given the city's acreage position the estimated 25 million dollars in revenues is conservative i think i do think it's going to be higher based on the performance of other wells in the area most of the money will be made in the first two years of production so we won't have to wait long to see most of this revenue i understand people are leery of the consulting contract and i've heard a lot about that But I can say otherwise, this is a good deal. Given the reality that Draco is going to happen, my position is simple. If we have to experience the impact, then our community should also receive the benefits. And I think a yes is the only way to do that. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Next is Don Colosino, followed by Nita Chedier and Heather Alden.

My name is Don Colosino. I'm a 20-year Erie resident. Based on the defeated council members' comments at last week's meeting, Council Member Bell's comments to the press, and Matthew Owen's social media posts, it appears that you're either missing the point of our comments or deliberately shifting the topic. I want to be very, very clear. My objection to this mineral rights contract is not about impeding the Draco Pad project. We all understand that's a done deal. Like most of the commenters at last week's meeting, my objection is about the corruption of the town's process for engaging and managing contractors. Without even looking for a mineral rights expert, you hired a former executive of an oil and gas company who reached out to Mayor Moore asking to advise you on what his former employer wants to buy from you. By itself, that calls your judgment into question. The fact that you based that decision on conversations that you held behind closed doors, out of public view, refused to disclose any of those conversations to Erie residents, including the topics that are not protected by the Colorado Open Records Act, and instructed the consultant to skip the competitive bids required in the contract, gives me the impression that you have something to hide. Your secrecy is fueling speculation about your motivations. Maintaining that secrecy despite the objections of all these residents indicates that what would be revealed by disclosing those discussions must be worse than what we already suspect. That's not a small issue. It goes to the heart of the trust your constituents put in you. It's not enough to say you'll investigate your violation of the town's policy and promise not to do it again. Both contracts... The contract to hire Alameda Minerals and the mineral rights sale contract should be null and void, period. Once again, I ask that you do not approve the mineral rights sale contract until you complete a competitive bidding process to determine the market value of our mineral rights and get a second opinion on the entire process from another minerals valuation expert chosen through open public discussion. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Next, we have Nita Chettier, followed by Heather Alden and Krista Larraza.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Neeta Chattiar, and I live in Flatiron Meadows, one of the communities that would be directly drilled under. I'm asking you to vote no on the sale of Town's Minerals Right. My concern is simple. There are still too many unanswered questions. Colorado law now prevents forced pooling of municipal mineral rights, and the town's own website states that SM Energy may need to redesign the project, drill around the minerals, or abandon access to some of them. If this is true, then Erie still has leverage. If this is no longer true, what has changed? The public continues to hear different answers about what SM Energy can or cannot do. Can anyone provide definite documentation showing exactly what rights and options remain available to SM Energy if Erie keeps its mineral rights? This proposal failed last week. As a resident, I would like to know what new information has emerged since June 16 that justifies bringing this matter back before council. If there is new information, please share it publicly. If there is not, why should the outcome be different this time? I'm also concerned about the consultant's compensation structure. According to publicly available information, Alameda's compensation is contingent on the transaction being completed. and no commission is paid if no deal occurs. I'm not alleging wrongdoing. However, when compensation is dependent on a successful transaction, residents should expect a higher level of transparency and scrutiny. And I keep returning to one question that has never been adequately answered. If these mineral rights have little effect on Draco, why SM Energy keeps pursuing them so aggressively? The existence of negotiation and us gathering here again for a vote suggest these rights have value. Until the facts are clear, the process is fully transparent, and residents receive direct answers to questions raised here today and those submitted via email. I respectfully ask you to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'm showing Heather Alden as our next speaker, but I believe she's pulled her time with Christa LaRosa. Is that right? Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Larissa Christa. I'm a resident here in Erie, a mother, a wife, a physicist, a CU professor. I have lived in Erie for 11 years. I had my house built here. I stood on the bare ground before all the houses were built in our neighborhood. My child has been at Meadowlark since kindergarten. I watched with joy and excitement as our town took off, a new school, new restaurants, so many new businesses. Our property values have doubled in the past decade. is that if not a clear sign that Erie is thriving and it is attractive in its own right. Young professional families are moving to Erie. We heard a young man last week who said he moved here because Erie was a beautiful place to raise a family. He also said that he will move and not raise his children here if the deal goes through. I have never thought I would consider moving. I love this place, but I do now. And if you are not concerned about the health impacts of oil and gas activities in our neighborhoods, surely at least you care about your property values. We are told we should accept this deal because drilling will happen anyway. That framing was written by a man whose fee is contingent on this deal closing. The town's own presentation to this council on June 2nd stated that unleased mineral rights must be avoided by the operator. Selling those rights permanently surrenders the strongest legal tool this town has to protect its own residents. And let's talk about what we're being offered. The town's own officials project the real value at approximately 17 million, this is from a record, from a 2% revenue share over 20 years. We are being asked to permanently surrender our strongest legal protection for less than 5% of one year's town budget. Meanwhile, SM Energy's profit at 98% comes to $850 million. What is that if not shameless profiteering? They are offering to plug 17 wells, as a benefit? That is basic safety obligation, not a gift. The mineral rights sale failed last Tuesday. Why was this vote resurrected in such a hurry? We are informed on a Saturday, one business day before the revote. Last week, we heard all these people speak up against this deal. Hundreds of residents are disgruntled. We had about the sale of the mineral rights and drilling under our homes, under our school. Letters have been signed. The attorney general has been involved. The meeting attracted enough people to fill the chamber that week and now too. What else do you need to see that we do not want this deal? Last week, Mr. O'Connor heard our arguments and listened to us, and the sale failed on a three to three vote. After that vote, the Alameda CEO publicly lobbied for this revote. Alameda's fee, up to 4.5 million, is contingent on this deal closing. Draw your own conclusions why we're here today. But let us give grace to people, yes? Assume that we are here to make it loud and crystal clear that we do not want this deal. Let us see at least four no votes today. Let's see who listens to the residents and will put our community's health and well-being ahead of money. Our town is thriving. We do not need this deal. I am here to ask you, kindly, to do the right thing. Listen to us, please, and vote no. Thank you so much.

All right, thank you.

Next is Carol Campbell, followed by Eric Lillard and Sarah Baird-Amadillo.

My name is Carol Campbell. I'm a resident of Erie residing in Morgan Hill. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I must say I'm very disappointed in having to comment on this contract and agreement and so soon. I remain concerned about the council and contract processes followed, conflicts of interest, information provided and not provided, communications and social media, ethics, possible violations of council conversation rules within and outside of the council. The only thing that I'm aware of that has changed since the last meeting is a LinkedIn post from the town's consultant, which looked like a lobbying effort and a call for oil and gas supporters to rise up and contact town council members. There are some statements on social media that there are now more comments in favor of this deal than not. If you truly cared about what the town thought, you would take this important decision to a vote. Just because SM Energy is in a rush doesn't mean we have to be. I do not know if this is the best deal that the town could get or if it is the right deal for Erie. I wonder how much actual value now and in the future we will receive once the consultant takes his cut. I know that we are in non-attainment for ozone, which is exacerbated by oil and gas development, and that I have not been able to go outside to recreate without feeling ill due to many bad air quality days this summer, including today. This development will not help our ozone problem. I know that well closings proposed have a start date, but do not have an end date for remediation of this agreement. The oil and gas industry is famous for not providing enough financial assurance for well closures, going bankrupt, and never closing wells, which exacerbate our air quality issues. I recommend providing more analysis on options, getting additional bids on the town's mineral rights in a more transparent process. We should not be held hostage to SM Energy's timeline. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Eric Lillard, who has pulled with Diane Lillard. And then we have Sarah Baird-Amedeo and Christine Hackett-Eisenberg.

Good evening. My name is Eric Lillard, and I live in Flatiron Meadows subdivision in District 1 here in Erie. I recently retired in 2025 after serving as Senior Director of Software Engineering at Discover Financial Services. I share that background because much of my professional career is involved working with structured policies, procedures, and risk management. That experience shapes how I am viewing the concerns before us tonight. This council is divided, and the public has seen finger-pointing and accusations that has damaged public trust. Mayor Pro Tem Bell, Mayor Moore, as two of the senior-most leaders on this council, your leadership is critical right now. This council will not return to a functional state if members are spoken to as them or they. This is not effective leadership. Mayor Pro Tem Bell, just last week, you stated that three council members chose a path of obstruction, did not cooperate, and did not raise concerns until late in the process. For the three council members Mayor Pro Tem Bell referenced, Anil, Dan, and Emily, you have been characterized as not voicing your concerns until late in the process and seeking to sabotage the deal. Those are strong accusations. I welcome your response in your commentary after the public speaks. This is not intended to be a he said, she said moment. It goes to the heart of what many residents here are concerned about tonight, a lack of trust and transparency throughout this process. And borrowing a line from Tom Hanks in the movie Apollo 13, Erie, we have a problem. Mayor Moore, you have spoken several times about your responsibility to be fiscally and fiduciary responsible. I respect that responsibility. There is another responsibility of equal importance, and that is the responsibility to follow the Town of Erie's procurement policies and procedures. Under your leadership, the deal is ignoring the key component of the procurement policy, and that is a significant risk. You have openly acknowledged this deal did not follow the town's procurement procedures, yet you continue to push the deal forward at breakneck pace and put the town at obvious risk. Procurement policies exist for a reason. They are designed to protect the town, protect taxpayers, and prevent even the appearance of favoritism, inside dealing, or conflicts of interest. These are genuine concerns given the nature of how the contract with Alameda Mineral Advisors came to be. If the town moves forward not following its policy, it creates public suspicion and risk. It also demonstrates to the public, auditors, regulators, attorneys, and the Attorney General that your aspirations to get this deal approved is more important than preventing legal and financial risk to the town you were elected to serve. I am not saying anyone acted improperly, but I am saying that by ignoring this breach of policy, you are creating a potential legal mess for the town of Erie. We don't need that. Rather than pressing forward under a cloud of concern, the responsible course is to pause, correct the process- and ensure the town is adhering to its own policies. Mayor Moore, at last week's meeting, you described this issue as not following best practices. Respectfully, this is not proper framing. This is not a best practice issue. This is a policies and procedures issue. Those are very different things with very different consequences. In closing, to the seven of you voting tonight, Doing the right thing is often a difficult thing to do, but it is still the right thing to do. Do not put the town of Erie at legal and financial risk by moving this deal forward knowing a critical procurement process was not followed. This is negligence, and with negligence comes consequences. Thank you.

Sarah Baird-Amedeo, Christine Hackett-Eisenberg, and Mary Ann Bolkovitz. Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Dr. Sarah Baird Amodio, and I live in Countryfields, Country Meadows. I am directly downwind from the leak that occurred at Well 124. I have Parkinson's, and I have EGPA vasculitis, which have been shown to have a high correlation with exposure to environmental toxins. A funny thing happened yesterday, happened after Councilman O'Connor bravely cast his vote in the last meeting. Social media lit up with the same verbatim talking points and AI generated pseudo analysis against his decision. It's a done deal. Might as well get the revenue. They're going to drill anyway. And I thought about it. Where had I heard those talking points before? This all led me to rewatch the video from December 16th's special meeting, specifically the part about item 25659 and the professional service agreement with Alameda Mineral Advisors, because that's where the talking points really started to surface. At the meeting, Dr. Frank explained the importance of competitive bids, which we're all hearing about here tonight. But he also elaborated upon the questioning coming from Councilwoman Behr when she brought up the new state law as it relates to the sale or sale of lease or sales of offers. Senate Bill 24185. Dr. Frank did his best to explain. It's full of jargon. La la la la la. Now, my career as an educator is to break down concepts into more comprehensible bites. So let's break that down again, shall we? The trickiest word there is force pooling. Essentially what this means is that oil and gas companies cannot force various bits of land into a single drilling unit. In essence, it protects, and the key word here is protects, the municipal owners of that land from being forced into doing something they don't want to do. If municipal owners of this part of land do not want to be drilled, they do not have to be forced to. They can keep the oil and gas company from drilling on their land. They have agency. Their hands are not tied like they were in the past before this law. So looking at our situation here, Erie owns certain unleased parcels of land and have mineral rights. Draco wants to drill through them and force pool them into one unit, just like they did before this law was passed. They can't do that now, unless Erie allows them. The drilling under our neighborhoods is not assumed to be a done deal. Contrary to your words, Mayor Moore, Erie gets to choose. Our citizens get to choose. Which leads me now to this choice and the very ethical and financial issues related to it.

We need to wrap up, last sentence please, just to give everybody else, it's a two minute time frame.

Have I heard my 20 seconds? Yes. Okay, I apologize. So I do want to congratulate Mayor Behr for her efforts and for her comments in that. Cool. Thank you. But I do want to also direct this directly to you, Mayor Moore, that we might as well get something out of it. We will get something out of it if we vote no. We will get our reputation as a community that holds its values and its residents' health and safety in high priority. We will get the reputation as a community that holds its property values for generations to come.

All right, I need you to wrap up. We have a lot of people to speak tonight. I need to stick to the rules out of equity for everybody here. Yes. Thank you. Please vote no. Okay.

Next is Christine Hackett-Eisenberg, who is pooling with Rob Eisenberg. Then we have Marianne Bolkovets and Bron Mincher.

Hello. My name is Christine Hackett-Eisenberg, and I cede my time to Rob Eisenberg. Okay.

Thanks to my wife for ceding her time to me. All right. That might be a first.

OK. And Rob, if you just pull the mic close to you.

This one? Yep, that one. OK, hello. My name's Rob Eisenberg. I've lived in District 1 since 2020. And here's my take on the reality of the vote. Voting no to selling the town's mineral rights will not stop the drilling under our homes and schools. I think you know this. A no vote does not stop the drilling. So let's take a look at what a yes vote gets us. Let's start with what the residents want. Last year, 3,571 residents responded to the Erie Community Survey, writing out their top two or three priorities for the town council. I'll tie those priorities directly to the agreement to sell our mineral rights in a moment. But first, let's look at what the agreement secures for us. Most importantly, it secures the health and safety of the residents. This is paramount importance. A yes vote closes 17 additional oil and gas wells right here in Erie. A yes vote provides for our own on-site inspection of the Draco pad wellhead. Also important, the agreement secures a cash payout of $25 million, which is made up of a $4.5 million upfront payment, plus $24 million in projected revenue, less a 7.5% consultant fee. add to that the land transfer is projected to be to generate between 50 and 200 million in sales tax revenues for new development that's an average of 125 million when you combine the 25 million dollar cash payout with 125 million dollars in tax revenue you get 150 million dollars to erie so now let's look at those survey answers and see exactly how money how the money can fund our top priorities let's review the data 1,338 survey responses said our top issue is road maintenance, infrastructure, and traffic. $150 million provides the serious capital needed to invest in our roads and infrastructure. 1,256 survey responses said residents want better shopping and dining. The land transfer directly drives this development. 706 survey responses said residents want more recreation fields and courts, a new pool, and expanded rec centers. $150 million can make those facilities a reality. 690 revenue responses said residents want more bike trail connections, crosswalk safety, and public transit. $150 million will fund a safer, more connected town. 390 survey responses said residents are worried about water costs and water availability, trees, and xeriscaping. $150 million gives us the flexibility to invest in environmental resilience. 207 survey responses said residents want affordable housing. $150 million provide the resources necessary to support housing initiatives. Choice is clear. Town Council received 3,571 resident responses to last year's survey, indicating what the residents wants, and they gave the Town Council a clear roadmap. Now we have a realistic way to pay for it. Listen to the vote, residents, and vote yes to the amendment, please.

Thank you. All right. Thank you.

So next we have Marianne Balkovets. Hello.

My name is Marianne Balkovets, and I'm a resident in Coal Creek neighborhood.

I spoke last week, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak again. I will tell you that I don't think that I was fully informed when I spoke last week, and I've done my homework. And I would say that my opinion has crystallized and hasn't changed. I talked with my sister, who always gives me good counsel and asks excellent questions and has good insight. I also spoke with my brother, who's a petroleum engineer. And my brother really poured through everything that I sent him and helped me to understand what I could understand about this process. And I guess the three things that are most important to me this evening, the first is that we talk to each other with respect. And I appreciated what we got when we walked in tonight. No matter what, the town of Erie will win some things and lose some things, no matter which decision is made. There will be some things that will be good and some things that won't. I think it's disingenuous to claim anything else. And I referenced Mike Mansfield, who was a senator when I was a kid growing up in Montana. He said, in politics, you can question a person's judgment but not their motivation. I think that's really sincerely very important that we don't batter each other with words that just aren't helpful. The second thing that I'm asking for is that there be more information about what the benefits of a no vote would be. We've heard a lot about what the benefits of a yes vote would be, but there are benefits for a no vote. And I think that the town residents deserve to hear that. and that we should have the opportunity as a town to vote. Barring that, if you don't agree with that, then I would ask that you vote no. I saw the cartoon in LinkedIn. from the consultant and I found it very distressing. You know, we don't have to demean each other. We don't have to pretend like the people who think differently than we do are just idiots. That's not the case. We all have our own opinions. There's reasons for those opinions. I know that you all are tasked with a very difficult decision and this is not an easy one. But I think that, again, we need to be respectful with each other I saw in some of the comments that there were people who felt like they were being told to keep their mouths shut if they wanted a yes vote, and that they were being intimidated. I hope that's not true. I don't know anything about that. But again, we need to be being respectful for each other. And so I would end by asking that you put a vote forward to the town and that if you can't do that, that you vote no. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Next, we have Bron Mincher, who is online. Mr. Mincher, if you can hear me, you can go ahead and unmute and speak.

