Town Council - Regular Meeting

This is a special meeting. 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 and justice for all.

Will the town clerk please take roll?

Council Member Passamarelli.

Present.

Council Member Mortallaro.

Here.

Council Member Hoback. Council Member Behr. Present. Mayor Pro Tem Bell.

Here.

Council Member O'Connor. Present. Mayor Moore. Here. Mayor, you have a quorum.

All right, thank you. We'll see if there's a motion to approve the agenda tonight, of which there's only one item, and that is the public hearing with regard to Erie's mineral rights. So moved. Second. Motion is second. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. All right, we have an agenda. We'll go right into public comment. And I'll ask the town clerk how many people have signed up tonight.

We have 18 right now.

OK, and so we'll leave public comment at the normal time, which is three minutes per person. Please remember that public comment is not an interactive Q&A 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 kiosk in the lobby. If you have a handout, please give it to the town clerk to the left. They will distribute it to the council and include it into 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. You will be given a 20 second warning when your three minutes are almost up. At the three minute mark, you'll be asked to wrap up your final sentence. All opinions are welcome, but please be respectful To ensure everyone feels welcome to share their comments, please refrain from any cheering, clapping, booing, or otherwise disruptive behavior. Now that I've said this, this is a public hearing. So there will be public comment in the public hearing. So let me first see, has anybody signed up for general public comment?

I believe all of these people are for the mineral rights.

OK, is there anybody here to address the council tonight that is not related to the mineral rights? OK, then we will jump right in to our first item. That's item 2026, 394. It's a public hearing, an ordinance of the town council, 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 regarding the exchange of mineral rights for the real property. All right. With that, I will declare that the public hearing is now open. And I'll turn it over to our town attorney just to summarize the agreement that is in place.

What is before the council are two documents. The first is a contract which would outline the exchange from SM Energy 7N as well as Civitas in exchange for Erie's minerals. There's also a companion agreement that is called the agreement regarding the Draco pad, which is specific to items related to that Draco pad. There is no town presentation. We linked the prior to special meetings in the packet.

All right, and we have published all that information on our website, including an FAQ that supports this as well. So with that, let's get right into the public comment. So I'll look to our town clerk to bring up the first person.

Our first speaker is Steve Drew, and he has pulled with Maria Drew, so he'll have six minutes.

okay thank you again uh for this forum uh it's very appreciated my name is steve drew i'm a resident of erie um represented by brandon bell and dan hobeck in the district uh up by colliers hill um you've seen me come in before uh four months ago was the first time ever speaking to a group like this but it was very specific it was it was around um some flags that i'd seen related to some of the activities and related to contracts and things like that I just want to be very clear. I am one of those people, it's one of those, I'm not impacted by the Draco bad directly. I'm also, I have no aspirations for the roles that you provide. And I really appreciate what you do because it's absolutely a challenge. But the reason I did come up is because I did have some knowledge and some straightforward, honest questions that evolved over time into questions from neighbors and questions from others. And it's expanded into something well beyond what I'm typically comfortable with. But I am here speaking to you on behalf of quite a few residents. The focus of this is not anti-DracoPAD. It's around processes and the correct way to run processes. So my notes on here, I'll probably just roll with them for a certain about. Really, the question I have, and this is really for Brian O'Connor, Brandon Bell, Amir Moore, and John, it's really who you're representing. Because in this process, you haven't represented, there's one very large party you haven't represented, and that's the people that elected you. the people that you've been elected to represent. These are Erie residents. Let's just go through the list of things you've done to represent others in financial interest, in processes and things like that. Within this process, before you decided that Erie residents just don't get an input in this. And I'm talking about voting. This is tens of millions. If you go on the other side of that coin, it's hundreds of millions of dollars of flowing money in and out of this area. By choice, the four of you have elected to not bring this to vote. You can decide why. The suspicion is that probably wouldn't pass. But in your case, you decided to not represent people and the residents here and there. There's audacity in that, a series of disingenuous behavior around it. But that's your choice. So there's one of those things that I brought up before. There's things you can do and things you should do. You can do that because you're a block of four voting together, lockstep. But you've taken those rights away from people that may want this to occur, and you've taken rights away from people that may not. We don't know. But that's your choice, and you've done it. And you're continuing to do it up through tonight. The second is you've withheld information, and you've been very consistent about this. It's under executive session confidentiality, therefore we can't talk about it. You put it under executive session confidentiality, therefore it's confidential. And in that process, you've self-selected what gets released and what doesn't. You've brought out, oh, shame on you, you don't have good information. Well, that's because you four have chosen not to share it. And that's getting a little odd within that area. The four of you also decided that you took input in valid questions. You've been very disingenuous with your answers. You've provided what you want to provide. You've not run studies. You have not really answered questions from legitimate residents about anything within this process. You have provided opinions without facts. So that is, once again, you have the power to do it. Your abuse of that power is what the issue is. And it's very shameful, but shame isn't doing it for the four of you. Representation isn't doing it for the four of you. So you're giving out self-selected information.