Can you hear me? Hello?

Can you hear me? Yep, we can hear you.

Great. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Town Council. My name is Braun Mincher. My family and I are 10-year Erie residents. I will admit that I did not follow this issue closely before last week's vote. However, after seeing the level of public concern and confusion, I decided I needed to educate myself. I reviewed as many public and sourceable materials as I could find. I also used the power of AI to help analyze that information. After debating whether to share my analysis publicly, I decided it might help other residents who, like me, were trying to understand the facts rather than just social media posts. It is available in the comment packet and online with over 400 views. I want to be clear. I did not set out to justify a predetermined conclusion. I tried to separate verifiable facts from uncertainty, speculation, and opinions. Reasonable people can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Having done that review, I now support a yes vote. The reason is straightforward. Draco and all 26 wells are happening. So the real question is not whether we like Draco. I do not. The real question is whether Erie is better off keeping a limited and uncertain mineral rights position or exchanging that uncertainty for valuable surface real estate, negotiated benefits, and a more defined outcome. This deal is not perfect. There are valid concerns, issues, and details the town should explain more clearly during the two-month due diligence window, but I have not seen a factual source-based case showing that rejecting this agreement leaves Erie in a better position.

20 seconds.

Thank you for voting yes. All right. Thank you.

Next is Joe Saigon, then Meredith Knode, and Steve Ernst.

Hi, I'm Joe Saigon. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I do want to start out with... Something that struck me today. Sorry, I get emotional when I talk. It's okay. Deep breath. From my daughter, from her school. And that was learn the truth, do the good, love the beautiful. And that's what I'm asking you guys to do today. I did send in a message and I just wanted to share it with everybody because I felt like, you know, I have some friends that are afraid to speak up and have been threatened and things have changed. been sent to them that are inappropriate. Um, but that, that just struck me today that let's just respect each other. We can have differences of opinions, respect each other. Okay. So I'm just going to read the email I sent so that it is public. Um, I'm writing to ask you to reconsider the Draco well and mineral rights proposal. While I did not initially follow this issue closely, I have spent significant time researching the situation since the recent vote in order to understand the community's concerns and details of the deal. After consulting with trusted individuals knowledgeable in the oil and gas industry who have absolutely no stake in this proposal, I have come to believe that this agreement is in the best interest of Erie. While I understand the opposition, I'm concerned that much of the resistance stems from misinformation regarding the confidential nature of the negotiations. As a business executive, I recognize that certain information cannot always be shared immediately. And I find that the unauthorized leaking of the privilege details to be absolutely unacceptable. Based on my understanding of the facts, Public safety, capping the wells, mineral viability. We kind of lose the value of our minerals if we don't do this. It's pretty much surrounded by what Draco is going to do. And the economic benefit. It provides a significant monetary benefit to an area that is expensive to live in due to taxes. I hope that this helps with some of that. You know, the business I'm associated with pays in one month in property tax what our business in Wyoming pays in one year. So just think of small business when you do this as well. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

We have Meredith Canode, Steve Ernst, and then Bob Broadus.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm asking you to let the June 16th no vote stand. My concern comes down to three things, leverage, trust, and the future of this community. We all are aware that this vote does not stop the drilling. Most residents, as has been said today already, understand that. The question is not whether the drilling stops or whether it happens. It's who holds the leverage when it does. If Erie retains its mineral rights, the town retains bargaining power, and we retain leverage, we can get oversight. We're being asked to trade permanent public asset for one-time payment, uncertain promises, projections, and oversight that we can't enforce. Oversight is not the same thing as leverage. Keeping the minerals preserves options. Selling removes them permanently. Second, trust. Oil and gas companies are accountable to shareholders. The town of Erie, when running appropriately, is accountable to the townspeople. We've seen companies change structures, move on, leaving long-term environmental and health impacts behind. That is not fiction. That is history, and it matters. At the June 16th meeting, residents were clearly opposed, both online, as stated by council members, and in person, hence the no vote. We thought it was settled. Since then, as we all are aware, the Lincoln Post urging pressure on council to reverse the vote and rhetoric that loudly ridiculed the people of Erie for their opinions in a public forum made me question the professionalism, dignity, diplomacy, and judgment of the person that the town hired. So I want to ask this clearly. When the Lincoln Post was posted, who was it serving? When outside, when people of Erie speak, who is it serving? The big question for you today, bottom line is, who is being served when Erie speaks clearly, but the outcome is put back on the table? Thank you.

Thank you.

Steve Ernst, Bob Broadus, and Neha Pesamorelli.

My name is Steve Ernst. I'm a resident of and a homeowner in the town of Erie. I strongly encourage the town council to not sell Erie's mineral rights. Drake Oak should never have been approved Draco's health impacts have the potential to last decades, not weeks, months, or years. But now that it has been approved, we need to take every opportunity we can to minimize the impacts of Draco. Draco not selling Erie's mineral rights is one of the last and best means to minimize that impact. I am also very concerned about the facts. One of the facts that does not seem to be communicated well to the community is that any mineral areas west of the mineral rights owned by this count will be very difficult to access through the drilling. It'll be either impossible or it'll be very much more costly. So that should have been communicated more clearly to the residents of this community. Erie does not need the funds gained from Draco Mineral Rights, even with looming issues like increased costs for town water and also the loss of potential tax revenue due to slower than expected growth. There are other ways to obtain funds required by the town of Erie. Voting to secure short-term funding and ignore a long-term health threat is not leadership. Rather, it is the antithesis of leadership. A supermajority of Erie residents that have provided public comment have asked you to not sell mineral rights. You have our support to not seek that short-term revenue such that we can have longer-term gains in health and safety. In closing, Erie is literally the dumping ground for the counties in the area by allowing two dumps to be present within the boundaries of the town of Erie. And those dumps and related traffic have long-term negative impacts on Erie. Therefore, no one can accuse the town of Erie of NIMBYism. we have more than given to other communities in the region. Again, please, please vote against selling Erie's mineral rights to the utterly disreputable companies involved in Draco. Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Bob Broaddus, Neha Passamarelli, and Tim Larson.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and councillors. My name is Bob Broadus. I live in Flatiron Meadows. As many of you know, I wear several hats in the community. I want to make it clear I'm talking by myself, as myself, as a role of town resident. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have submitted my candidate affidavit to run for a seat for the town council. I'm not going to discuss the merits of the ordinance being deliberated tonight, as I feel it's a moot point. There are so many questions surrounding the legality of the ordinance itself the mayor and mayor pro tem both publicly stated at the last council meeting the town process was not followed during the development of the ordinance and colorado law states that and i quote in colorado a municipal ordinance enacted through a process that violates the municipality's home rule charter is generally considered invalid and void Under the Colorado Constitution, Article 20, home rule cities, in our case towns, have supreme authority over local matters, but local laws must comply with the procedural and substantive limits explicitly outlined in the city, again, our case town's charter. This in and of itself should give the town council reason to pause these deliberations until the process is restarted and follows stated rules and regulations. However, there's more. It has also been publicly disclosed that the Colorado Attorney General's office has started a process into the issues of whether or not our town process is followed. It seems appropriate to let that run its course before proceeding further. With all of these concerns, it would be greatly appreciated if the town could disclose the opinion of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency. SIRSA states they, quote, have the largest concentration of liability-related experience and knowledge directly applicable to Colorado municipalities. It seems prudent to request and follow their advice. Next, as mentioned before, the potential cost to the town if you pass the ordinance is later overturned. Candidly, I find it unlikely that this, what happens tonight, is going to be the final decision. I think there's enough stuff going on behind the scenes that will do it. At least my final point, what is the rush for doing this now? I believe we can all agree there's a large divide amongst the residents as to whether it's a good or bad agreement, and I don't believe anybody here can accurately state which opinion is in the majority. So my suggestion is to put this in the vote in November and let the majority decide. Isn't that what democracy is all about? Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you.

Ni hao, Pastor Morelli, Tim Larson, and then Julie Friday.

Council, Mayor, town staff, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Nahab Saramelli. I live in Rex Ranch, and I was here last week on the same exact issue. I think what's most frustrating about this issue, and a lot of people here will tell you about pros and cons or material benefits or risks, but I think at the end of the day what's frustrating is that A lot of people here had hoped that for once on this council, there would be something other than a 4-3 decision and that all of the time and effort that people put into public commenting actually mattered, that you all sat here for an hour and listened to our concerns and that genuinely reflected in your decision. Yet in that same vein, we're still standing here today reconsidering the same issue. And so I think what I want to reemphasize from what I said last week is that like, This listening to public comments, this hearing your constituents' concerns isn't a performative thing. It's supposed to be a way to preserve democracy in this process. And it's supposed to be a way for you all to genuinely make your decision. And yet what's apparent with this reconsideration is that this decision has already been made. And so we'll have an hour more of comments. And then at the end of this night, I inevitably think that there will be another fourth re-decision. and that this will pass through. And so I hope that even if that is true, that you will sit here and think about what your constituents are actually telling you and think about who put you in this position. Because at the end of the day, what you personally believe or your party affiliations don't mean anything when it comes to your job of representing people. So as you sit in your seat and think about who circled your name on a ballot and what they actually believe is right, I hope that you can make a good decision that's actually in the best interests of not only the public health in Erie, but also in your constituency. And so even if this decision passes tonight, I hope that in the next 50 days you'll consider not just material benefits or money gained from this negotiation or deals, future deals that could be made, but also what your job and duty is to this town, as well as how this will erode public trust in the future. Thank you so much for your time, and thank you to everyone else who showed up tonight.

All right, thank you.

Tim Larson, Julie Friday, and Jennifer Hanan.

Good evening. My name is Tim Larson. My wife and I have been a 25-year resident in Kenosha Farm. I would like to ask that... at least delay any vote until we can create a group of citizens, trustees, and staff to develop a credible review of the impact if we do or don't sell the mineral rights. Citizens need a clear understanding of what Erie would receive and lose without our mineral rights. Matthew Owen's comments have severely clouded the discussion. Was he speaking on behalf of the city when he talks about hundreds of millions of dollars? And if not, why is someone we hired releasing this data? Owen's comments on the $20 million or $150 million impact potential value of the land ignores the fact that if Erie did not take the property, somebody would develop that land and create the same value. You might also keep in mind that as soon as they transfer that property from their ownership to ours, we lose the tax revenue we're collecting on the three properties. My estimate is that's over $100,000 a year, and we're obligated to develop the property. Also, I hear a lot of money comes immediately. I went to the website, the city website, which should be the definitive source of all information, and it's not. I don't see any $150 million, $200 million here. What I do see is we'll get an immediate payment of $45 million. Our minimum payments are gonna be over 20 to 30 years. Some of them faster, but less. Any part of the, then meanwhile, we owe a payment to our consultant of about the same, $4.5, $4.7 million. Why can't that be prorated over when those mineral rights come in? Right now, if we have to set aside $4.7 million to pay him and we get 4.5 million, we're in the hole already and now we're losing $100,000 a year in tax revenue until we figure out how. We're gonna become developers? Please don't. Please don't be developers. That's not the city job. Let somebody professional buy that property, develop it and bring it into the stream. We need a picture, short term and long term. Short term, I don't see a lot of money coming in, at least on your website. The website should be the source people can go see, not some consultant that, either at our direction or not, has sent out this absurd amount of money that we're going to come into someday, somewhere over the rainbow. We need a true projection that says day one, day three, day five, here's when that money is going to come in. And if we don't do that, what money is going to come? That $200 million is still going to come to us. That land will be developed, and that money will come. So let's slow down, give the citizens a chance to understand what's going on, And let's make sure that we give them honest information, easy to access information, credible information that a group of the trustees, citizens, and the city staff can say, yeah, we all agree this is the truth. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next is Julie Friday, who is online. Ms. Friday, if you can hear me, please unmute and speak.

Julie, can you hear us? How about we go to the next speaker and we can come back.

Jennifer Hanan and then Terrence Barr and Ansel Barnes.

Hello and thank you for taking public comment tonight. I'm Jennifer Hanan and I'm an Erie resident and a former city council member of Arcata, California. I'm only bringing this up because what is happening here is similar to what happened in Arcata many years ago. At that time and prior to my election, Arcata City Council members were having private discussions and executive sessions without public input with a company to develop pristine agricultural land that would have created a dangerous precedent. The executive sessions were not illegal, but they were forming the opinion of the council prior to public comment. It was obvious that the process excluded the public in the early phases. As more information was revealed, the backlash was huge. And in the end, the community unseated those council members. I have come to speak tonight because whether what is being said about this issue is true or not, the optics of this decision is looking terrible. It looks like private discussions and backdoor deals are driving this process The request for proposal to find a consultant to help broker this deal should have been discussed publicly and included more than one candidate before the hiring process. Instead, the consultant that was hired is a former Civitas executive, which has also created terrible optics. When you're trying to pass something at a large scale as this, everything needs to be 100% by the book and allowing everybody to see what's going on. Lastly, now the issue is being reconsidered after it was already voted down, creating the appearance of further backdoor discussions to influence our elected representatives. To get notified about this meeting this last Saturday in the summer, while most people are already committed to their vacations, their regular activities, their sports, it's a terrible flaw in the process, again, that prohibits your constituents the chance to participate and be heard.

Twenty seconds.

I'm so happy there's such a big turnout today, and I'm seeing that there's a majority of people that are against this. There are some that are for it. But in any case, the issue is the way this is being handled is not looking good. The state is watching us, and I sincerely hope you will reconsider voting on this tonight. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Terrence Barr, Ansel Barnes, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Good evening. My name is Terry Barr. I'm a royalty owner. in the Draco DSU. I happen to be a resident of neighbouring Lewisville, but I'm a petroleum geologist and have 50 years' experience both here in this country and in my birthplace in Australia. I think much has been discussed on this issue and how it pertains to the city. However, little, if anything, has been discussed as to how the community generally can value this opportunity. But firstly, I wanted to congratulate you, Mayor, and your team on concluding what is a very advantageous transaction for the city, and I wholeheartedly endorse its adoption. But as a royalty owner, I'm privy to the data associated with this proposal and have used that along with the data from the Mayor's public statements to assess what this transaction means for the community generally. Firstly, I note that SM Energy is proposing to spend $225 million on the development of the Draco DSU. And some of this, not all of it, but some of this is going to flow to Erie businesses in the provision of services, and that's a real positive. In addition, as well as myself, there are 650 royalty owners like myself who will directly receive some 180 million in royalties. These people are part of the Erie community and would provide support for Erie businesses. through the generation of that money. This cash is coming from 12.2 million barrels of oil that will be recovered from the DSU. And if that oil goes to $100 a barrel, which is more than likely, this royalty stream could be close to $300 million versus the $180. So the rhetorical question comes to the council. So does the council want to reject a proposal that would generate $180 million to the community along with the cash, the property and the royalty stream assigned to the city as a result of this transaction? Given that a rejection is likely to result in SM Energy seeking friendlier jurisdictions in which to operate, I therefore encourage you to vote yes.

Thank you. Thank you.

So we're going to go back to online. Julie Friday, I believe, is joining us. So, Julie, if you can unmute yourself and speak, that would be great.

Julie, can you hear us? All right, let's go to the next one here, and we'll go back one last time.

Okay. Next is Ansel Barnes, then Brett Kavanaugh.

Good evening. My name is Ansel Barnes. I'm a proud new homeowner in this fantastic town. And I'm proud to be able to participate in the democratic process specifically in my town for the first time tonight. From the research I have done into this issue, I see a cloud of prepared talking points, a fine mist that smells of corruption. I'm going to reiterate what will already have been said plenty already tonight. This deal is one that Erie doesn't need and doesn't want. We have too few reasons to approve this, and we have too many reasons to question our leadership about their conduct in this matter. But more critically, I want to address the matter of trust directly to the council present here. Our opinion on this drill deal as a town has already been made clear. You already know what we want you to do with this deal. Each one of you was elected because we trust you to serve our best interests and our wishes. If you approve this deal, regardless of the benefits, drawbacks, and details, you will have simultaneously betrayed the laws and procedures that govern this town and the Willifter constituents in favor of a private entity who does not deserve ownership of our public property. This vote isn't really about investment or lack thereof. This is about integrity.

20 seconds.

It is about our sovereignty as a town, and it's about following the law. I pray to God that those of you who voted yes last week now understand the value of the trust capital that is really at stake here. What is more valuable to you? For the love of all you hold sacred, vote this deal down because we need you. Now more than ever, we need leadership we can trust that we can respect. Show us what you're made of tonight.

Next, we have Brett Kavanaugh, who's polled with Mandy Erie.