Who are you representing then?

Because it's not us as residents. And once again, you're not even representing those that might be behind you in this one. So in this one, the four of you handed a $4.5 million contract to the founder of Civitas to represent us in finance issues. Now that contract was unvetted. We still don't know, and we're not talking opinions. We don't know if the guy had financial interest at any stage throughout this process. can guarantee it you can say you did or didn't but again the real information is hidden within executive session confidentiality by you from us so that's the first red flag that brought me in just handed it over no competitive process can anybody do it better can anybody do it cheaper no you just made the call there you go we're off and running with this already so the founder of civitas is our consultant in this process supposed to represent our interests instead He gave you a single contract to vote on tonight. Which company did he hand to you? Same company, Civitas. And in this, it is your fiduciary responsibility to make sure his contract was taken care of, the process was followed. And you haven't done that. And again, you may find loopholes. You may find things associated with this that says we have the entire power to do it. But you are not representing Erie. And you're not representing, you're representing yourselves. And whatever interest you have in this, one way or the other. How many seconds?

20.

So the Attorney General's involved at this point. The Attorney General is collecting information to the AGO's office. If you haven't been contacted, you might want to think about why not yet. Because it's about you four. I'm asking that you hold off on this vote until that process is completed. I hope you do. Thank you.

All right, thank you. No, please, please. We'll take a break now. Thank you. We'll reconvene in a few minutes. I explained the rules. This is a very... and I'm just asking everybody to follow the rules. This is a formal proceeding. It's not a place for these types of acts. We want to hear from everybody and I do want to hear from everybody. But if you don't want to follow the rules and so we can have a peaceful input for information, then that makes it hard for us to continue the meeting. So I'll look to our town clerk to bring up the next speaker.

Next speaker is Elizabeth Fisher.

good evening mayor council members i'm elizabeth fisher i live in old town eric the town property is collectively owned by all the residents of erie the common sense wisdom is that mineral rights are an asset they add value to the service estate if you have them you hold them i want to acknowledge with gratitude the town's good intentions in this matter I want you also take a closer look at some of the more speculative provisions in the contract, like a 20-year production timeframe. The trend we're seeing strongly suggests maybe half of that. One example would be Encana's Canyon Creek wells. They were drilled in 2012, all gone by 2023. Overall, what's important to remember is that needs come before wants. Hearing needs to rein in the future expansion of oil and gas where we legally can. That's the best way to protect public health and safety. Retaining our mineral rights provides a means to do that. No law compels us to sell or lease them. I support a delay in the vote of the concerns mr drew and others have raised i do not support approval of this contract thank you very much all right thank you our next speaker is daniel rassler

I'm Dan Raceler.

I live in Erie.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Appreciate it. Can you pull the microphone?

Yes. Erie's town council once strenuously opposed the Draco project, taking the principled position that the town needs to protect the public's health, safety, and prevent environmental degradation and potentially declining property values. Now, however, it appears that a majority of the council's members is poised to sell minimal rights that would allow SM Energy and 7N LLC free reign to extract to an even greater extent than previously approved. Why did public health, safety, environment, and declining property values matter then but not now? The facts have not changed, but SM Energy and 7LLC put a tempting offer on the table, so tempting that some council members appear willing to put aside the principles that undergirded their earlier opposition to Draco. In his recent blog, Mayor Moore posed the question, should Erie benefit from Draco? His points are reasonable and well taken, but not persuasive because of their one-sidedness. Unaddressed are the consequences of many things that can go wrong. To say nothing of the penalties that SM and 7N can impose should Erie become recalcitrant. The fossil fuel industry's, taken at large, success at evading financial and legal responsibility for its environmental destruction is well documented. While their actions often are legally defensible, that industry nevertheless bears the indelible stain of immorality. By voting against this sale, you, as the town council, can show this community that your values align with your principles, that you're good stewards of the beauty and wonder of this land, and that you want to nurture and preserve it for future generations. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Marianne Bolkovets.