Well, good evening, Mayor, council members, and the residents of Erie. My name is Brett Kavanaugh. Some of you might know me. I serve as the director of the Weld County Oil and Gas Energy Department. I'm here tonight to offer my professional perspective based on my work in local government, oil and gas permitting, state regulatory coordination, regulatory oversight, and mineral development. I understand this issue brings strong opinions that I think we've all seen tonight. I also understand that some residents oppose oil and gas development in general. That is their right, and those concerns deserve to be heard. But respectfully, the decision before the council tonight is more specifically than a broader debate about oil and gas. The Draco location has already been aptly permitted through local and state regulatory process and approved. So the question tonight is not wells or no wells. The question is whether Erie accepts the value, the cleanup, the land value, and certainly it negotiated or walks away from those benefits. while the approved development still moves on. That is the decision. From what we have publicly discussed, the Draco pad consists of 26 wells, which is roughly about 2.7% of the total production. This agreement is not about being for oil and gas or anti-oil and gas. It is about whether Erie makes the most responsible fiscal, environmental, regulatory, and land use decision available. The agreement provides direct financial consideration. It provides future production-related revenue. It includes a retained override interest of 3%. It includes land the dairy would receive at no cost. It also includes cleanup and mitigation benefits tied to older wells and legacy oil and gas locations in and around the communities that all these residents live in. Those are real benefits. The land alone is significant. The area would receive that land and can be used for public facilities, sold, developed, or placed in production use. The land can create value beyond one-time payment. That's a long-term community value. The cleanup matters too. Plugging and abandoning older wells, removing equipment, reclaiming those sites are practical land use benefits. In area, active oil and gas facilities can create 500 foot setbacks. While plugging and abandoned wells generally have much smaller, 150 foot setback. With potential for future reduction after review, that matters for future planning. The cleanup does more than remove older infrastructure. It can help convert legacy well areas into cleaner, more usable land. improve long-term development flexibility, and support better outcomes for the community. This is not just cleanup. This is a future land use flexibility. The regulatory certainty also matters. The development has already gone through applicable process review. At this point, the agreement gives Erie a defined framework for what happens next, including revenue, land, and cleanup. A yes vote does not make this pro-oil and gas decision. A no vote does not stop the approved wells. But a no vote may cost Erie the money, the land, the override, the cleanup, and the added protection, the regulatory certainty, and the long-term public benefits that were negotiated for the town. That would not be the better outcome for the residents. The council has fiduciary responsibility to the town. and to taxpayers to evaluate the facts, the legal realities, the approved permits, the negotiated terms, and the long-term public interest. That responsibility requires council to consider not only what the agreement provides, but what the town gives up if it walks away. People can oppose oil and gas development and still recognize that the agreement puts Erie in a better position than rejecting it. The vote should not be treated as a referendum on oil and gas.

20 seconds.

It should be treated as a decision about whether Erie secures value, land, revenue, cleanup, and regulatory. The town participates in process. The town fought for conditions. The town negotiated. The town secured value. Now the question is simple. Will Erie accept the value and negotiate it? A yes vote secures revenue. It secures land. It secures cleanup. It secures certainty. It protects the taxpayers, improves long-term land use flexibility. ANOVA does not stop the wells. It only risks leveling those benefits behind, leaving those benefits behind. For those reasons, I strongly encourage the council to vote yes in this agreement tonight. And I do appreciate your time. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Dan Malloy, Emily Brecht, and Joshua Scott.

Good evening, Council. Dan Maloy, live up in Erie Highlands. Not sure if the timer's going to start, but I know I've got two minutes. The reason I didn't come speak last week is the agreement seems pretty obvious. That's going to happen, the drilling's going to occur, and the town can get nothing, or the town can get something. Now, I've heard a lot of people talk tonight about the process and whether or not it was properly followed. When I was in the Army, we would always have to get three contract offers. Didn't give us three good contract offers. We had three contract offers. And then we would pick the best one. But they didn't compete. We already knew ahead of time. So if we have a good deal and it makes sense, why doesn't the council vote on it? I've heard people say we don't need the money. OK, where are we going to get it from? Taxpayers? We have the opportunity to get money from this deal and land from it. We'll provide more revenue to the town. And yet, we want to tax ourselves more or pay for ourselves more? Why would we want to do that? Now, there's been the discussion around shady backroom deals and what lobbying is. I'm not sure everybody understands what putting an article out versus lobbying and buying dinners and doing such sales type events is, pretty sure nobody on the council is taking any payments from anybody on this because that would actually be a pretty big deal and people would probably go to jail for that. So as far as I know, there's no investigations into whether or not anybody on council is being bribed. So let's put that to bed. Now, if there's anybody on council who's self-interested in seeing this not go forward, probably be somebody running for a higher office for the second or third time since being elected to council. I think there's only one person there. And we've also mentioned that the Attorney General, who, by the way, is running for governor, is looking into this. What does that mean? Is he open to investigation? Is there a criminal complaint? Or is he just putting up one more tally on his belt notch so that he can keep saying, I made this many more lawsuits with this many more legal fees for our state to pay for? So at this point, why don't we just move forward with this? We take the money. It's going to happen anyways. We get a lot out of it. The town benefits. And we move forward. Or we can bite our nose to spite our face. I appreciate your time. Have a good night. Thank you.

Emily Brecht, who has pooled with Heather Sable.

I'm sorry, has pooled with?

Heather Sable. Okay.

Okay. And if you can't hear in the back of the room, signal to me in some way and I'll try to remind to use the microphone.

Hi, I'm Emily Brecht, resident of Canyon Creek. I live in the path of DSU. I read Matt Owen's blog post like many here on the 18th before he edited it. I had never seen many of the numbers and data points from his post before. His post did not match the valuations and projections shared by this council with the public. His account of multiple rounds of bids was not what was reported by the council. But he positioned his social media post as a view behind the curtain of executive session into the real numbers, projections, and negotiations from a subject matter expert. Mr. Owens' headline galvanized Erie residents to email counsel and urge a re-vote. Based on his comments on, sorry, not his comments, but other people's comments, it seemed like many were hearing about the deal for the first time. I want to point out something. The lack of accessible public information around this deal has left the people of Erie vulnerable to the influence of anyone who can claim insider information or insight into this deal. And council has done nothing to disavow Owens post in the last two days, a new set of posts, each claiming. to from other residents, each claiming to have the most least biased information have flooded Erie social media. These attempt to separate the facts of the deal from the context, the distractions of possible legal and ethical issues, and they have completely discarded Mr. Owen's valuation of the deal as biased and irrelevant, weirdly. But so far, the council has stood by Owens. So let's talk about Mr. Owens' valuation of the deal, since the council is placing our future in his hands. Approximately $400 million of his valuation is from the land transfer from SM Energy, two chunks of land by the airport. Owens suggests that this land will exceed $350 million in projected sales tax revenue within 30 years. my math might be wrong, 11.5 million in imagined tax revenue per year for 30 years. I have to ask, what is the plan for the land by the airport? This land is zoned as light industrial. The comp plan has it listed as employment, which is another way of saying light industrial. Mayor Moore has mentioned storing snowplows there. Where do 11.5 million in taxes per year come from? How much will it cost to change the comp plan and rezone it? Will it be sold to developers to create the commercial corridor? Will the commercial corridor require the over $50 million road, the airport connector, the road that came with high risk and performed poorly in the cost benefit analysis presented in the study session on May 5th of this year? Is this the land? Oh, this is the land that kept our town from engaging in competitive bidding. It was because the land was connected with this deal that bids were not pursued. This is the land that kept the mineral rights deal secret, covered by executive session because it was a real estate deal. Last meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Bell said that basically the entire point of this mineral rights deal was to acquire this land. 22nd land by the airport. But this valuation makes me question the timeline and potential risks of attempting to develop this land and question the valuation of those most trusted to assess the deal's potential benefit to our town. For this and the many reasons I've stated here before in public comment, I urge you to vote no to this deal.

All right. Thank you.

Joshua Scott, Ben Hemphill, and Andrew Saltz.

Esteemed members of the council, thank you for hearing comments.

Will you pull the mic down? Thank you. Thank you. Can you hear me better?

Yes. Okay. I'm a two and a half year Erie resident. Love the community. We moved here to raise our family. My house backs out onto a well, so I have a vested interest and I was excited in hearing that there was the potential for more wells to be capped. This agreement was actually something that I was in favor of and the benefits of it seemed to be very tangible. I fully understand him, but the problem I have is the more I've heard scenes surrounding the agreement, the more concerns it's raised as far as the cloud, as some have called it. The conflating of the safety and profit are things that I don't think should ever be conjoined. So those things, when I hear them, give me pause. The tactics employed by the consultant who stands to benefit substantially from this agreement also give me pause. And the behavior of many people involved has given me pause. I think, in general, the benefits of the agreement have been overshadowed by a lot of these things, and it makes me very disappointed. The thing that disappoints me most, though, is I don't feel that I have the same trust that I did before in the leadership based upon how it's happened. Now, I don't have all the details. I'm not privy to everything that you all are and I don't want to tell you how to vote.

I would ask, though, that you find a way to restore trust.

And one thing that I had thought that would be a suggestion to offer is to provide independent audits going forward. The city of Denver, for instance, has an elected independent auditor. Now, I know we may not be able to have that given the resources of our town is much different than a municipality the size of Denver, but it seems prudent that we should be able to find some way to be able to provide verification along with the trust back to everyone who's here. Thank you. All right.

Thank you.

Ben Hemphill, Andrew Sawish, and Ben Solberg.

Hi, John McAllister, Erie resident, Kenosha Farm. I transfer my time to Ben Hemphill. Sorry, I couldn't get this down into two minutes. Good evening, Town Council. My name is Ben Hemphill. I live in Erie District 2. My comments tonight are my own. On June 17, Matt Owens made a public LinkedIn post about the vote from last week. As we all know, Mr. Owens is a CEO of Alameda Mineral Advisors, the firm the town hired to negotiate this deal. Mr. Owens founded Extraction Oil and Gas and served as president. He was then employed as COO of Civitas Resources, now SM Energy. Mr. Owens was the president of Extraction, Oh, sorry. While Mr. Owens was the president of extraction, 7N, a subsidiary of extraction, acquired at least two of the three parcels in this agreement for $10 each in 2018 and 2019. He is now being presented as an independent advocate for the town. Mr. Owens' contract pays him 7.5% of the aggregate transactional value capped at $4.5 million. He receives nothing if this deal does not close tonight. The only direct cash payment in this contract is $4.5 million, described in Section 2B as additional funds paid by 7N at closing. That is the entirety of the immediate cash that the town receives. Conveniently, it's also the exact maximum fee Alameda is entitled to under its contract with the town. The town's immediate net cash from this transaction is effectively zero. The agreement with Alameda was signed December 16, 2025, which was 189 days ago. At $4.5 million for 189 days, generously assuming a full seven-day work week, the town is paying Alameda nearly $3,000 an hour. This is why questions have been raised about the no-bid nature of this contract. Draco health and safety improvements are already happening. I'd encourage the Council to review ECMC Order 407-3700, approved in March 2025. Under that order, SM Energy is already required to provide the Town monthly email updates on drilling and plugging and abandonment activities per Order 2G. Hold quarterly meetings with the town per 2G. Coordinate all planned well abandonments with town staff per 2H. And maintain three continuous ambient air monitors around the Draco pad per 2E. SM Energy will also be paving CR6 and plugging and abandoning 22 existing wells. SM Energy is required to hold two community town halls per order 2I. One before construction and one before completions. When is a pre-construction town hall? are not benefits being negotiated tonight these are legally binding ecmc commitments that exist regardless of this vote limited monthly inspections with a seven day notice and an sm energy escort with only enforcement being reporting to ecmc is not enforcement you we aren't stopping draco if you approve or reject this agreement we know that the town is already receiving health and safety benefits required by the ea ecmc no matter the outcome What you're voting on is transferring property for a few million dollars in land and oil and gas revenues and a $45 million payment to a former oil and gas executive who negotiated this deal. I urge you to vote no. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Andrew Sawish, who is polled with Scott Charles, Ben Solberg, and Erica Cutlip.

Andrew Sawish, District 1. Mayor Moore, Mayor Pro Tem Bell, and Council Members, this is not easy for me to discuss, but it needs to be told, and it directly relates to the current battle regarding the sale of the town minerals, specifically why there was only one voice that has been heard by residents to date, and why residents are consistently afraid to come forward to voice their opinions. As an Erie resident since 2016, a former council member and current planning commission chair, I understand small town politics and how everybody is entitled to their own opinions. For the overwhelming majority of interactions, everybody in town has been courteous, respectful, and civil. However, political discourse in Erie has been replaced by fear. During the fall of last year, 20 or so current and former residents, including myself, were targeted by an individual solely because they saw us as outspoken individuals. We received unmarked sympathy cards in the mail, which included a powdery substance and implied death threat, on a tight piece of paper. After a coordinated FBI, Erie PD, and US Postal Inspector investigation, Sorry, this is the first time I'm talking about this in public. The individual is not charged because, sorry, United States Postal Inspector investigation, the individual was identified. The individual was not charged because it was not deemed to be a legal direct threat, but the effect it had on me and the others was real. It caused a very real sense of fear and concern for both my family and my family's health and safety. Many of the individuals who received one of these filed for restraining orders. Because the individual could easily find me on Wednesday nights at town hall for a planning commission meeting, the town attorney's office filed for a temporary restraining order on my behalf. The order was later extended through a stipulated agreement outlining specific conditions, which remain in effect to this day. The individual who committed these vile, abhorrent acts was known to be instrumental in helping coordinate a specific group here in town, an awful also canvassed for current elected officials during the November 2024 election. The group this individual is a part of is the exact same group of individuals that have been largely organizing and have been the most vocal in this current fight opposing the mineral sale agreement. You are either with them or nothing at all. And if you are against them, they are coming for you. While there are individuals from both sides on the political aisle who can be outspoken, the group of individuals in particular has proven dangerous. I know from too many firsthand conversations to count that many residents in the town are scared to provide their opinions. The brow-beating that we all witness on social media and in public has moved some to become mere onlookers, afraid to speak our minds, especially when the topic of oil and gas has evolved. When those with opposing views are too worried about reprisal, retribution, or even bodily harm, this caustic, vitriolic attitude shows that it is negatively affecting the governance of our town. For you, I absolutely commend you for making the decision to hold this tonight and reconsider your vote, bringing the mineral sales agreement back to the council for consideration. It takes absolute courage for an elected official to question his vote and ask, did we make the right decision? Please hear the voice from the community that was unfortunately not willing to previously stand with you due to our lack of courage. No matter if this agreement is or is not accepted, Draco is still occurring. Using our mineral estate as a blockade against the operator will only harm the residents, the town, and our community's future. Minerals should not be used in a game of chicken with the operator, a game that will undoubtedly be unsuccessful. While this agreement is being treated as an oil and gas issue for those who oppose it, it is really a question of three things. Do we or don't we receive compensation and considerations for something that is guaranteed to occur? Do we or don't we force the operator to provide us with direct oversight at the location? Do we or don't we make the community safer and healthier for residents by having the operator plug in abandoned wells that are both inside and outside of the proposed land area. In my opinion, the only option is to vote yes. Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you.

Ben Solberg, Erica Cutlip, and Tiffany Pritchett.

Hello, council. My name is Ben Solberg. I'm unfortunately one of those that Andrew talked about that has received threats and other things because I've been outspoken on social media. Wasn't really gonna go that direction, but I'm gonna touch on it here just real shortly. I've been a resident of Erie since 2008. When we moved here, my oldest daughter was six months old. She graduated from high school last year. I've got two more in high school and one in middle school. All have been born here and grown up here and gone all through school here. Last fall, when we received the death threats and stuff in the mail, it really affected my family. Before that, though, we had had windows broken, tires slashed. I own a local business that's been attacked on social media. Groups get together and leave me one-star reviews who've never been customers before, things like that. It's been a big thing for a long time in my life. And many years ago, I tried to bridge the gap. I reached out to some people on the other side, Siobhan included, did a community barbecue, tried to bring people together. After that, threats and stuff just got worse. Anybody that's on social media probably knows that I have been quieter in the last 10 years or so than I had been previously. Some of that because I've been kicked off of every freaking town page there is. 20 seconds. And part of it because my wife and kids have asked me to stop being outspoken because it's affecting them. This shouldn't be happening. We shouldn't. be threatening the lives of other people. We shouldn't have this stuff going on. Continued threats that the person that was supposed to not be reaching out to any of those 20 people is now making fake accounts on Facebook and reaching out to those people again. And the courts are doing nothing about it. So I don't know what else to do. But I'm urging a yes vote on this. It'd really just be stupid to let all these benefits go away. And stop the misinformation, the threats, just all of it. We as a community need to come together instead of pushing anyone that disagrees with us away. Thank you.

Thank you.

Erica Cutlip, Tiffany Pritchett, and Diana Huzar.

Hello. My name is Erica Cutlip, and I live in District 2. I'm here to ask the members of our town council to vote against the sale of our town's mineral rights to SM Energy. I'm concerned that the deliberations, the initial deliberations regarding this deal took place behind closed doors in the form of numerous executive sessions. The sole source selection of Alameda Minerals Partners consultant Matthew Owens by the town was in direct violation of the town's own procurement policy. Mr. Owens is the former COO of Civitas Resources and was hired with $4.5 million of taxpayer money to develop a plan for the sale of the town's mineral rights. He has stated that he was advised by certain members of the town council not to run a competitive bid and procurement process, which was in violation of his contract. All this has resulted in only one offer from SM Energy, which is the new name for Mr. Owens' former company, Civitas Resources. There appears to be little concern among certain members of the town council that Mr. Owens' former association with Civitas represents a serious conflict of interest to many of the voters here in Erie. I suspect that nothing that residents say will have any impact on how the mayor and several of the council members will vote on this. To the members of the council who are poised to vote, please remember that an erosion of public trust in government is a terrible thing and not easily repaired. Most of the people who have spoken out vociferously against this sale, like myself, are residents, property owners, and taxpayers within the community. My husband and I have lived in this town for 20 years. Please vote no. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Tiffany Pritchett, Diana Huzar, and Amy Becker.