Thank you, Mayor and Councilman and women, to allow us to have this opportunity. I come here tonight to ask that you make a decision for the greater good and that that be the only guiding principle for the decision that you will make. I am Mary Ann Balkovets, as I said, Canyon Creek resident. I've been a nurse for 50 years. I have a lot of investment in public health and protecting the earth and the environment and the wellbeing of everyone who lives in this fine community. I also come as someone who grew up in Anaconda, Montana. which had a copper smelter. It was built by Marcus Daly in 1884 and stopped running in 1980. It was an EPA Superfund site starting in 1983. And for 43 years, the damage has not been mitigated. It's cost millions of dollars, and it's still not restored to its original state. It does have a golf course, which was part of the mitigation, and some people enjoy that. But still, the damage was deep and sustained. And I would say we can't predict what will happen in the future, but we can know the consequences of actions. We can't know what an oil and gas company is going to do. But there's a lot of science and data that's available that wasn't available to Marcus Daley and the people of Anaconda when that was built. We can know those things now. This is an extremely important and consequential decision that you're going to make. And if you vote to sell the mineral rights out from under us, we surrender all future negotiating power. There will be disruption and pollution There will be noise and dust and dirt and greenhouse gas emissions. There will be a risk of groundwater contamination and a decrease in property values. Again, I am humbly asking you to please consider only the greater good for the community of Erie. I understand that there's reasons that it's appealing. to say yes to this. But as a nurse and as a resident of this community and as someone who lived in a Superfund site, I must ask you to say no to this. And I want to just thank everyone who's shown up and my family and friends who are also watching this on Zoom. There's a lot of interest in this. And so thank you for this opportunity.

All right. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Emily Brecht, who has pulled her time with Janet Brown and will be speaking for six minutes.

I'm Janet Brown. I'm pretending to be Emily Brecht. I think you can tell us apart. She's a little taller than I am. I'm not going to say much. I'm just going to let you repeat what I have said in many emails, which is that I am opposed. I'm up here representing myself, my spouse, and the world's greatest cat.

Right? Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

OK, I'm going to adjust this.

Yeah, thank you.

Just tell me if this is working.

And if anybody can't hear in the audience, please just signal that, because it's typically because we're not close enough to the microphone.

Yeah. I always tell people, like singers and actors, I'm like, you have to eat the microphone, which is a weird way to say it, but... OK, anyway, whoops. My name is Emily Brecht. I live in Canyon Creek, one block from Thomas Reservoir Open Space in Erie. I'm here to request three things. One, delay the vote. If the process that created the SM Energy deal is deemed illegal by the state, as mentioned earlier, it would have financial consequences for the town if the council votes yes today.

I think.

We have a sole source non-competitive offer brought to us by a consultant hired in a non-competitive process. The making of this deal is cloaked in secrecy of executive session. We, the people of Erie, have valid questions. If people here are misinformed about the deal, it appears to be by design. In the June 2nd meeting, Council claimed competitive bids were not required because other offers would not include the tracts of land by the airport. Well, that's deprived the town of the opportunity to find out if there's something more valuable for our town than that land. The free market has not had an opportunity to work. The land deal should have been severed from the mineral rights negotiations so that we could get competitive offers. Two, moving on, sorry. If you do vote, please vote no. All the information shared with the public paints an extremely favorable picture of the SM Energy deal. There is no risk analysis, which gives this deal the appearance of no risk, just a windfall of consequence-free cash and land. I would like to see an analysis of the risks and liabilities the town would take on if the council votes yes. I would also like to see a full assessment of the potential benefits of voting no. What is the value of retaining our mineral rights or protecting several neighborhoods and Thomas Reservoir open space from fracking? What's the value of putting a speed bump potentially in front of the Draco project? What's the value of avoiding the liabilities this deal may introduce to our town now or in the future? What's the value of not entangling our town's budget with oil and gas revenue? Is there value to potentially slowing development or growth of the airport? I don't know. What's the value of maintaining our town's autonomy from SM Energy? Without an analysis of all options, this vote on whether to accept SM's deal is being made blindly in a vacuum.

Three of structure.

We need more accountability and transparency in our town council. Executive session is being used to keep Erie citizens in the dark. On a separate note, some council members have chosen to vent and shame other council members on Facebook. It creates a really toxic environment and exacerbates existing town political divides. All of this conflict roiling out into the public sphere where differences in opinion become reasons to bully or belittle appears like poor leadership. The only thing about this process that embraces small town feel is how amateur it makes Erie look. I really appreciate you listening to me and having the time to speak. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Siobhan Blades.

Good evening. I'm Siobhan Blades. I live in Erie, Colorado. I've lived here since 1992. I remember your first term, and I don't think your legacy is going to go down as good as that one. Anyways, I am curious, after the display of our elected officials storming off the dais, if everybody stands up and claps, will that shut down the meeting? Or will you be voting after you drive everybody out of the room? Would that be a way to get it in secret again? Anyways, we're not here to really talk about Draco. And I'd really love it if the council people were respectful back. We're not here to talk about Draco. We're tired of talking about the foolishness of selling mineral rights. Over the last six months, residents have repeatedly asked for transparency, information, and a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision involving town-owned assets. In fact, the amount we're going to make is less than our annual budget if we do sell them. So those secret meetings six months prior to even the other council members learning about it, and the only reason the residents learned about it was because you let it slip on the diets. So we know now that Alameda Mineral Advisors was hired without the RFP process normally required by town policy. We also learned during the January 2 study session that the competitive bid solicitation process required by the consultant's contract was not completed. Consultant Matthew Owens later stated that he was instructed not to complete the work and said the instruction came from the people who hired me. I'm not sure you're writing down everything I have to say. You're here to vote, right? Council Member Dan Hovak later stated that he was instructed, or Council Member Dan Hovak has publicly stated he is unaware of any council vote consensus or contract amendment authorizing such a change. These are fundamental questions about how public business is conducted. Repeatedly, residents have been told that we simply don't understand the inner workings of how executive session and all the secret information, that these negotiations are complicated, that we should trust the people in charge. But if a process is so difficult to explain that residents are told they just don't need to understand, that's a red flag. Public decisions involving public assets should be understandable, not behind closed doors. If the process is sound, explain it. If the decision is justified, show us, not stomp off the dais. Trust is earned through transparency, not by asking residents to stop asking questions. More than 120 residents signed a letter asking the Colorado Attorney General's Office to review these concerns. He has picked those up. This is going to be research by the Attorney General's office. So I don't think your legacy is going to be the swimming pool or the rec center. It's going to be Red Tail Ranch and the mayor who sold the mineral rights in what looks like backroom deals.

All right. Thank you.

Next speaker is Carol Campbell.

So my name is Carol Campbell. I'm a resident of Erie. I've been here for about a year and a half. I live in Morgan Hill, which apparently is heavily fracked. I worked for the Environmental Protection Agency for 35 years, retired as a senior executive in charge of Superfund and the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as water quality.

And I have a lot of experience in oil and gas extraction.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. When reviewing the agreement contract and the mayor's recent blog, I had a few concerns, including there is no guarantee of $25.5 million projected production revenue. It's a projection. The actual worth of the 158 acres now and in the future, selling any post-closure mineral rights discovered at $24,000 per mineral acre. I have no idea if that's a good number or not. The $4.5 million payout. to Erie, which oddly coincides with the amount of Alameda's potential payout. We do not know if the agreement and the contract that the town of Erie Council plans to vote on today is the best deal and in the best interest of the Erie citizens, as we only had the SM Energy offer to consider. The process feels rushed, like buying a car, and the deal is only good that day. The Council has lost the trust of many Erie citizens because of process reasons. Lack of transparency and incomplete or late information to the Erie citizens. Lack of option analysis with the pros and cons, including no action, lease and sell. Improper process followed for sole source contracting with Alameda. Potential conflict of interest with Alameda and Civitas slash SM Energy, including previous employment, monetary benefits potentially during the negotiation or after the sale, we don't know. Failure to enforce the consultant's contract to get multiple bids for mental rights. Possible directions to the consultant changing the contract terms without the whole council's knowledge and no amendment to the contract. Soliciting public comments with no intention of changing or modifying the decision which appears to have already been made. Now, I have a lot of experience in public comment processes and actually doing very difficult decisions, as you can imagine, with my experience in Superfund. And I will say this is one of the worst processes I have ever seen. I recommend providing more analysis on options, getting additional bids on the town's mineral rights, and a more transparent process. We should not be held hostage to SMS's timeline at the possible expense of making the best decision to the community.

All right, thank you.

Our next speaker is Don Colosino.