I think I accidentally signed up twice. Sorry. Mayor and council members. My name is Tiffany Pritchett. I live in Flatiron Meadows I was born and raised in Odessa, Texas in the heart of the Permian Basin Which if you're not familiar is prolific in oil and gas also high school football I am also a mineral rights owner there myself. So I'm not someone who necessarily opposes oil and gas on principle I understand how it works and I understand the economics and I also spent the early part of my career working at the state and federal levels of government, so I understand something else. Process matters. Transparent, accountable process is not a bureaucratic formality. It is the foundation of public trust. And that trust has been broken here. This deal moved forward largely behind closed doors. The council met in executive session at least 10 times before most residents even knew an offer existed. The consultant hired to advise the town with public money was a former executive of the very company making the offer and was brought on without a competitive bid process. When residents finally found out and asked questions, the response was to schedule a vote rather than open the books. The Colorado Attorney General's office is now reviewing complaints about this process. That is not normal. That is a serious institutional failure. I want to be clear about something from my oil and gas background. When a company wants your mineral rights badly enough to make a quick offer and push for a fast close, that is not a sign you should sell. That's a sign you have leverage. Colorado law now specifically protects municipalities from forced pooling. That protection exists for a reason. Giving it away in a process that is opaque without independent analysis of the true financial impact on area homeowners or the health and safety risks is not good governance. It's a bargain made in the dark. Decisions about what goes beneath our community and what comes up through it deserve more than a rush vote after months of closed door negotiations. Hundreds of your constituents signed a letter in this council asking for a legitimate process.

20 seconds.

One with a competitive bid, independent analysis, and real public voice. That's not a radical ask. That's the minimum standard. I urge this council to vote no on reconsideration. And if this issue comes back, to start over with transparency and community engagement your residents deserve. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Diana Hussar, Amy Becker, and Laurel. OK. Why don't you come on up?

My name is Amy Becker and I have been an Erie resident since 2015. I would start my statement with a question. Why are we here? When you were voted in as town council, you agreed to uphold the wishes, the desires of the citizens of Erie. And last week, and many meetings before that, you have heard overwhelmingly that we as a town are against this. And the vote was no last week. So those two things show that the process worked. You were voted to represent us. We said we didn't want it. You voted no. So why are we here? It is so clear that somehow someone's ear has been bent. There has been lobbying. There have been efforts to bring this back to the table. But we shouldn't be here. This was already voted as a no. With all the impropriety surrounding the back door conversations and all of the lack of transparency I can't imagine how this town council would want a yes vote or a no vote to be swung to a yes and compound that level of impropriety. It has been said here many times tonight that the optics are not good. So many eyes are on this. And I am not naive to think that all of the citizens of Erie don't want this. Certainly, we have heard tonight from more yes votes than we have heard any other time, which I fully expected. The call to action was clear. and that their vote their voices should absolutely be heard but i would say to the town council that if you vote yes tonight that i would implore you in fact i would demand that you issue a public statement that said that answers the question that faced with overwhelming rejection by the town i so-and-so town council member still voted yes against my citizens, for what reason? I would want to know why. Do you think you know better than we do? We have made it clear, we do not want this deal.

All right, thank you.

Laurel, then Ron Degrassi and Justin Brooks.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Laurel. I am not a resident of Erie, but my work does bring me here regularly. I want to acknowledge first and foremost, I am the individual who mentioned how many small coffins would the town council purchase if we push this through. I mentioned that because it is pertinent to some points that I'm going to make in response to a post that was made on LinkedIn. So I want to make it clear, first of all, I am not in support of any calls for violence, intimidations, things like that. I've been on the receiving end of those things, not in relation to this, but I know that it can be terrifying. So I want to make that clear. What I do want to talk about is that there was a failure to uphold the competitive bid process. And as you have heard here tonight, there are even residents of Erie who seem to have a high level of expertise in this. They were never called, from my understanding, to give any perspective. And a competitive bid process is a standard practice, particularly in municipalities. One thing I do wanna note, and I'm not saying that this is a deciding factor, however, I haven't heard it on record, is the acknowledgement that the Colorado School of Mines is consistently ranked among the world's best institutions for earth sciences, mineral economics, and petroleum engineering. Mayor Moore is the chief information officer for the Colorado School of Mines and has been since June of 2022. Mr. Moore has also been a senior manager in IT applications in Chevron from 1985 to 1997, from 12 years. I say that because I believe that there were probably additional individuals who may have been qualified and have a level of expertise. And while that may not have come directly from Mayor Moore, I do think that it's important to acknowledge. I'd also like to invite Matt Owens to have a conversation with me. If he wants the perspective of someone who was told at 10 years old, you have cancer. It's bad. It's really, really bad. And also, I am insulted by his insinuation that all of us are against oil and gas. In fact, my former husband was almost killed on a rig saving his best friend. So if he would like to have those conversations, he's certainly welcome to reach out to me. Lastly, I want to say, and I know I'm at time, in relation to Mr. Owen's post regarding that our statements were impactful but misplaced and that we didn't make evidence-based decisions, I would like to say that the post on LinkedIn was inappropriate and inflammatory. I am also an expert in my industry in social work. I also teach and have done so at a top 12 graduate school of social work program in the nation. And one of the things I talk to people about is that you never make a post online that you cannot take back. And that lack of professionalism, using inflammatory language, Providing a cartoon that was derogatory in nature is inappropriate, and certainly not demonstrating a worth of $4.5 million. I've interviewed for jobs when I'm an expert in the field and never gotten in, and I certainly never went online and had a tantrum about it. And that's unkind, but I think it's true. And I implore that the town take part in a competitive bid process as is outlined in the town governance. Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Rhonda Grassi, Justin Brooks, and Steve Meyer.

Hi, everybody. I'm Rhonda Grassi. I live in District 1 for over 27 years now. So as I don't repeat everything that's been said, I'll just say flat out that I do support you voting for this deal. I appreciate the benefits it gives the town versus us having them drill and us getting nothing. The things I can say that are different are I've seen the town over the last 27 years have oil and gas issues come before council and trustees, and it often brings a great big crowd. But over the years, the town has drilling been going on ever since I've been here, and properties have continued to grow, developments have continued to come, and property values have come up so much in those 27 years that I know so far it hasn't harmed the town in that way. I do appreciate what all of you bring to sit here. I don't believe any of you have any nefarious intentions. I know it takes a lot of effort and soul searching to make these kind of votes and you're trying to do the best you can representing the entire town and maybe not just the voices in this room. You have a lot to consider. So I appreciate all you do. I know you care about this town deeply. Thank you.

Thank you.

Justin Brooks, Steve Meyer, and then Becky Lesser.

And my time is pooled with Pam Teixeira.

Oh, OK.

So I want to thank Pam for donating her time to me. Good evening, mayor and council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Justin Brooks. I am a former mayor of Erie and a current resident. I also live near the project area and have followed the Draco project closely. Over the past several months, Erie residents have expressed strongly held views on both sides of the proposed mineral rights agreement, including concerns related to public process, valuation, environmental impacts, municipal mineral rights, and the long-term implications of the agreement. Since the June 16th vote, many residents have also submitted comments supporting reconsideration and approval. I respect those views. The continued division within our community makes balanced public analysis of the benefits, risks, and alternatives more, not less important. As a resident, one question continues to stand out to me. What material facts or substantive analysis concerning the agreement, its risks, or its alternatives have become available in the last seven days that were not available to counsel or the public on June 16th? In reviewing the materials that have been presented publicly, I have seen substantial discussions regarding the potential benefits of the proposed agreement. I have not seen comparable public analysis evaluating the potential consequences of alternative scenarios, including retaining the town's mineral interests, requiring the development to avoid those interests, or how Senate Bill 24-185 may affect those options. The public record reflects differing views regarding the value of the agreement and the leverage associated with municipally owned mineral interests. A clearer public discussion of those alternatives, their risks, their benefits, and their potential impacts would help residents better understand the choices before council. The ECMC's approval of the Draco Oil and Gas Development Plan, order number 407-3700, includes conditions requiring that all wells be completed including hydraulic fracturing and installation of production equipment no later than May 13th, 2028. The approval also states that extraction, now SM Energy, will use best efforts to complete pre-production activities by October 15, 2027. These timeline requirements are now part of the public record. In reviewing the Town's own records, I also noted multiple remediation notices issued during the past year regarding the Arapahoe 226, Morris 127, and Woolley 61N68W sites. Those notices document the need for contaminated soil removal, environmental sampling, and remediation activities under ECMC oversight. The town's Q1 2026 oil and gas inspection report also identifies compliance issues at active facilities and documented corrective actions taken by operators. I mention these records not to suggest that every operation will experience problems. but to recognize that oil and gas development requires ongoing oversight, inspections, corrective actions, and at time, remediation. These are matters that town staff and residents continue to actively manage. Elected officials serve as fiduciary and representatives of the entire community, including people who disagree with them. Public trust is often influenced not only by the outcome of a decision, but by whether but by whether residents believe their concerns were heard, understood, and fairly considered. Complex decisions frequently benefit from public understanding of the trade-offs, risks, costs, and benefits involved.

20 seconds.

As someone who has served on this dais, I believe public confidence in major decisions is strengthened when residents feel they've had sufficient opportunity to understand the issues, review the facts, and participate in the process. I urge you to vote no again on this proposed contract and take the time to better evaluate the risks associated with it and explore other potential avenues to increase public safety relative to plugging old wells and reducing the occurrence of industrial accidents like we are seeing at the three current sites mentioned before. Thank you for your time and consideration.

All right. Thank you.

Next we have Steve Meyer and Becky Lesser and Casey Hedrick.

Hello, Steve Meyer. I want to make sure everybody can hear me.

Maybe you pull the microphone up a little bit.

There you go. I've got a lot of wisdom, so I want to make sure I'm heard. Tenure resident. I'm impressed by the thoughtfulness and eloquence of the speakers tonight, especially those in opposition. It happens that my house is directly In an area that where the very mineral rights exist, but as far as you beside the point I stand in opposition to the sale to the town's mineral rights. I indicate this by my presence in words. And want to be counted as such it seems a primary reason to support this proposition is financial. And I say that if the town is relying on financial windfalls we must be in a financial crisis not in evidence. It's fortunate that the town of Erie retains these mineral rights, and you can simply vote no to impede the drilling in limited areas. Please do so. Vote no. It seems clear that a large majority of residents oppose this. As a representative of democracy, I hope that each council member who votes to approve this is voted out at the next election. Thank you.

Next, we have Becky Lesser, then Casey Hedrick, and Jennifer Henriquez.

Good evening. Thank you, Mayor, Council, and all that are here tonight. I'm here just to represent softer voices. I'm just here to be somebody standing here for people that weren't able to get here tonight. Either they would have had to be wheeled in or they would have not been able to get here for other reasons. Softer voices are still really important in our community, and sometimes the latter voices drown those out. I'm sorry that people have been harmed and threatened. This is not who Erie is.

Can I get you to speak into the microphone? This is not who Erie is.

Thank you. Both sides, all sides, this should not be happening.

Softer voices are still important because we're an intelligent and compassionate and passion-filled community. We've shared a lot of our resources. I think someone brought that up already. We've shared the Erie landfill. We've shared the coal mines in our land and under our land and through our land. We've shared current fracking all around us and mines everywhere. Maybe our land just wants to rest a little bit. Maybe the people want to rest and have our land rest a little bit while we sort through some more of these process decisions. If there is one, and I mean one chance, that someone gets harmed because we sell our mineral rights, is it a child? Is it too near a school? Is it something that we can't even foresee?

Is it worth that hazard and that decision tonight?

I implore you to consider that. And I know there were lots of considerations about bringing this back to council. But I implore you to think about our land, our home, the reason we're here, the reason we want this smaller community feel, and maybe give our land a rest and our people on our land a rest. Just a little bit. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Next is Casey Hedrick, then Jennifer Enriquez, and Chris Elliott.

All right, and I'm going to pause just for a second. We've been going about two hours. How many are left?

We have about seven or eight.

seven or eight okay so we have about 20 minutes so anybody on council would you like a break or do you want to just get through the public comment and then maybe take a break keep going okay okay let's carry on thank you uh uh uh thank you mayor and uh town council casey hedrick district one i've been up here and talked to you all before this a little bit with the primary concern around health and safety

Councilwoman Bear laid this out a few meetings ago that the potential of the state bill that was passed in 2022 could have the opportunity from a mineral rights perspective to maybe delay or blunt or stop, maybe not stop Draco, but delay the project. The point being that we all have stood up here, and I've heard you all say it too, is that you don't want Draco. We didn't want it, right? And this was a decision made for us, not by us and not by people elected by us, but now we have to deal with it. And we have to be the one somewhat in harm's way or potentially in harm's way from an environmental standpoint and from a health standpoint. And if the mineral rights, if there's any possibility that that could avoid some potential harm for the thing that we all have said we don't want, then we shouldn't sell. And I would say we could even take it a step further. Why are we accepting that there's this entity that lives at the state that gets to make these types of decisions for us. Why are we accepting that we have old abandoned wells that are in Erie that haven't been cleaned up by the companies that did it in the first place? Why do we accept this? So I would ask us not only to vote no, selling our mineral rights but take it a step further and start to advocate to the state to change this because this isn't how this is supposed to work you all are incredibly community driven folks and have the ability to influence the state and lobby the state or advocate rather to the state to make these adjustments and I would ask that you do that And we don't have to accept this. We don't have to accept Draco, and we don't have to accept the way that our system is built. And I would ask you to take a step further beyond saying no to mineral rights, but also to help make it so that this doesn't happen again. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Jennifer Enriquez, Chris Elliott, and Austin Akers.

Good evening. Jennifer Enriquez, a resident of Erie and a property owner. We've heard a lot tonight, great arguments for and against. For me, one of my biggest arguments against this is that if we are selling our mineral rights, we as the town are giving up our oversight about what happens. Right? So if you, you know, if anyone wants to type this into Google, ask chat GPT very specifically what happens with this, that is the answer that you're going to get. And so that's really important for all of us to consider. Yes, we have financial gain, but does that financial gain really, right? What happens here? So Our oversight is going to be heavily limited in many, many facets. And I think that's really important for us to consider. I'm in business. Many of us are in business. I have to tell you, the consultant should be fired for what he did. I think that is shocking. Property values, I don't know. I don't know if I'm gonna be able to sell my property if all of this drilling is happening without any oversight. We need to consider that, all of us. We also need to consider all the health and wellness issues that are going to go in with this. It's a big deal. How are all of our people going to be affected? So please, take a step back. really reconsider what is this going to do to our town, right? Is the financial gain really, is that everything we need to consider? So thank you for taking that into account.

Thank you.

Next is Chris Elliott, then Austin Akers and Moesha Babs.

Mr. Mayor, council members, Chris Elliott, I am with the firm that, I'm the principal of the firm that is developing Parkdale and Spring Hill in the community. We've been at this for some 15 years. Can tell you that when we first got involved in land development within Erie one of the first things we did is look at what some of the assets and liabilities were that we had with the properties that we had and And one of the things that we quickly determined was that the proliferation of oil and gas wells on the property was a problem. It became an issue of coexistence of oil and gas above ground facilities with the type of communities that we wanted to do. And the conclusion that we came to was we need to go out and make a point of acquiring all of the oil and gas wells that are on the property, work with the operators and have them plug and abandon the wells that were there. Again, we didn't think it was a good coexistence. We also thought from a health and safety perspective that having at least 15 years ago, having the potential for an oil and gas well to be right in the backyard or close to the backyard of prospective homes was not a good idea. So we eliminated every oil and gas well that there was within our communities. I can tell you that we spent in excess of $10 million in order to make that kind of thing happen. One of the things that I see with this particular proposal that I don't think gets the attention that it deserves is that There are nearly two dozen wells that exist out there that are going to go away. And we've heard from a couple of folks that live near them. And they're living with the fact that there's oil and gas facilities there that could be a problem for them. And they will go away. The other thing is that we've been able to work with 7 North and the town to install some drainage improvements along the south end of one of the properties that's being acquired. In addition to that, we're installing a significant water main connection that will benefit the airport and benefit the airport properties. That's not anything that the town is going to be responsible for. We're taking care of all of that. So with the improvements to the drainage facilities, it will take care of the drainage needs of the parcels that the town would end up acquiring and make it just that much easier to monetize those in some sort of a sale to developers who would do economic development and employment facilities. So we urge you to vote in favor of the proposal. Thank you. All right.

Thank you.

Next, we have Austin Akers, who is online. Austin, if you can hear me, please unmute yourself and you may speak.

Austin, can you hear us?