Thank you. Welcome. My name is Don Colosino. I live in Erie. This is my 20th year living in Erie, and this is the biggest fracking project I'm aware of in all this time and even before that. As an Erie resident, I do not believe that you've provided all the information needed to assure the people of Erie that you've met your fiduciary responsibilities regarding the town's mineral rights, which go beyond mere money. They include doing everything possible to ensure the health and safety of Erie residents. What price are you putting on that? Despite overwhelming opposition to Draco from residents, from Erie residents, you appear to have followed a path of least resistance in all decisions. In the matter of our mineral rights, you're following a rushed process to capitalize on them, taking shortcuts that violated the town's own purchasing policies, allowed the mineral rights consultant to violate your contract, all with a complete lack of transparency. You presented this council with an up or down vote on a contract to hire a former executive of the very oil company that is forcing this project on us to advise us on the value of what they want to buy from us. There was no discussion of how or why you chose that consultant without considering anyone else. According to the consultant, you instructed him to violate the scope of services written in his contract, which explicitly required a competitive bidding process for lease and sale proposals. This council never voted on those contract changes, and all of it was hidden from the public in executive session. Colorado law, specifically CRS 246402 and pertaining to executive sessions requires, quote, identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized. Multiple legal challenges in Colorado have succeeded and affirmed that simply reciting the statute under which you hold an executive session is not sufficient to protect the confidentiality of those discussions. The choice of the mineral rights consultant and the terms in his contract were never mentioned to the public. Please slow down your decision on the mineral sale or lease contract, taking the time to complete the competitive bidding process that you once required and to share the legally non-confidential topics discussed in conversations you've held out of public view. That's what good governance requires and what will rebuild trust in your leadership among the residents of Erie.

20 seconds. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Pete Hackinson, and he is online. Mr. Hackinson, if you're online, you should be able to unmute and speak.

How about we go to the next speaker, and then we can try to sort that out?

Anna Clark.

hi um i'm anna clark erie resident district 2. my face may be familiar to you i've attended a lot of town council meetings and i was in attendance last week at a very interesting town council meeting and i learned there that council member dan hoback would be unable to attend tonight's important meeting regarding the sale of our mineral rights and the vote. It was very discouraging to hear this request is to postpone or reschedule this vote was denied. I did send an email asking this council to reconsider his request. I haven't received a response on this matter so I'm speaking here today to reiterate my concerns to make sure that I'm heard. This mineral rights sale has been under a dark cloud, primarily due to a series of executive sessions to which the public cannot attend. We understand we can't attend these meetings, but Council Member Hoback has pointed out at several meetings that this is eroding the public trust, and he's advocated for more public discussion and transparency. to which I've witnessed he's been met with bullying behavior from the dais. That was extremely disappointing. There was only one public meeting held on this mineral rights sale.

It was two weeks ago.

And I know that many residents of Erie are still uninformed on this issue. We elected seven people to represent our town. I do expect that all council members to be present for voting and decisions regarding important matters, especially for the sale or lease of the town's mineral rights. And right now, I do not feel my voice would be adequately represented here. This vote can impact the future of Erie, and I dare say also the character of our town. are navigating a new state law and i'm urging you again to reconsider the request to postpone a vote until all council members can be present thank you thank you uh mr hackinson is not online so we'll keep going um ben hempel good evening

Town Council, my name is Ben Hemphill.

I live in Erie District 2. I previously served as a Home Rule, sorry, I previously served as a Home Rule Charter Commissioner along with Councilmember O'Connor, and I currently serve as a Planning Commissioner. My comments tonight are my own. I'm here to raise a serious compliance concern about this ordinance.

I believe if the ordinance passes as written, the Town of Erie would face and likely lose a legal challenge.

Section 11-023 of the charter is unambiguous. No land designated by the town as open space may be sold without prior vote or approval. The ordinance argues that mineral rights are not land, and therefore that provision doesn't apply. I think that argument is weak, and our town code shows that. Town Council adopted Ordinance 017-2024 on May 14, 2024, creating the Reserved Open Space Zoning District. The staff report for that ordinance stated plainly, the Home Rule Charter requires the establishment of a Reserved Open Space Zone District. Town Legal Council had determined that the existing Ag Open Space District did not meet the intent of Charter Section 1102-2. I was on the Planning Commission when it recommended that the Town Council adopt that ordinance. If the town's position is now that only reserved open space zoned land requires voter approval before sale, then Erie's open space is effectively unprotected until the reserved open space zoning process is complete, a gap I don't believe the Charter's authors intended. Turning the specific parcels at issue, the sections subject to the sale are within the Canyon Creek PD Amendment Number 10. They are zoned as open space park recreational facilities. Within that land use designation, mining and mineral extraction are listed as a subuse, and that requires a special review. To my knowledge, no special review use application has been submitted or approved. candlelight ridge sections permitted land uses are open space landscaping entry monumentation detention and utility access both designations reflect the town's own documented intent that these areas function as open space the ordinance for before you tonight ask that the council accept a legal argument on the fly that mineral rights beneath open space are exempt from charter protections without voter input and without the procedural steps of the town's own code. If that argument is wrong, the town owns the consequences of that decision. A yes vote tonight is a vote to accept that legal exposure on behalf of all of Erie's residents. The charter was written to ensure voters have a say before open spaces disposed of. I believe that protection applies here. I urge you to vote no. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Richard Kohler.

My name is Richard Kahler. It looks like Kahler. I live in Erie.

And I am a registered professional hydrologist. I have a surface water PhD from the University of Arizona. I have 40 years of experience for water resources. I just want the council not to overlook some things that perhaps you have. And that is, what is the water situation here? Once you frack a rock, you can't unfrack it. Once you have your aquifer polluted, it's extremely expensive to try and undo that. We have junior water rights here in northern Colorado. We're facing a major drought. People are cutting back on their watering. I moved here in 2004. There were 19,000 people. You're planning for 85,000 people. So whatever you're doing today will have implications for generations. What you decide here will be in place. It's a one-way ticket on this. So I would urge you to take time to look at this. There are water issues, both in quality and quantity. And in Arizona, where I got my degree, they always require that any development have a 100-year horizon line to look at that. I would urge you to make sure that you take everything into account for the long-term decision, because once it's done, you cannot undo that. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is John McAllister.

Mayor Moore, council members, I'm John McAllister. I'm coming up on a two-year resident of Erie, one of the newer folks. I was so impressed when the town city staff And all the citizens rose up and presented to the ECMC and got them to delay. That was huge. That was the first and only time they've done that so far.

Ultimately, they turned around and go ahead and granted the fracking permit, the drilling and fracking permit.

I want to pause and say that I agree with most everything that's been said ahead of me. So some of that thunder is gone. But the residents of this town did not want that. They were very strongly against it. And I feel that they have been ignored by this process. And the fiduciary responsibility that you folks hold, to hold them in their hearts, to know and understand that their children and grandchildren are gonna be living through this. And there's no real reason to rush this process. I urge you to either vote no or to delay this process. Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Our next speaker is Michael Irwin.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity.

This is a first and a new one for me. I didn't come in to be the most unwelcome person in the group, but I'm a 38-year oil and gas production engineer.

Can you just state your name and location for the record?

I'm Michael Irwin, and I live in Erie. And I retired here after 38 years of oil and gas experience to be near my family 10 years ago. I'm familiar with oil and gas done well. I'm familiar with oil and gas done poorly. I'm impressed by the amount of pushback and oversight that you've requested and asked for out of this oil company. And I'm not privy to the details. I've learned things this evening that I'm not aware of. I won't get into the details of the decision you're going to make. But what I do want to say is important, I think, to this community. Horizontal wells are the way oil and gas gets drilled in the United States. They are not unique or uncommon. Of all the wells drilled last year, 94% were horizontals nationwide. and yet they only represent half of the wells in the country, but they produce 95% of the oil and gas. They're extremely valuable, extremely important, and very well done. It's not new technology. It's been the way business gets done in oil and gas since the year 2000. The DJ Basin, which covers Weld County, is the fourth largest basin in the United States. And it doesn't, it's not hard to look back over the last few months of disruption in the worldwide oil market to recognize oil and gas powers more than just Colorado. It is important. I'm in favor of transitioning. I hope we're in a transition to something other than oil and gas, but that's not where we're at now. It's a necessary means to how we live. 96% of the oil and gas produced in the state of Colorado comes out of this one county. Oil and gas is here to stay. It was here before us. The town of Erie was built on resource development. Drilling coal mines under this town didn't come without risks and costs, and my house is impacted by one of those old mines, as is my neighborhood. This is not new.

20 seconds.

I'm in favor of a good working relationship between not only the producers, but the government. There needs to be a balance. And it's a tough balance. So I salute all your efforts to achieve that balance in this process. And it's important to the community, the state, and the country.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Timothy Fink. Timothy Fink.

Timothy Fink.

OK. Rhonda Grassi.