Yes, thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Well, thank you so much. I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak. My name is Austin Akers. I'm a native Coloradan. the father of a six-year-old Jack and a passionate outdoorsman. I'm also the CEO of Bison Oil and Gas, which is the largest private oil and gas company in Colorado. I want to be clear that I have nothing to gain at all here from this hearing. I have no interest in anything being done here, but the misinformed and sad decision made last week compels me to speak here. These Draco wells are being drilled regardless of how this vote goes. Let's be 100% clear about that. I also want to clear up some misunderstandings from earlier in this session. Any perceived property value decreases, which is nonsense based on the data we have about property values with oil and gas associated, will happen no matter what, as these wells are going to be drilled regardless of this decision today. And if your taxes rise because of budget deficits without this windfall gain, your property tax values will absolutely fall. The statement that you're giving up leverage by selling your mineral rights is inaccurate. With all due respect, you have absolutely no leverage if you vote no. You just walk away from an estimated $400 million. Any statement that you are not abiding by the will of the people is misleading. Erie is a town of 40,000 people. As of 7 p.m. this evening, 227 people had signed a petition against voting to sell the mineral lights. That is one half of 1%. Scare tactics saying that this is not the will of the people are pure manipulation. The $400 million you're being offered is far more than any other company could actually offer you. My firm, which actually looked at this particular property sale, could offer a maximum of $5.5 million. SM Energy, who is one of my competitors and not someone I'm looking to benefit, can offer you this particular value because they own property within your city boundaries and that they will trade that property to you. This is a unique, highly beneficial situation for Erie. The stars have aligned and it's a shame to let it go. Colorado has the most stringent oil and gas rules in the world, not just this country, but in the entire world. Oil produced here carries exponentially less environmental impact than oil produced elsewhere. Our borders do not keep out global warming, sadly. So deferring production under Erie when the wells will be drilled regardless is actually worse for the environment than drilling them and not sharing in the benefit. My wife would, of course, reject the designation that I'm an expert in everything. and I mean everything. But when it comes to oil and gas and its financial environmental impacts, I am. Your vote yesterday means not only an economic windfall for the city, but lower emissions and environmental impact for Erie and the world. That is an absolute no-brainer. Thank you so much for this opportunity, and God bless America and everyone trying to make a better world for all of us now and in the future. Thank you so much.

All right. Thank you.

Next, we have Moesha Babs, Olivia Amadio, and Kim Robluski.

All right. Good evening, Mayor Moore and members of the Town Council. Thank you for hearing my comments tonight. My name is Miosha Babs. I'm a resident of the town of Erie for nearly 18 years. There's an old adage that many of you I'm sure have heard, all money is not good money. While a deal can seem lucrative today, the effects of it can be long-lasting. I oppose a yes vote to the sale of the town mineral rights and strongly urge you all to take the time to go through the competitive bid process and conduct a due diligence of research on this deal and what it means to our community. I grew up in a coastal Texas town that houses many refineries along with other coastal towns as well. Most of your fuel and petroleum products come out of these coastal areas. I'd like to give you a small parallel example of how big companies use small coastal communities or use small communities. On March of 2005, just over 20 years ago, a hydrocarbon vapor cloud ignited and violently exploded at the BP-owned refinery in Texas City, Texas, of which I'm from. BP started out very kindly. They offered many concessions to the community, to the schools, and many of the parks and rec prior to this. When this particular thing occurred, mind you, that was 20 years ago, so I was still in that community or near that community at the time. The effects that we've seen now, nearly 20 years later, has truly affected the community. Many people have come with cancer and certain other diseases. The explosion occurred in over $2 billion of cost and repairs, and when that occurred, BP took their operations and moved out, leaving the community struggling financially as well as with health issues. Many of my friends, family members, and classmates have since either developed health issues or cancer or have died since. I'm not even 50 yet. So I say to you, many people have moved out of this community and this town, leaving it struggling financially and to rebuild on its own. While this is not something that we are probably having as an issue here, it's a direct parallel to you seeing what large companies will do to small towns. So I urge you tonight to take the time to really do your research, to ensure that you are doing everything possible, not for money value, not for a dollar today, but looking what your children, your grandchildren will incur in the future. Thank you.

Thank you.

Olivia Amadio, and then Kim LaRuski. Sorry. I'm sorry. I knew I was going to mess up.

Hi there. My name is Olivia Amadio. I have lived in Erie for 21 years. I grew up here, and my last name probably sounds familiar. I originally didn't want to speak tonight, but I felt like I needed to make my voice heard as someone who is young and has a future here in Erie. I really care about this town. I really care about my home, and most importantly, my mom. I have no fancy background. I just have an English degree. I'm going to library school, and I know that's about research, but I didn't bring any fancy research for you tonight. I just have a voice, and I have a mom who I watch suffer every day, and who will meet an early grave. I have really no words. I'm kind of I'm just disappointed in the people supposed to represent my town that I've called home for so long. So I just urge you to think about the future. Think about people like myself who are up and coming and who are growing up here and have grown up here. Is the health of your constituents really worth it? What is it worth? And how much are lives worth as opposed to a payout? Everyone is watching. I know that a common theme now tonight is to make the right decision and to do what's right. And I know that's been said and said again. but young people like myself are watching you and they really expect you to make a good decision for all of us. And I just wanted to make my voice heard and be the voice of young people today. So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, Mayor, council members. My name is Kim Robleski. I am a 10-year resident of Erie. I am a full-time working mother of 2 proudly and importantly my son Charlie my daughter Marlo are being raised in Erie and my family and I moved here 10 years ago because we saw the promise of this community, the small town feeling of what it had to offer And I am a first-time commenter. I have never felt so compelled to show up. I have no preparation. But midway through the meeting, it felt important for me to rise and ask for things of you. And I do so saying that each and every single one of you works for me. And every resident in this meeting room here today and every resident who can't be here who hasn't commented and lives within this town's limits. And the four things that I'm rising to ask are, number one, please oppose and vote against the measure tonight, which leads me to my second request. I can't stand here and say that I appreciate and can stand either for or against the merits of this opportunity for the town, because I can't get beyond the lack of integrity that seems to be lacking around the process itself. And I think that that is deeply important as you sit in service of this town and the citizens of its community. And so my second is oppose it. Go back to the drawing board. Do it properly with a no-bid process. The third action that I would ask of you is to immediately fire Matt Owens. He is beneath the dignity and integrity of this town and the people of its residents. His behavior is abhorrent and he should not receive a single taxpayer dollar from this town. We can do better in who we're working with and representing. And then fourth and lastly ties into somebody a moment ago said, we are a town of about 40,000 people. I would ask you instead of fast tracking this, take it to a vote. push the peel out to the residents to explain what it is that we're looking at here and allow the people to have their voices heard. And so that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time, and I do thank you for your public service to our community.

Thank you.

Bill Hughes and then Shannon Millikin.

Which one? I have to tell her one, the one that looks like this. I'm Bill Hughes, and I live in Erie Commons. I can give you a little history. 15 years ago, I was a planner for the swings, all the 360 acres in there. and we the town plan was residential we did a bunch of different drawings and sketches and for different residents and i worked on this for quite a while every proposal we had required us to bring in water rights it required us to put the water lines in it required us to put the sewer lines in It required us to pave all the streets around the site of it. We're talking $25, $30 million worth of improvements. If you look around the city, that's what all the developers have to pay. Well, for some reason, after a year or so, we tried to, and we couldn't get anybody to put all those improvements, especially that site. It didn't have sewer. It was really a tough site to do that. Mysteriously, I think this was in the county, he came in and he said, you know, I don't need any of that shit. I don't need anything. I can get my use. So somehow they slipped in the county and they put that industrial use right in the middle. They didn't do any improvements to anybody, to the county, to the city, the improvements, period. They didn't do one damn thing. So the damn city is stuck with an eyesore use in the middle of a property, supposed to be residential. And who in the hell would be there with that industrial use right in the middle of that? Howard got in there, someone knew somebody else, and I don't think it's still zoned industrial. Still, you want it for residential. Well... My thinking, it's an illegal operation to begin with that was in there. I'm talking about the original, that minor little use. They said, we don't need any water, so we're not going to bring any water in. And we're not going to, we don't flush toilets, so we're not going to provide sewer lines. That property, and we're not going to use the streets, so we're not going to put any pavement on the street. We're not going to pay for the streets. So we're stuck right now with an eyesore in the middle of a proposed residential development area. No streets around it. Have you driven around that property out there? You're right across the street from the landfill. But have you seen the way it looks like? We're stuck with that. Someone's going to have to pay for that. And right now, you're not going to get a residential developer to locate in there. And whatever they have, whatever comes, there's a huge amount of improvements. I don't think you're going to get enough money from the oil companies to pay for those improvements. As far as I know, that's going to be an eyesore, period. I don't know how it got approved and who they knew, because that was in the county when it got approved. It wasn't you guys. But it mysteriously got allowed. And I don't think it is still zoned industrial anyplace.

It mysteriously got out, but we're stuck with it.

Bad views right in the middle, proposed residential area, which needs everything. Sewer, and the damn sewer line is east. way east and goes down the interstate i mean we're talking about it very expensive somehow we're stuck with i don't know who we're going to get it all right but it got approved and that's what we're stuck with right now and this is how it came about all right and you were out of time tonight but appreciate your comments okay thank you uh shannon milliken please

minutes since you're all ready to get a break all right good evening mr mayor and council members my name is shannon my pronouns are she her and while i'm not a resident of erie i'm deeply invested in this community and the impact the decisions of this town council have on the people who lived here i wear many hats but i consider myself a community advocate especially when it comes to what's best for children I'm not here to speak on mineral rights or any specific policy issue. I'm here because the way of leaders show up, how you communicate, listen, and navigate disagreement shapes the culture our children grow up in. It shapes our town. It shapes how people show up. It shapes the safety and well-being of your community. Your behavior becomes the model our children learn from. As you move into your comments tonight, I'm asking each of you to do so professionally. At least two members of council made extremely disrespectful comments toward their colleagues last week, and this is not the first time. Public attacks don't show disagreement. They show a breakdown in respect, they erode trust, and they signal to community that conflict is more important than collaboration. Mr. Mayor, you asked the audience tonight to show respect, and I'm asking you to hold the same expectation to the council. The personal attacks we witnessed last week are disrespectful and below the standard of leadership this community deserves. We choose to engage my young daughter in these conversations so she can learn. And when we were watching last week's meeting and got to one specific council member's comments, her first comment was, wow, he isn't being very nice to other people. Kids are watching. They are learning from how you treat one another. We've heard from residents tonight who have been afraid to speak up because they don't feel safe. And that matters. As the leadership of this town, people look to you to understand what is acceptable. The tone you set here and online shapes how this community believes they can act. We've also seen what's possible when this council chooses to build bridges. When you set aside disagreement, lean in, and truly value residents' voices. When you choose connection over conflict, you create space for real collaboration and a healthier system for the children who are watching you. That's the leadership that this town deserves.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

That was our final speaker.

All right, I'm going to call our attorney up, Brina Ming. I signed up.

I signed up.

We're double checking, but.

Let him speak. Let him speak.

Please. How many people would still like to address us tonight? Just three? Do you want to speak for? Anybody else in the hallway sign up? All right. I'm going to take a short break. Please sign up. Our town clerk has not seen that. That's the public record. So please take the time to do that. We'll come back in five minutes. We'll pick this back up. And does the town clerk now have the additional four people?

I do. Winifred Reichelt. I'm sorry, I always mispronounce your name.

Good evening, everybody, everybody. My name is Winfried Reichelt, and I live in Erie. Not that long, but that shouldn't matter. So there are multiple facets that I would like to touch in respect of this whole discussion. Number one, the process seems to be highly suspicious or just not how it should be. That's number one. Number two, little history anybody knows woody guthrie probably lots of people know woody guthrie right yeah what does woody guthrie have to do with this in the 1930s the federal government contracted with woody guthrie for a campaign and the campaign was to bring energy prices down because some people held monopolies and of course they loved it and they had the money So they lobbied Congress and they lobbied whoever was in a situation of power. So the energy prices stayed high. The government wanted to change it. I think it was Roosevelt. Called them communists, socialists, whatever, the usual in such situations. And why did they hire Woody Guthrie? Because they started a huge campaign to fire the people up to support the government spending money to build dams to create electricity and also water in the Northwest, in the Pacific Northwest, for instance, to bring the energy prices down. Now, what does it have to do with today?

Twenty seconds.

Twenty seconds. OK. OK. It costs you $28,000 in the US to put solar panel 7 kilowatt on your roof. In Australia, it costs $4,000. In Germany, which is not a poor country, it costs $10,000. You get 7 kilowatt on your roof. You get an electrical car, you're not dependent on gasoline prices anymore. You're not dependent on gas prices for your heat pump, et cetera, et cetera. It's the same fight, and I don't want part of it, and we all shouldn't have part of it. And subsidies will come back when the next government comes back. And all of this money that we're going to make from these contracts is pie in the sky because there will be renewables. And by the way, last point, just today it was in the news. These super benevolent companies that produce oil, gas, gasoline, whatever, Just today, multiple of them in Weld County were fined by what I call the Mineral Commission of Colorado, $2 million each because they fudged the numbers of the pollutants that their wells are spewing. Thank you. All right, thank you.

Megan Hughes.

We pull the microphone down, not that one. This one?

OK. Testing. All right. I'm a resident of Erie, and I have expressed my concerns about this deal multiple times in the past. My question today here is, why are people who don't live in Erie able to speak about an issue that impacts Erie residents? Why is a geologist from Louisville able to speak when he doesn't live here? Why is an oil and gas lobbyist or an oil and gas CEO able to speak about this issue that impacts area residents when they don't live here? And then why would you move forward with a consultant who essentially pouted out loud on LinkedIn about the decision that was made last week and you're still willing to hire him? Why is that? Why is that the case? I feel like this public process has been anything but public and even the process today has been heavily corrupted by external people whose only interest is in how they benefit. I work in public relations and I can tell you that anyone who posted a public tantrum on LinkedIn would be immediately fired and their client would be advised to fire them immediately. If all of the comments against this deal don't move you today, Mr. Owens' behavior and the process by which he was selected should. Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you.

Josephine Sturr, then Christian Van Woudenberg.

Good evening, Town Council. My name is Josephine Stare, and I have been an Erie resident for 10 years. I am deeply disappointed by this Council's decision to pursue a no-bid contract. What is worse is you failed to consider alternatives, viable alternatives, including a lease option that would have protected the Town's financial interests. By rushing into this agreement through backroom dealing and violating your own established rules, you are inviting significant legal liability. Make no mistake, there will be lawsuits. I urge you to think very carefully about how you vote tonight. If this measure passes, Discovery will expose everything that has happened behind closed doors. You will find yourself subpoenaed, forced to testify, and entangled in litigation that could reach the State Supreme Court. Are you truly confident enough in this backroom deal to risk your personal and your professional standing? Protect this town, uphold your rules, and vote no.

Thank you.

Christiane Van Mudenberg and then Catherine Clark.

Good evening, Council. I'm speaking to you tonight as a former trustee who faced almost this exact decision eight years ago.

Can you pull the microphone up? Thank you.

Because only a few of you remember the disastrous Crestone Operator Agreement of 2018, I'm going to call this your Tina Peters moment. In 2018, then Mayor Jennifer Carroll attempted to push through a hastily crafted operator agreement with Crestone Peak Resources. The initial vote failed. Trustee Gipp was then convinced to reopen the vote and the operator agreement passed at a special Sunday meeting at the Erie Police Station. That agreement gave away many of the rights also included in this agreement. It's all Jennifer Carroll will ever be remembered for. The choice before you is this. Will you listen to the voices of your community or will you do something that defies logic to appease someone whose interests do not align with those of this community? Will you do what's ethical or will you do what's convenient? Will you rush through this because SM Energy says so or will you use their timeline to your advantage to negotiate better terms? My plea is simple. Learn from the mistakes of the 2018 Council. Don't make this the singular bad decision for which you'll be remembered.

All right, thank you. Is that our last speaker?

Last speaker is Catherine Clark.

Hello. Hello? There we go. Hi. I'm Catherine Clark. I live in Erie for five years. I'm a small business owner here. I love it. My problem is I'm here because I was surprised. I was not informed. So I want to represent the other 40,000 people who aren't in this room, who had no idea that this whole thing is even going on. So I don't know. I don't care if you vote yes or no. I'm asking you to please delay the vote. Do what people are saying and slow down. And I saw a few meetings back, there was some airport discussion and it was easily delayed. I don't know. Maybe this could be easily delayed as well. So thank you.

All right. Thank you.

I want to say thank you to all the speakers in the audience tonight. I ask that you be respectful, and you did that, and it made the whole process go smoothly, and people were able to hear everybody who spoke. So thank you for doing that. We're going to move on to general business now, and we're going to take a break from oil and gas for one moment here. And that is so that I can actually read a proclamation. It's a proclamation about America's 250th birthday and Colorado's 150th birthday. And this feels timely right now because it is America... that allowed every one of you to come up here tonight with a free voice and to express that voice. And that means a hell of a lot to me that those voices are out there and we live in a society that you can actually come up and talk to your elected officials. All right, the America 250th birthday is right around the corner on July 4th, as well as Colorado's 150th birthday. And so this proclamation is to acknowledge that. Whereas the year 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. And whereas the year 2026 marks Colorado's 150th anniversary of statehood. and whereas in 2016 the United States Congress established by joint resolution the American 250 Commission to encourage observance of the 250 years of our nation's existence. And whereas the Colorado Legislature established the America 250 Colorado 150 Commission with the passage of Senate Bill 2022-011, and the Commission has determined its mission and purpose to celebrate Colorado by acknowledging the completeness of our shared history, honor that makes Colorado unique and strive towards a more perfect union. and whereas the town of erie incorporated in eighteen seventy four and has been in existence continuously since that time whereas the town of erie has contributed proudly and significantly to our community and our state for more than a hundred and fifty two years And whereas it is appropriate that the town of Erie engages fully with our past and looks forward to a shared future. And whereas the town of Erie thus encourages the creation and participation in programs that will commemorate the history of our city, our state, and our nation. Now, therefore, the Town Council and the Town of Erie hereby recognizes July 1st through July 31st, 2026, as the America 250, Colorado 150 celebration in Erie, and we encourage all residents to commemorate the rich history of our nation, state, and town adopted this 23rd day of June 2026. All right, with that, we'll get right back to the topic at hand here. And the next item on the agenda is 2026-413. It's a request to reconsider ordinance number 28-2026, an ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Erie authorizing the sale of minerals to 7N LLC, accepting the conveyance of real property from 7N LLC, and approving agreements with 7N LLC, SM Energy Company, and Extraction Oil and Gas Incorporated, regarding the exchange of mineral rights for the real property. With that, I'll turn it over to Council Member O'Connor.