Hi, everybody. I'm Rhonda Grassi. I've lived in Erie for almost 28 years now. First, I just want to thank you because I know each and every one of you care about this town in the community, care about its health and safety paramount. And I don't question that ever from anybody. You might have different opinions. But I know you all think about that all the time. And that matters. About 15 years ago, I remember Town Hall being packed with residents because fracking was happening in Erie. It was a really big deal back then as well. The town tried so hard to get the state to stop, as you all have done, but the state gives drillers rights, and that really ties our hands as a municipality, so the best thing we can do at that point is negotiate. We don't know what you all know. We trust that you're working together to make the best deal possible. I like that this driller will clean up a lot of the abandoned wellheads around town. I like that they will give us some land that we might use for Erie's benefit in the long run. I know the driller is going to start drilling, whether you pass this or not. That's coming down the pipe. We can't stop it. So getting something really important it's also important for our relationship moving forward about 15 years ago we created the town a memorandum of understanding and at the time it was the first time the drillers actually decided to work with the municipalities and create a better set of standards we had a lot of rules and We wouldn't let them flare anything anymore. We had air quality testing and water quality testing that they paid for, but we got to do so we could control the data we were seeing. Things like that were really important. It helped them cooperate with us in the long run. Was everybody happy? No. Do I think the town did the best it could at the time? I do. And I truly believe you guys will do the best thing for us moving forward. If we have a relationship with these people moving forward, it's, in my opinion, going to help everybody in the long run. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Stephen Klein.

Hi, everybody. My name is Stephen Klein.

I'm a resident of Erie. I've been here since 2011. The last two speakers have taken some of the fire out of me. I was planning to be pretty uncivil. In my comments to what I'm gonna still refer to as the gang of four the aligned group that has really been as we've covered ad nauseum secretive and Let's say borderline unethical in how they have dealt with the residents of this town This breaks my heart this town is is a wonderful place where I have raised my children. And now I'm sitting here thinking, I'd better sell my freaking house before my property values go in the toilet. I better sell my house and move someplace not so far away because my children will not be safe because the data is really clear about the increase of cancer risk around fracking. I also recognize that it's this inevitable thing that I read your essay Mr. Mayor and I recognize there are some aspects of truth that are inside of there.

And at the end of the day

What does it hurt, seriously, what does it hurt to put this up for a referendum? If nothing else, council members, you may sleep well at night knowing that you've done everything that you could to fight for this city and for this town. But instead we do have secrecy. Instead we do have negotiations. Instead there are questions about What kind of benefits are the Gang of Four receiving from this oil and gas opportunity? Is that what you want? Is that who you want to be? Is that what you've gone into public service for? Why are you pushing this through so quickly now? I know this is not an interactive forum, but please ask yourself that question. What's the damn rush? And don't we get a voice? Because everybody except for two people tonight have spoken against this. Why is that? And why are we pushing forward at warp speed? I'm complete. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Jeremy Zaks.

Hello, my name is Jeremy Zaks. I am a resident of Erie for the last two years. I work in Boulder. I used to live in Boulder. I moved to Erie with hopes of moving to a community where I could start and raise a family. There's a wonderful community with wonderful schools and a great place to live. After learning about this news, I can say unequivocally that I will move. I will move back to Boulder. I have no ties to Erie aside from really liking the community. It is one of the, if not the fastest growing community in this valley that we live in. I myself have a lot of early career colleagues who are looking for homes to buy, places to live, and Erie is at the top of their list. I can say with 100% certainty that if this deal goes through, Erie will fall to the bottom of that list. It will be an undesirable place for young families to plant their roots. We will see property values decrease, and people will not want to be here, which is a shame because it is wonderful what we have going for us. At the town council meeting two weeks ago, I heard many people say, that a sale of the mineral rights would compel the oil companies to clean up old wells that they otherwise would have no incentive to clean up. Does anyone not see the irony here that we are inviting an oil company to drill and frack under our town, and if we sell them the mineral rights, they will own those for years once all of us are gone? The damage that may be done to the environment is simply unknown. They will have no incentive to mitigate that damage unless they want to renegotiate a deal to make hundreds of millions of dollars in the future. I do not think that it is a valid argument to sell an oil company our mineral rights so that they can clean up a mess that they have made in the past. I think instead that we should be discussing ways to mitigate damage that has been done in the past without selling out our future. There has also been talk about monitoring air and water quality and measures that will be in place. I implore everyone to look up what happened with Tasman Geosciences a couple of years ago. And I'm sorry, I'm blanking on the other name of the other company, Eagle Consulting, to monitor air and water quality a couple of years ago. How do we know that we can trust the monitoring, the safety data, and the long-term effects?