Thank you. So it has been asked why I asked for this to be revisited. What has changed? And really what has changed is I had learned after the meeting on June 16th that a number of residents who were going to speak in favor of the agreement chose not to out of being intimidated. And so they had prepared speeches and they chose not to get up and speak. and after that uh we were town council received numerous emails and comments requesting that there be a motion to reconsider uh this item 2026-394 and many residents along those who claimed intimidation but requested a reconsideration um This also allowed for other residents to become more aware of the proposed agreement. Through the news stories, social media, word of mouth, even the town has been pushing out information for a while. So with many residents requesting the item to be reconsidered, I believe the agreement is too important to the town and its future not to reconsider. It also should be noted that no members of council nor did the consultant from Alameda Minerals Advisors lobby me to put forth this motion to reconsider. It was the residents who did. It also must be acknowledged that the numbers in the LinkedIn post created by Matthew Owens of Alameda Mineral Advisors after the June 16th meeting were greatly exaggerated. The numbers that have been on the town's website are more closer to reality. So here is my request to reconsider item 26-394. On June 16th, council had a 3-3 tie on item 26-394. Because it was a tie vote and the motion did not pass, I was on the prevailing side and can make this motion according to council's rules of order and procedure 7.4F. i move to reconsider item 2026-394 an ordinance of the town council of the town of erie authorizing the sale of minerals to 7n llc accepting the conveyance of real property from 7n llc and approving agreements with 7n llc sm energy company and extraction oil and gas incorporated regarding the exchange of the mineral rights for the real property

all right we have a motion is there a second second all right we have a motion a second now i'll bring it back to council to see if there's any further discussion before calling the vote on the motion to reconsider this is not the vote on the actual agreement would any council members like to add anything at this point see none i'll call the vote all in favor say aye aye all opposed say no no I probably should have done that in a roll call vote. So I'm going to look to our town clerk to take roll.

Council Member Baer? No. Council Member Mortallaro?

Yes.

Council Member O'Connor?

Yes.

council member pesa morelli no council member hoback no mayor pro tem bell yes and mayor moore yes motion passes okay so that takes us on to our next item which is item 2026 414 reconsideration of ordinance number 28 2026 an ordinance of the town council the town of erie authorizing the sale of minerals to 7nllc accepting the conveyance of real property from 7nllc and approving agreements with 7nllc sm energy company and extraction oil and gas regarding the exchange of mineral rights for the real property Before I see if there's a motion to approve this, I want to bring our town attorney, Brina Ming, who's been helping us on this journey. And a lot of things were said tonight. I want to know if the Attorney General's office has reached out to us with anything regarding this matter.

Not that I'm aware of, no.

Are you aware of any laws that were broken in this process?

No. No.

All right, and I think the next question is to our acting town manager. I read this last time, and I'm going to read it again, because this is really important to an underlying theme here. It is true that the town staff did not follow procurement best practices, specifically sole source justification. This is highly concerning to me, just as it is to you. and is being handled as a separate matter, including an independent audit. This lapse in internal procurement. Hey, chief. Thank you. This is highly concerning and is being handled as a separate matter, including an independent audit. This lapse in an internal procurement process does not negate the contract of Alameda Minerals. Now I'm looking to our acting town manager to basically share what you shared last time on what happened with this actual contract.

From the research the town attorney and I have done, it did not go through a proper purchasing policy process. Neither of us were involved at the time when that happened, other than we can say it didn't happen, I couldn't tell you why. Our auditors are, we do have independent auditors that audit all of our finances.

They are aware of the error we made.

We are doing everything internally to make sure that those processes are followed properly going forward, that the error was on staff.

all right and just uh for the record this was under our prior town manager and um it was during uh that um era this has to be fixed period full stop all right with that i'm going to um take us to uh the next item here which is 2026 414 the reconsideration of ordinance uh number 028 2026 an ordinance of the town council the town area authorizing the sale of minerals to 7N LLC accepting the conveyance of the real property 7N LLC and approving agreements with 7N LLC SM Energy and Extraction Oil and Gas regarding the exchange of the mineral rights for the real property so I'll see if there's a motion in a second and if there is then we'll go into deliberations so is there a motion to approve motion to approve is there a second second we have a motion and a second with that i'll bring it back to council and i think i'll just start with council member bear and we will move ourselves around the dais yeah i think we all need to take a deep breath again um so first i was asked by a public speaker mr lillard um

to address that I have been characterized as not voicing my concern from the beginning. And I just want to be expressly clear that I have voiced my concern from the very beginning, from the very first meeting and repeatedly in every meeting and every discussion that this is not what our community wants because our community has shown up over years and in surveys and to show that this is not in alignment with our values. And I have repeatedly said that. I appreciate Mr. Lillard, wherever you are, thank you for calling that out. So with that, I'll read my statement. It is true that the Draco site was approved by the state in March of 2025. It remains true that Erie does not have the authority to deny Draco as a whole. Erie is approximate local government. It's also true that we have the authority to refuse to relinquish our town-owned minerals that are included in the Draco project. That does not end Draco, and that was never, ever the point. The contract before council includes a termination clause in section 41.a that states neither the town council nor anyone we authorize can take formal action to object to the Draco pad, and please latch on to this next phrase, prior to the production of wells. prior to the production of wells. This means we abdicate our authority to stand with residents during the pre-production phase that has the most impacts for people. This includes drilling, historically in our area, complaints with drilling include noise, vibration, nosebleeds, from exposure to drilling mud, odor, eye and throat irritation. It also includes perforation and well completion. When explosives are put down on the wellbore, and in Draco's case, those explosions will be occurring a mile beneath thousands of homes in an unprecedented five-mile lateral. What could go wrong? Hydraulic fracturing, historically in our area, impacts have included noise, vibration, cracks in concrete and drywall, dishes crashing out of cabinets in the case of the interchange A and B pads in Broomfield, and flowback, an extremely emissive part of the process when serious health impacts have been reported, including spontaneous bleeding, nausea, cyclical vomiting, eye and throat irritation, migraines, just to name a few. All of these things happen prior to the production of wells. This deal is being billed as a win for health and safety, and as someone who has been on the front lines at the legislature and regulatory tables fighting for health and safety in oil and gas production for the last eight years, I am telling you this is not a win for health and safety. This is an abdication of our authority. and its history repeating itself. Former trustee Van Woudenberg took my thunder a little bit. But the Crestone operator agreement was billed as a win for health and safety. Just to poll the room, does anyone in the room remember the Crestone operator agreement from 2018-ish? Hundreds of people showed up at the town hall and begged the council not to make that agreement. Um, that agreement failed, but Crestone, which became Civitas, which became SM Energy, by the way, promised to do some extra monitoring and consolidate wells from the planned vessel site and locate them all on a super pad site called Acme. In exchange, the town of Erie would administratively approve Acme and never protest it. That left residents on their own. Me, that left me on my own. in front of the COGCC and the legislature. But I found my neighbors there, friends I connected with in a common cause. I fought for Senate Bill 19-181, along with all of my newfound friends. And when it passed, the director of the COGCC flagged Acme as triggering his director's objective criteria. It could not be cited there because of the new law. And because Acme was gone, the coneflower site that had been designed into the new Parkdale neighborhood went away as well. The day we as a council could vacate the Crestron operator agreement, we did. It was a terrible agreement. And I was on council to support that effort. I say all of this because I want you to understand that I am not new to this conversation or these tactics or this playbook. Dangling the plug and abandon of wells that should have been plugged and abandoned years ago as incentive to facilitate further oil and gas production is a gross tactic. And I commit to working to change policy to hold operators accountable for a more timely approach because health and safety should never be a bargaining chip. Mr. Owens published a blog on LinkedIn after our meeting last week. He disparaged council members, staff, and town residents, and among other things, posted an egregiously bloated valuation for this deal. The facts are that the cash payment to the town for signing the contract is $4.5 million. The contract with Alameda Minerals is 7.5% of the valuation or capped at, and you're never going to believe this, $4.5 million. it behooves Alameda Minerals to bloat the valuation to meet that cap. So let's go back to the termination clause. If the town does anything to trigger the termination clause, as in takes formal action to object to the Draco pad prior to the production of wells, seven this is a quote from the contract seven in may in its discretion terminate this contract by written notice to the town in which case all parties shall be relieved of their obligations here under end quote I've been advised that means everyone gets all of their stuff back and the deal is off. We return the land. They are not obligated to plug and abandon the additional wells within a set timeline. We forego the 3% revenue somewhere between $17 and $40 million over many decades, and we return the $4.5 million cash payment. Only the town paid our consultant $4.5 million, so we'd actually be in the red. And if the operator hasn't approved DSU with the state and has already begun to perforate our subsurface estate, what is our recourse? This disincentivizes the town to stand with residents when impacts inevitably happen as a result of this project. This is why it's dangerous to entangle our budgets with oil and gas money. I have said it many times before. It is hard for health and safety to rise to a level of importance when projects and services, and in this case land, rely on that money. There's no new information tonight. Um, I do appreciate council member O'Connor that you brought this back as is your right. And you followed the process. Um, and we heard from many, many, many more residents on this, the vast majority of whom, um, in email and in public comment and including a letter with more than 200 signatures asked us not to approve this deal. So for all of these reasons and all of the reasons I have previously stated, and because of my commitment to stand with and amplify the voices of the people of Erie, I am an ardent no on the vote to approve this ordinance. And I encourage my fellow council members to join me with an ardent no.

All right, Council Member Mortallero.

Thank you. And thank you everybody for attending tonight and especially those who spoke. And thank you very much for being respectful for one another. Again, Draco is happening. Anyone who says otherwise is either in denial or intentionally trying to mislead you. Approved by ECMC March 2025, a four to one vote. 26 Wells, and all the health concerns that go along with it. The community did a great job coming together at the middle school and in the write-in campaign and the two ECMC hearings. I participated in all of those. It was still approved. Every expert involved in this process agrees that Draco is happening, no matter who they represent. Draco is a one and a half billion dollar operation. Civitas has been working on it for over three years. They have acquired the approvals, the mineral rights, and the commitments and made commitments based on that. I don't believe that 2.7% of the total minerals is going to significantly impact the scope of the project. I heard in the news this week that maybe SM is bluffing. Billion dollar companies don't bluff.

I worked for a $10 billion company for over 16 years.

They have plans, they have multiple backup plans. They have risk management teams. Do you think that a billion and a half dollar project with Erie Minerals was not looked at as a risk early on, even before the middle school ECMC meeting? So every project I worked on came before executive management in a phase zero review. Before I could get any funding or build a team, I had to present to the executives a full layout of the project. Part of the presentation were the known risk and mitigation plans. If I had missed a risk like there is with Erie Minerals, my team would have been led by somebody else at the next review the most influence we may have is possibly impacting the path of some of the lateral wells so instead of going through maybe your property it's going to go you'll have more density at the property you know 400 feet down the down the street your neighbor's property this would actually make the lateral bores longer Longer lateral bores do not help and is a further health concern. Let's talk about health and safety improvements. This deal provides 17 wells near homes and commercial properties in Kenosha Farms, Erie Village, Erie Highlands, Collier's Hill, and Parkdale neighborhoods, plugged and abandoned on a timeline within five years. Some of these wells... These are older wells. Most of the 17 are outside the Draco drilling area. Why is this important? Some of these wells could operate for several decades without this deal. These are older wells. They do not have leak detection equipment like the one near my house. ONG operators have no incentive to plug these wells. Not only is it about $150,000 to do so, But as soon as they do, they give up their mineral rights. There's no incentive to do that. Plus, during the drilling process, they could discover that they have been leaking, like the well 500 feet from my home. It was mentioned tonight, I lived near Arapaho 2-26 for the past 25 years. so again no incentive to plug these wells at least uh meeting someone you know at the last meeting someone said that sm should plug these out of the kindness of the heart or to do the right thing well that's not the way business works um that would be great i would love that but It's not going to happen. That's not how business is done. Companies are responsible to their shareholders. That's how it is. I worked in corporate America for nearly 40 years. Their primary responsibility is to shareholders. And yeah, they're going to do what's right for them first. so to think that they're going to do it out of the kindness of their heart or because of the right thing you know that's wishful thinking again so but if i compare moving some of the laterals path that are 8 000 feet below below us with a thousand foot impermeable shell layer between us versus 17 wells next to our homes and businesses i'm going to plug the 17 wells and get monthly access to the well pad every day of the week that would be my choice because that is better is better for the town and for the community so and for those who suggested that you know council members uh voting for this have any other reason uh other than to benefit the town you know Those are the same folks who say all for love and love for all. until it goes against what they believe and then they lash out at folks. To me, that seems hypocritical. I want to thank the team that negotiated, our staff and the team that negotiated this epic proposal. Without this deal, we abandon our minerals. There's no other way to get to them other than through Draco. We lose the leverage to plug the 17 wells and the onsite monitoring. This deal makes our town safer once we accept the fact that Draco is happening.

right counselor hoback thank you um first i am compelled to address the personal attacks made last week mostly but not exclusively by mayor pro tem when repeatedly and thoroughly misrepresented three counselors who have been opposed to this deal for a variety of valid reasons many of which been of which have been illuminated by residents tonight as well as in the past Referring to us as disingenuous, obstructionist, and saboteurs is beyond unacceptable, as I made loud and clear from this dais only three weeks ago. The truth is, we sat in the executive sessions pushing just as hard for the best Erie could get in the event we ended up with a deal. We lobbied for inspections, monitoring, annexation, and more, just as much as the other four, as he liked calling them about ten times in his speech. As for not following the town's procurement process, to my knowledge, that process was never passed to town staff. Town council was in complete control of the vendor selection process. The buck stops up here. I want to share an appreciation for Councilmember O'Connor's concerns raised last week that residents still may not be informed enough on this topic and has expressed hesitancy to move forward without more information being put out there. He stated well that there seems to be a misunderstanding as to what this is all about. I agree completely, and unfortunately, the misunderstanding and misinformation is significantly worse today than it was only a week ago. Due to the well-publicized LinkedIn blog by Matthew Owens of Alameda Minerals floating around are now grossly exaggerated figures of financial benefits to the town. There is nothing on the table that results in hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits to town. Even projecting a far-off development and expansion of the airport area, which is not what a lot of residents want, does not bring that level of tax benefit in any reasonable time frame. Those numbers were notably used to incite residents to lobby both Council Member O'Connor and Council as a whole to reverse last week's vote. This deal, since the beginning, has had valuations all over the place. Is the last, latest, really the best price we could get? Oddly, even the cost to plug an abandoned 38 wells has changed. It's gone down from an original estimate of $7.6 million to $4.4 million. And although not a monetary benefit to the town, the buyer includes their cost anytime they are valuing the deal. We started off a year ago with an offer valued at $2.8 million involving one parcel of land. Then there was an offer for two parcels of land valued at $4.9 million. I believe we did a letter of intent valued at approximately $12.5 million. These were increases brought about by the town's own negotiations before contracting with Mattoon's to allegedly just value our mineral rights to see if the Civitas offer was enough, to use the mayor's words. That brings us to today, and a contract with $4.5 million of immediate value, another current value of $13.9 million in land that could be sold or used, and another $22 million or so spread over 20 or more years, today's value being less than $20 million on a present value basis. That's cash at closing and the appraised value of land parcels. In today's dollar, that adds up to less than $30 million in present value. That marks the highest value to date. However, as acknowledged by the broker Matthew Owens, SM Energy values at significant multiples of the appraised values. Internally, according to Mr. Owens, SM Energy values Town of Erie rights at $103 million because they overvalue the land at $71 million. Calculations for their side understandably include the P&A work, but that's not a monetary benefit to Erie. They feel they're getting a good deal, offering what they value as $103 million and getting it for 40 million. Actual present value, less than 30 million. So we've been load balled for the fourth time. We have to ask ourselves, did we get the best value? I understand and have come to begrudgingly accept that SM Energy will drill Draco no matter what. That hasn't been beaten into my head, but I do still ask myself, as do many residents, why are they pursuing our rights so aggressively? Why have they continued to up the ante of the contract? Stopping it or not, do we really want to enable and, more importantly, expand their drilling? The answer to the question about pursuing our rights is that it's because they're going to make a pile of money off them. I object to the legal, financial, and ethical responsibility to clean up old wells to now be held out as a carrot and contract benefit or cause to celebrate when they give in and work with a developer to remediate that which they are already responsible to clean up. That has outpushed the loop, egregious profiteering. It's sad that companies do not follow what I learned in business school, that they are responsible to many different stakeholders, including the communities in which they operate. Or maybe oil and gas companies are just different. I have concerns about the contract text, as eliminated by Council Member Baer, that removes the town's right to protest under Draco, protest Draco under any circumstance. contract clause that none of us were aware of until only 11 days ago when the contract was posted on the agenda i have questions about the paving of county road six has this been vetted or evaluated by transportation or anyone for how it fits with recommendations to move the entrance to the landfill how will it impact county road four will this become a new shortcut from county road seven to county road five adding traffic to two uncontrolled intersections telling us that we administratively created a special reserved open space zoning category and then failed to utilize it, thereby leaving all open space unprotected from the whims of a town council, I guarantee is not the intent of the town charter approved by a margin of 15% by voters of the town of Erie. Some of these issues were not even known to council, much less discussed until the contract was posted in the agenda 11 days ago. Until we can have open public discussions about all these issues, we should not be approving a contract with undiscussed terms that restrict town rights. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Now, Council Member Castronelli.

Thank you, Mayor Moore. First of all, I want to thank all the residents who showed up for the public comment and shared their concerns today. So at its core, the decision asks us to permanently sell a public asset while accepting significant uncertainty and risk on behalf of our residents. While it's not a question about Draco will continue, it is imperative that we consider the gravity of approving this sale. Once these mineral rights are sold, they're gone forever. We cannot undo the decision and we lose the leverage that future councils and future generations may need. My concerns begin with the process of the deal. For a transaction of this magnitude, we should have had more transparent competitive bidding with clearly published RFPs regarding the supposed 25 bidders that the proposal was sent to. Without the published data, there is no public guarantee that the bidding process did even happen and was it thorough. Or all the alternatives were truly vetted to ensure that the taxpayers were receiving the best possible value. So as of now, we don't have any guarantees that this deal is the best one, because it is not even through any third party evaluations or things like that. But instead, we are asked to approve a deal without fiduciary safeguards, which are standard in major public transactions. Secondly, transparency matters. Residents have repeatedly expressed concern about the overuse of executive sessions throughout the process. While executive sessions have a legitimate purpose, too much of this discussion has occurred outside of public view. And when we have residents that repeatedly do not understand these processes or the details of the issue, it is our responsibility to improve transparency and public access to this information. I do understand there is a client privilege, attorney level of discussions going on. But a lot of things happened which led the town residents to lose trust in the council. So over the last few months, it started with fearmongering by the council majority about the Red Tail Ranch, that 23 million had to be paid, which was sued by the developer, where a lot of decisions were also made in executive sessions. And the town was not provided details about that. Then it was a megachurch on the Page property, which I also came to know about in an executive session. Though Mayor Moore and Mayor Pro Tem Bell were involved in discussions many months before I came to know about it. So this is so many things that just the town is not aware of and we lost trust. And even the negotiations with SM Energy and introduction of Matt Owens, which I expressed before, was not an unanimous 7-0 decision. We had mistrust all the way, with all the issues in the town being 4-3 votes. And I wanted to ask four of you, like, is there not one argument you want to agree with me? At least one. All of the issues are voted 4-3. Our constant split and lack of non-partisanship in many issues reflects very poorly on our council as a whole and strains our relationship with the public. So considering that this is about to be a 4-3 decision, I don't believe a yes vote is truly because of fiscal reasons. The town of Erie balanced our budgets before this sale was proposed. We balance $393 million, put all money into every possible thing. We saved money by canceling some projects. We are not facing a financial emergency or fiscal necessity to sell our assets and fulfill some projects or we are in debt or something like that. The question is whether one-time payment justifies giving up our future leverage forever or not. Also the 548 acres with the negotiations is simply not worth the value they claim. With its proximity to the airport and no studies being performed to see the viability of economic development in that area or that can be even developed to financially benefit the town. We have no proof of any studies that happened or any facts that shows that this is useful for the town. So good stewardship requires us to think beyond the next cycle. We must consider long-term revenue opportunities, future negotiations, and interests of residents who live here for decades from now. If this is truly the best deal we have, I cannot support this for a proposed fiscal benefit. And finally, it's all about accountability. We are told that certain commitments will be honored within this deal, but history has shown that these energy companies can and have restructured, sold assets, merged and even declared bankruptcy. The promises on paper do not always translate into accountability decades later. There is no absolute guarantee that future owners will honor the spirit of today's negotiations, because if this deal was truly made in good faith, like every previous deal, the wells would already be closed. However, more importantly, our own accountability and responsibility as elected officials is at stake. It is our job to consider the health and well-being of our residents. Many people in our community have expressed concerns about the impact of expanded drilling activity and high radon levels near homes, schools and neighborhoods. Whether one agrees or disagrees on those impacts, we owe it to our residents to proceed with caution, transparency and diligence when public health concerns are being raised. This decision has the prospect to impact not just current constituents, but also future councils. Since the last meeting, countless news outlets and residents have tuned into this issue and commended our town for taking a stand. So whether or not Draco continues or whether our stake is 3% of Dracopat's minerals or 100%, it matters how we respond. Past material benefits or considerations, it's our duty to do what's right and take a stand. My values cannot be bought. I'll be listening and standing up for our community. And I urge your council members to not succumb to the pressure from special interests. That's why I'm voting no for this one.

right councilmember o'connor thank you i've got uh excuse me a question for our town attorney regarding um the if the agreement is unwound does alameda mineral receive their 4.5 million or do they not i think it would depend on at what point and what the the reason for the unwinding of the deal would be okay i oppose the draco project like many others but it's going to move forward we keep hearing about the mineral rights as leverage but in the end we might be left with a worthless mineral island when sm energy drills around the unsold mineral rights the real leverage just might be the items gained through the negotiation process with them The town is only agreeing to sell some of the mineral rights down to around 7,500 feet with the focus on a few of the lowest formations, which is approximately 300 feet thick. The town will retain the mineral rights below, which contain more hydrocarbons and leverage with those mineral rights. could list off with the town um we'll get in return but that's been done before earlier um but to me it's the ability to produce pursue our own environmental testing at the draco pad instead of standing on the outside looking in um i know the 17 wells have been dismissed that they should just be plugged but it puts them on a um a defined timeline to get plugged um and then there's 158 acres of land which would allow the town to have more control over its development i we hear as a council that why are we getting another this type of restaurant that you know that type of business this would give us more control over that corridor of um where that land is along The... Then there's the 4.5 million cash payment to the town and the amount being paid to Alameda Mineral Advisors for their services. There has been a lot of misinformation around this detail. If the agreement is reached between SM Energy and the town after closing, Alameda Mineral Advisors would receive commission of 7.5% of the total agreed upon land value, approximately 13.5 million in monetary payment that the town would receive in the agreement, which is 4.5 million. That means... at closing alameda would receive an estimated payment of less than two million dollars the town would keep the remaining amount of that 4.5 million dollars keep in mind these are all estimates after the wells are producing and sm energy has recouped 200 revenue off of those wellheads the town would receive three percent royalty payments over the life that the wells are producing of that three percent alamina mineral would receive a 7.5 commission up to the remaining balance of their 4.5 million dollar cap the life of the wells is expected to be approximately 20 to 25 years which means it will take a long time for alamina mineral to receive their full compensation again capped at 4.5 million There's been questions regarding the potential issues with the land, and if potential defects are discovered, there is a 50-day inspection period with the option of extending it 15 days. If issues are discovered making the land not usable as thought or environmental issues are found, both parties can walk away retaining their cash, real property, and mineral rights. If no sale goes through, the town keeps the mineral rights. like draco to stop but it's not going to my home is being drilled under regardless if this agreement is signed or not if the agreement is signed i have property that will also be drilled under which we used to live in and might again um so just uh i just you know after looking back and forth at this agreement i think it's in the best interest of the town to move forward with it airport tim

Thank you. Last time I read a mostly written statement and since my vote was made clear last time, I just decided to be a little bit more addressing certain points that I'd heard. So this may sound somewhat stream of conscious, but I was writing down things that I'd heard and responses to them. First off, I wanna say to Council Member O'Connor, I totally understand your vote last week. The public can either believe this or not, but I never, nor the Gang of Four, so-called. I never expect anybody to vote a particular way. And Councilmember O'Connor, first off, If you think Councilmember O'Connor can be pressured into voting something, you don't know him at all. And I can say that you are a person of integrity and you are a person that makes decisions based on logic and based on what you are presented with. and you're not going to be forced into anything. So the things that I read online, especially that accusations of bribery are completely unfounded and are not even worthy of discussion. And I'm sad that it's come to that. So I do wanna say for the public comment, beginning here that, especially compared to last week, I was very impressed with the respect that everyone had, regardless of what side they were on, and we had a number of people speak, and we were able to get through everyone, and I just wanna appreciate that, no matter where you stand on this issue. Sorry, I apologize here. Kendall likes to go to sleep here. Since last Tuesday, and I think there was, definitely last Tuesday, there was a loud opinion that we heard from one segment of the population. And I can tell you that people who did support the deal, for whatever reason, did not come out. You know, whether it was intimidation or another factor, I can't say. But I can tell you that since Tuesday that we have been inundated with emails and the vast majority of them were in support of the agreement. I want to read two in particular because these ones spoke to me the most because whether you're pro-oil and gas or anti-oil and gas, I think two of the most effective emails, and I'm not gonna read the names of people, but I'm gonna read the words that they wrote because I think it's important, but these were people that were opposed to Draco, that spoke out against Draco, but are for this agreement. First one, it says, dear town mayor and councilors, I'm an environmentalist and I support the agreement with Draco. As a lead leadership in energy and environmental design accredited professional, I am disappointed that the state regulators approved this project, meaning Draco. However, we lost that fight, and now we need to make the best of it. With our declining capital funds, a vote against this agreement is now a vote against bike paths, recreation centers, parks, and affordable housing. Yes, this is a hard choice, but I urge you to faithfully represent what is best for our community and vote in support of this agreement. The second one here, dear council members, I recently moved back to Erie after approximately 11 years away. I was deeply disappointed to hear about this fracking project. It's still unclear how this was approved despite the community pushback at the time. In any case, since this is a done deal, it is critical that the town of Erie secure the best possible agreement moving forward, especially when it comes to plugging old wells. I remember the terrible 2017 explosion in Firestone that killed two residents due to severed gas lines that Anadarko failed to seal properly. It is incumbent on our town council to consider the safety, resident concerns, and property values of its residents. As such, I support a motion to reconsider the vote on the agreement when the full council is in session, June 23rd, 2026. I urge you to vote yes on the agreement. The next thing I will say is that I think from the opposition to the agreement on here tonight, and I hear from a lot of you, and I think it falls into certain categories, and I understand that there is sincere opposition to this agreement, and I understand that, and even though we might disagree, I appreciate your position, and I do believe it's sincere. I do believe that there is a gross amount of misinformation that has been spread from many who are in the opposition. And some of it I think they are hearing from other people. And that brings me to, unfortunately, the third group that I believe that there is deliberate misinformation that has been spread online. and in other formats. And the first form of that is the fact that, well, we keep hearing that this isn't about Draco or we're not trying to stop Draco. This is about the mineral rights. The fact is that online communications and stuff that I read this week, things that have been sent to me, made it clear that there were talking points sent out that asked people to stick to the mental rights and the no-bid contract agreement so that the mayor and I couldn't bring up that, well, Draco's happening anyway. When in reality, and you heard a few people bring it up here, Many people are referring to deadlines in the SM contract with the ECMC for the May 13, 2028 deadline. That agreement was made with Southern Land Company. And it specifically has to do with, I believe, 20-some units that would be within the 2,000-foot setback of the well pad. It was an agreement that was reached at the time the ECMC made, passed that agreement, that at that time Civitas would be completed with production operations before the permits went into those houses to prevent as little disturbance as possible to new residents moving in there. I'm here to tell you that if you're not paying attention to what's happening in Westerly or other parts of town, you show me where the houses are selling. That particular phase of development hasn't even started yet. They're not even finished with their current phase. Go look at the number of building permits that the town has issued in the last year compared to the last five years. Go back and compare that to 2024. The fact of the matter is that it's highly unlikely that those particular units would even have broke ground by May of 2028, making the point of them being finished with production kind of moot. But they are correct, it is an agreement in the ECMC contract. And what we were told is basically If it ever actually happened where they were in jeopardy of meeting that timeline, all that has to happen is SM will go to Southern Land Company and say, hey, we're not gonna make this timeline. How can we strike a deal? And as somebody pointed out, with potentially $1.5 billion that they're dealing with, They have quite a bit of leverage to work with Southern Land to move that timeline. And after that, if Southern Land agrees to it, I highly doubt the ECMC is going to say no to it. So the idea that We're going to stall this agreement, and then with the hopes that we'll kick the can down the curb, we'll make it more difficult for SM to go change their drilling and spacing unit, get some more time, and then, hey, we'll hit that May 13, 2028 deadline. That's not going to happen. They're not going to tell you that. I will tell you that. So the other thing, as far as Draco moving forward, you've heard from many people tonight, of course SM's telling you Draco's moving forward. Of course Matt Owens is telling you Draco's not moving forward. What they're not telling you is our own attorneys and town staff said Draco will move forward. In fact, our Director of Environmental Services pretty much said he has no reason to believe that there won't be 26 wells drilled. So it comes down to a question of are we going to get something for this? Or will we get nothing for this? I heard talking about we need to hold on to this to hold on to our leverage. You're talking about the town's minerals, 3% of the DSU. If I came to you all tonight and I said, hey, guess what, folks? We cut a deal. They're only going to be able to drill 97% of the DSU. Would any of you find that satisfactory? The fact of the matter is they have multiple ways of drilling those wells. They have multiple ways to either go around us. They could go through us and get a subsurface easement. And they'll tell you, oh, no, no, we have to issue that with them. Guess what? Where I live in Erie Highlands, we're not in the DSU but we are getting drilled under and SM will have to come to the town to get a subsurface easement for them to be able to do that. Do you think for a moment that the town is gonna fight SM when the ECMC has already approved this and that's gonna get denied? That's not gonna happen. We have tons of subsurface easements with other oil companies in other parts of town for other various reasons. It's not a reality-based argument. I want to talk for a second about the LinkedIn post. And I will just say this. I'm not gonna get into this too much, but when I saw that, I was concerned. I will say I sent an email to the town attorney and the acting town manager, and that's all I'm gonna say. I don't think it was a wise move, specifically because it asked for people to reach out to Councilmember O'Connor for a company that we were under contract with. um i'm going to leave it at that um i will say that the agreement before us tonight and the contract agreement with alameda minerals are two separate entities we can deal with both um i also want to say as far as this thing with with the ag um If you, the town's procurement process is defined in the Home Rule Charter. The AG typically deals with criminal activities. Sometimes it could potentially be civil, but the particular, issues with the RFP as far as our process in issuing RFPs, our process in following RFPs, is enforced by the town charter. That is a municipal responsibility as a home rule entity. I'm sure there was probably some form letter saying from the AGO's office saying when they got the complaint, we'll look into this. That doesn't particularly mean anything. And I find it interesting that as somebody who is actually being affected by this because my house is right, I'm outside the DSU, but my house is being drilled under. I don't own mineral rights, but even if I did, I wouldn't benefit from this because I'm outside the DSU. And yet this individual came out and threw in my face that the AG is looking into this and that somehow I acted unethically when he wasn't in the drilling path or in the DSU. So this gets personal up here. If you're up here making these decisions, This is difficult, and we try to make the best decisions we can, but when you have arrows flying at you constantly, accusing you of things that, in all honesty, the mayor and I had many discussions where we were trying to figure out how to get out as much possible in the public after we concluded our last of the executive sessions, which were held back in February. And you can believe that or not, but I have no reason to lie to you. I will say, somebody mentioned SIRSA. Our staff constantly works with SIRSA. They are the town's insurance company. If there is an issue that the town possibly faces liability, they reach out to us. And guess what folks, if we as counselors, if we break certain protocols, now we generally get covered by them, but if we do something where we are not acting in the town's interest, we could potentially be on our own. i won't belabor the point but council member o'connor did lay out that the 4.5 million for payment for alameda again is being grossly exaggerated it's 7.5 percent on each uh particular item that comes forward. A lot of this is due to royalties that will be paid out in the future. There is no guarantee that Alameda will reach the $4.5 million threshold. That's a subjective figure and still needs to be seen out over time. I want to make a point based on something council member Hoback said that there never was a plan in the work plan or anywhere else that we were going to change any areas to reserve open space. That's most likely a future issue for a future council and future planning commission. We have certain open space, like Wise Farm, where there's an agricultural lease on that. We have to be very careful if we're gonna put something as reserved open space, because a lot of those uses are not permitted on something that's reserved open space. We're only gonna apply reserved open space, or a future council should only apply reserved open space, if it is a benefit to the public and does not affect any other uses we have on that property. I will say in response to Council Member Pessaramelli where he says, why are we always having four, three votes? When are we gonna have a vote that includes me? Well, I remind Council Member Pessaramelli and Council Member Hoback and Council Member Behr that during the discussions of the page property, which I'm not going to go down every rabbit hole of everything I was accused of, but I'm just here to point out that the Page property was rezoned on a 7-0 vote. We did it because we did the hard work beforehand to ensure what was the proper use for that property and we heard from the public. But that's outside the scope of what we're talking tonight, so I'll leave it at that. I will also say As far as the contract amounts that you've heard, yeah, I agree, the whatever it was, $450 million, that's not an accurate figure. I don't believe that maybe would be the maximum potential value of future economic activity. However, I would also say that filing this deal at 20 million is also not accurate. There will be potential royalties. They have to happen over time, but those are real valuations. The number the town has used and the number that you've seen is somewhere 43, 44 million, and that is probably the number I would go with. And I would say, personally, I was not happy with every item in this particular deal we talked about county road six right personally i don't know why even with the ecmc i don't i don't know why sm was ever agreeing to county road 6 being developed because the landfill And our discussions with them had already agreed that they were going to make that improvement. And Councilmember Hoback was talking about moving the landfill entrance. There's been one person since 2018 when a deal fell through for moving the landfill entrance that has been screaming at the top of their lungs that we need to move that landfill entrance, and it was me. So I didn't particularly understand why All of a sudden, we're now creating something that somebody else already agreed to build as a valuation in what we're doing in this agreement. But as all things considered, do you get everything you want in a deal? No. These are negotiated points. And only to say that I'm trying to paint this as sunshine and roses, I certainly am not. I would also like to say the valuation of the land for the airport that somebody had brought up earlier, those numbers came from somewhere and it came from a report from ABS Aviation that we'd done back in 2023. The town paid $100,000 to ABS to do that study for the airport and it was viewing potential future Economic activity at that airport. Light industrial. Yeah, that's exactly the zoning that's out where the other Nassar developments are, where we have a lot of economic activity out there. There's a lot of businesses out there. That's what we're talking about. And the airport road connection, again, I was the person that brought back the airport economic development advisory board along with two residents who wanted to see it come back. That road connection has been on there since 2020. So that's before Mayor Moore even considered coming back to run again for mayor. So, I I'll last, I'll just, I kind of gone on long here. I'll just, uh, finish up. Cause I know we got a long night here, but, um, I would just say, if you look at the value of what we are getting, um, this deal far exceeds uh any negative outcomes on this and the to me the biggest things are the the plugging and abandonment of wells that are in the area and um the inspection uh to the site and i think that is extremely important uh in additional land and somebody said it before yes the origin of this came because we were trying to get a deal for the land in front of the airport and when we started negotiating with sm directly we were getting nowhere despite what counselor hoback said nobody was happy with those offers And we went from 2.8 million to 43 or 44 million, somewhere in there. I don't think, you may not like this deal, but you're not gonna tell me with a straight face that we didn't do everything to try to get the best monetary exchange for our negotiation. And I'll leave it at that.

All right, thanks Mayor Pro Tem. I'm a resident, too. And it is hard to sit up here and try to do the right thing and have so much said about you, said about the town. It is just absolutely not true. But I get the politics. All you have to do is look at the national politics, pick up that narrative, run with that playbook. And if you can't fight something on the facts, you fight it on the character. You fight it on the process and all that. And man, if I was sitting out there, I'd be pissed. And I am pissed that we did not follow the procurement process. I also work in government, and there's two processes in procurement. There's the RFP process, when you believe there's competitiveness out there. And there's the sole source process, which is what this should have followed. Because when we started, we had the bid for a few million dollars. And I don't think any of us up here would say, oh yeah, a few million dollars is going to be worth this stress, this public outcry. It was a landowner in Erie's planning area that had contracted with Alameda Minerals that had gotten his mineral values up. And he made the connection to me. I did not negotiate with Alameda Minerals. I forwarded that on to town staff, who used the input from us to negotiate the deal. I didn't learn about the fact that our procurement process was not followed until sometime in the late spring. There was nothing I could have done about it at the time. It does not affect the contract though. But we have processes in this town under our prior town manager from the million dollars of the bridge fund. Some of you may remember that. That was a procurement process to this procurement process. I've started to ask way more questions about processes because we would never know the processes without actually asking. We just approved a bunch of contracts on the consent agenda. I have faith now that they've gone through the right procurement process. But when you think of all the contracts we approve, any of those maybe didn't go through the process. I don't know. Or at least I'm with you that at least it raises a question in my mind, which isn't good. But I'm taking it seriously, and I will stay on top of that until we get the audits, until we get to the bottom of what happened, and to ensure it doesn't happen again. In this particular situation, I fall back on my fiduciary responsibility to the town. And that means that I am and everybody else up here are legally and ethically bound to act in the absolute best interest in the town of Erie. As a fiduciary, we must put Erie's needs, financial well-being, and interests ahead of our own. That is just the definition of fiduciary responsibility. We have a duty of loyalty in that we must act solely in the interest of the town and cannot use any position to further our own personal or business interests. And we must avoid conflict of interests. We have a duty of care in that we must make informed, prudent, and competent decisions. This means doing our homework and analyzing all the data and acting with the same diligence that a reasonable person would use in a similar situation. That doesn't mean we read everything on Facebook and make our decision based on that. We are listening to our attorneys. We are listening to our staff members. And I take that very, very seriously. But also, we have a duty of confidentiality. that we cannot disclose sensitive or private information about anything that we're doing here without permission to do so. And that's the executive session. So I go back and I question myself. And to say, what happened in the executive sessions where people are questioning what happened in there? Nobody raised issues at the time. So my commitment to the public is any executive sessions from this moment on, at the end of every executive session, I'm going to ask the question. Does anybody in this executive session feel that there is something that happened here that shouldn't have happened here? And our lawyers are in there to help us navigate that. That is important, and as the presiding officer, I have to do that, and I will do that, and that's the right thing to do. As far as this agreement, I think everybody has gone over the reasoning, the four deal points. It's really do we get something or nothing. The drilling will happen whether we do something or not. And so in the fiduciary responsibility that I have, I don't feel that I can take a personal belief that I believe Draco should not happen, that we should not have this horizontal drilling. I have to put that aside because that is not what I'm being asked to answer today. i go back often to this and the plugging of the wells is very important to me because when we talk health and safety those are putting off vocs right now at this moment but i look at the land is really the valuable thing here it's not the four and a half million it's not even really the well-held revenue i agree with those in the council and others that have said in the big picture in our budget that's not that much money It'll help us, believe me, it'll help us. And we'll certainly be able to expand our public works facility to service the needs of this town because the land sits right there. But the land is the goose that lays the golden egg. It is the land that if and when it is developed, it will put off money because it will be of such development that it generates sales tax and property tax. And that goes on into perpetuity. Some people have said, well, why don't you just buy the land? SM Energy owns this land. If we walk away from this deal, I don't suspect they're going to have the red carpet out for us to go negotiate the purchase of the land. So if I can get it in this deal for long-term benefit, that is where I'm at. So with that, feel it's my fiduciary responsibility to take the best deal we can this deal is 10x what it was before we hired alameda minerals maybe we could have gotten more i don't know where we would have gotten more this is a good deal compared to where we started for sure all right with that we have a motion and a second um for the reconsideration of the ordinance 028-2026. With that, I'll look to our town clerk to take the roll call vote.

Council Member Mortellaro?

Yes.

Council Member O'Connor?

Yes.

Council Member Pessimarelli?

No.

Council Member Hoback?

No.

Mayor Pro Tem Bell?

Yes.

Council Member Behr? No. Mayor Moore?

Yes. All right. With that, I'm going to look to the council to see if you want a break, or do you want to go right into the next public hearing?

Yeah, let's take a break.

Take a break. All right. We will reconvene at 1035. We will continue on with our meeting tonight. On to the last item in general business. It's item 2026370. It's a public hearing, a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Erie approving the Erie Junction Duplex Special Review use with a condition. And with that, take it away, Chris.

Thank you. Chris LaRue with Planning and Development Department.

I'm here tonight to present the Erie Junction Duplex Special Review use.

I'll try to go fairly quickly. And again, it's a special review use. The project site's about 2.73 acres. It's zoned Old Town Residential, or OTR. And the existing use is as vacant lots. So the normal development review process starts with annexation. It goes to rezoning. Then you do preliminary and final plat. Typically, you would do the special review use with the preliminary plat. In this case, the decision was made to separate it from the normal process, and as a result, we're here tonight to review the special review use. The project has been built. Again, it has a DA and final plot with it, so it's a little out of a normal sequence. So that's the background in terms of why we're here tonight. I'll go over some specifics with the site and area. Uh, it's Northeast of County line road and Balkan street. It's highlighted in the red on the screen in front of you. Here's a couple shots, uh, looking at the site and area. This is looking North on County line road and the red arrow on the subset kind of shows the direction that it's facing out there on the street. And this is looking east on Balcombe, down the long side of the rectangle of the site. And then this is looking east into the site. So the existing zoning of the site is Old Town Residential, OTR, which only allows single family detached as permitted uses. It does allow duplex or single family attached, only by the special review use. Comprehensive plan designates the site as residential medium. That designation does allow housing types, a variety of housing types to include small lot, single family, detached, duplexes, town homes, and smaller scale apartments. It currently lists a density of eight to 18 dwelling units per acre. So there's a couple comprehensive plan policies that are appropriate for this site and it just ensures that new development meets comp plan vision priorities and resource management. Developing duplexes will help contribute to the need for more diverse housing typologies and improved affordability in the community. You want to locate hired in city housing and mixed use development areas that are currently served or may be served by bus transit and neighborhood centers. The Erie Town Center is just down the street from there. At some point, there is an area where a bus stop may be located. Medium density development support the neighborhood center of historic Old Town, and it is near the town center. So just going over the proposal really quickly, 10 buildings that are part of the request. It's a total of 20 units. There are six western units that are front-loaded, meaning that their garages are oriented towards the street. And then 14 units are alley-loaded. They include these center ones and one on the end up here. This last building is not part of the request tonight. It's a triplex that does also require special reviews and site plan. That would be subject to a future application. The applicant did not want to include that with these at this point. This is just a quick view of some of the concepts that they have worked up for the duplexes, feature architecture reviews. We'll need to ensure design elements are met consistent with our code. Here's another view of them. This one shows the alley-loaded garages. This is just another view that shows some of the architecture. And so staff reviewed the approval criteria for the project and found that it met all of the requirements that are listed, being consistent with comp plan, the UDC, purposes intent of the zone district, It's generally consistent with any use standards. It's compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design, and operating characteristics. Not really anticipating any kind of negative impacts other than a short construction timeline, but they'll be required to follow requirements from their plans for that. Any significant adverse impacts anticipated result from the use will be mitigated or offset. I guess I just would point out that the final plat had been reviewed and approved. All the CDs were approved through the town, so I'm very confident that it's going to meet all of those requirements. Adequate maintenance has been provided. DA is on file. There's no significant adverse impacts anticipated with natural environment with this project. So staff does find the application complies with the criteria. We recommend that the town council adopt a resolution approving the duplex special review use. The Planning Commission heard this project and unanimously voted for recommendation of approval on May 20th. They had a discussion. They talked about things to include fencing and maintenance, of which the condition that's included addresses the concerns the Planning Commission had. They talked about product types, number of units, access, comp plan designation, and a couple of questions on the process. Applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting back in April. They reported four attendees. Notes were included in the application. All the appropriate notices, that says Planning Commission, I should have said for Town Council, sorry about that. But all the notices were appropriately done to include publishing, posting the property, and letters to adjacent property owners. So that concludes the staff presentation for the Erie Junction Duplex Special Reviews. I do know that the applicant is attending online. He does not have a PowerPoint prepared, but may want to say a few words. So with that, I'll conclude.

All right. Thank you. Let's see. I'll make sure the public hearing is open, and I'll ask, is there anybody that has signed up for public comment?

Not to my knowledge.

All right. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to address us on public comment? The two people that are in the audience for the record have said no. All right. Would the applicant like to say a few words?

Good evening, Town Council and Mayor. My name is Nick Jacobs. Can everyone hear me? Yes. I do not have any comments to add. I am standing by for any questions or clarifications from council or mayor. Thank you.

All right. Sounds good. I'll close the public hearing and I'll bring it back to council for any questions for the applicant. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you.

I know it's late, so I'll keep them short. Just out of curiosity, because I think I'm going to be the only one up here that was here at the very beginning of this on the preliminary plat, which I think It was, I think, back in 2021 or 2022. I'm just curious, did you guys have some delays that weren't able to bring the center or what? either for the applicant or staff.

You're referencing the special reviews as to why that's here at this point?

Well, I'm just curious what, I mean, like I said, I think it was, I thought it was late 2021, but I can't remember.

Yeah, that's right.

Yeah, okay. I'm just curious what, if there were delays we ran into or something.

Yeah, I could give you a quick history. In 21, that's January of 21, that's when the sketch plan was considered approved. then in December of 22 the preliminary plat was approved or recommended for approval by Planning Commission and then the then Board of Trustees approved that preliminary plat in January of 22 then the final plat was approved in 23 with along with the development agreement November of 23 I know that the applicant may be able to provide a little more information but I know at some point it was listed for sale and then Is that enough of a history in terms of? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I was just trying to refresh myself. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Questions, comments?

Go ahead, Council Member Behr.

Thank you. don't know if i'm talking to the applicant or to chris um so is this the same owner then has the property sold the development no it's the same owner that originally had the projects in with the town so i remember there were some concerns with parking um and sort of the plan for on-street parking with this development um has that been considered with any changes um

No changes have been made to the proposal. Every site is required to have two off street parking Here I could show the plan really quick and they all have will have that it also would allow Some on street parking on the private portions of the street here and then potentially maybe on Balcombe But we think that there's probably plenty of parking available to meet the needs of the development at this point.

I remember the concerns with the parking spilling out onto Balcombe and perhaps across the street even. So just ensuring there's adequate space.

Yes, it meets the UDC requirements. I mean, as to whether or not people potentially could park in the streets, they could. They're public streets, so we wouldn't necessarily have control over that. But it does meet the minimum requirements for parking for the development.

Okay. And then I see we only have one public comment attached. And... they're asking about a fence that there should be a fence along that I guess eastern edge contiguous fencing along the entire northern perimeter should be I'm sorry it's the northern perimeter but I don't think that that would be a decision to make that's just I just want to note that in the public comment okay And yeah, that's all for me, thanks.

Okay, Council Member Martellaro.

Thanks, Chris. Thanks for hanging in here with us today. So the Planning Commission, the one condition was around the fence, the build and pass along and the maintenance and responsibility of the fence. So is the developer responsible for building the fence and then the residents or HOA or whatever are responsible for maintaining it after that? Or is that the condition?

yes it basically just says that um they have to build the developer would build and then pass along maintenance responsibility um for those northern lots that here and here um they would pass those responsibilities on probably to the homeowner okay ultimately take that over i doubt those would be hoa fences there's only yeah okay

And so the height is 27 feet to the top of the second floor plus the roof.

I guess I probably could have done some geometry, but I figured I'd just ask you. What's the total height?

Oh, I see what you're asking. Yeah, the maximum height is 35 feet in the zone district, I believe. I could double check it. But most of the homes that you see aren't going to be that. They're limited to two stories. it could allow some larger peaked roofs but I don't think we'll see anything that's all that imposing based on the designs that he's going with here okay and and it looks like the duplex are side-by-side yes

I just have a question it was in the in the neighborhood meeting notice page or it mentions

that potential buyers have spoken. They no longer view Erie Junction as a higher-end development. They view it as a low-cost project, similar to the affordable housing project. So it's already been developed, like the roads and that infrastructure is in place. Are they changing what they were intending to build to bring it down to a lower price point?

Not to my knowledge. I don't think that's the plan. I think they're doing market rate. We could confirm with Nick that Mr. Jacobs sits on the phone call, but no, I think they're doing market rate.

Is there a sense of the price point for the units?

I would defer to Mr. Jacobs on that one. Okay.

Go ahead. Hi, everyone. So not right now. We don't have a market rate. I did plan at the very beginning of this development to do a high end luxury duplex unit similar to the 45 units that we built in downtown Lafayette. I don't see a market for that now, given the surrounding environment and the development that's happened around it. I don't think we're doing anything that anyone would remotely call low cost or something similar to that, whatever phrase people like to use today. Tom Preston- we're still going to be building things that are going to be north of 700,000 and that's that's pretty much where we're at i'm going to try to to develop a product there that I can sell that's going to be in the high sixes but I don't think it's possible, given our construction costs and wherever at with that.

Thank you. Tom Preston- Okay, any other further questions. Okay, then we'll come back and we'll see if there's a motion to approve Resolution 26119. Move to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. motion carries all right looking forward to seeing those come out of the ground i think it'll be a great product for uh for old town thank you all right we'll move on to council member reports and announcements and because of the late hour it is i just ask everybody to um keep it as brief as possible um tonight i'll start with mayor pro tem and i'll work the other way

Just two things real quick since we didn't have comments last week. So I just want to say congrats to former Erie resident, hometown hero, Jacob Slavin. Second American ever to win the gold medal and the Stanley Cup in the same year. Had quite a year. And I'd also like to say to his little brother, Josiah, was in the Calder Cup, which is the AHL's a championship game. He plays with the Chicago Wolves. They didn't win that, unfortunately, but we're certainly proud of him and how he went. I'd also like to say local Colorado native Wyndham Clark winning the U.S. Open for the second time. So we've got a lot of Colorado people winning these prestigious awards. So anyway, that's all I got. All right.

I'll keep it short. We're not going to be back until after the 4th of July, so happy Independence Day to you.

Great. No, all right.

Mr. Hovek, anything to add? Nope, too late. All right, thanks. Just happy Independence Day.

I just want to thank BBN for hosting Juneteenth. I didn't get to go, but I heard it was a blast. And then I am still committed to convening a working group, and we're having our first meeting in July to discuss what we need to change at the state level as far as policy goes to ensure that our legacy wells in Erie are plugged and abated and especially near schools and homes in our neighborhoods, so that this situation never happens again.

Okay. I don't have anything other than to say we are not going to be up here for three weeks. And I don't think that's ever happened, at least since I've been elected. So I'm going to look at our acting town manager to say thank you for however we scheduled this. So we'll see you back on the 14th. With that, I'll look to our Mayor Pro Tem to take us into executive session.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to go into executive session to discuss item 2022. I'm sorry. 20-26-410 to hold a conference with the attorneys pursuant to CRS.46424B and E to receive legal advice and develop a strategy for and instruct negotiators related to construction defects on a town project.

All right. Do we have a second?

Second. Second.

we have a second any further discussion all in favor say aye aye all opposed say no motion carries we will not come back after exec session we will end the meeting after executive session