I will close out by saying what I said at the beginning.

I moved to Erie so that I could establish roots, so that I could raise a family and a wonderful community. If this deal goes through and we sell or lease the mineral rights, I will without a doubt move. I will take a loss on my house. I will not raise my family. I will not live in a community so close to fracking. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you.

Next speaker is Christiane Van Loonenberg.

Good evening, Christiane van Wittenberg, and also from Erie.

I thought it appropriate to speak for Dan Hoback, as he's not here tonight. So I wanted to, even though he's made a written comment, I wanted to read that into the record for everybody. I cannot be in attendance for the June 16th town council meeting at which a vote will be taken on the sale of the town of Erie's mineral rights to SM Energy, augmenting and enabling the drilling of the Draco pad and fracking. These are my council member comments. The issues have been many and complicated, some of which may well result in legal challenges to any approved contract. These include lack of transparency and clarity and overuse of executive sessions to make decisions. Failure to follow competitive bidding processes or policies on multimillion dollar contracts. An interpretation of the town's charter requirement that open space property not be sold without voter approval being overruled by an ordinance. The very scenario the charter fully intended to avoid. The lack of a special use review for the drilling of open space properties. Potential conflicts of interest between negotiating parties. For the last six months, Erie Town Council has been negotiating behind closed doors for the sale of its mineral rights. A lot has been made appropriate or appropriately of how two multimillion dollar contracts have come before the town council without going through any type of competitive bidding process.

One was already approved.

The other will be voted at the June 16th session. Also for the last six months, Residents have repeatedly been told by the mayor and council members that they wanted to hear from the community on whether or not to sell the town's mineral rights. Residents were told their voice would be heard. They were told the council would listen. Resident voices were and are strong, consistent, and plentiful. You came out in person, both in council chambers and on the streets, in emails and in social media. The message has been clear. Residents are broadly and strongly opposed to the sale of the town's mineral rights. Not once has council heard a price at which these residents would compromise their position. The mayor and others on council have also said, we want to get something out of the Draco pad. Council member positions on the sale have been visibly telegraphed through it all, mine included. If the contract is approved, one thing stands true. Whose voice matters? that of residents or that of council, that of the voters approved town charter or sorry, an ordinance. And that was submitted by Dan Hoback, council member for district two, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Christiane was the last person that signed up.

All right, would anybody else like to address us tonight? Yes, sir, come on up.

Good evening. My name is Don Johnson. I'm a resident of the town of Erie. Unlike some of the people before me, I had not planned to talk. But after hearing everything and thinking it through, I see the air of selling mineral rights. Now you say, why do you know? Well, unlike people here, our family's been a resident of the town of Erie since 1907. So we're not exactly the late comers getting in on the act. We have owned mineral rights in the town of Erie since 1912. And we still own them. We've sold some mineral rights. Our family has held it extensively. And every time we sold mineral rights, it was a failure. It was a failure to do it. The changes in technology are phenomenal. And I just urge you, don't give up a valuable mineral right. Every time I've done it, it's been a big mistake. We should make a good decision on behalf of our town. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Would anybody else like to address us tonight? Come on up.

Mayor, town council, and town staff, my name is Neha Pasarameli. I live in Rex Ranch. And I just turned 18, which means I'm a voter both in Colorado and nationally. And the one thing that I've been receiving is lots and lots of texts and emails from all sorts of people that are running for office, which illustrates a plain truth that The elected officials need their constituents in order to be in the positions that they're in. They need their donations. They need their votes. And the reason that you're sitting here today is because enough people circled your name on a ballot to put you there. And so whether or not you believe something is right, or whether or not you are affiliated with a party that believes something is right, the truth is that your duty and, frankly, your job description is supporting the rights and the interests of the people that voted you in. the people, if they believe that something is right, or if they believe that something should be considered, that it's your duty to vote on that behalf. And so the decision that you make today doesn't need to be a rushed one, and it should consider not only the interests of your constituents, but also the benefits and values as well as the drawbacks of the deal as a whole. Right now you're voting not only for mineral rights or for whether or not we should sign one contract, but you're voting for the future of Erie, not only the future of our mineral rights, but also the health of our residents, future generations that will live in Erie, future homeowners that will own property in Erie or choose to move to Erie. All of those people's interests are in your hands. And there are people, and it is a plain truth that oil and gas is here to stay, but you all have the power right now in this vote to take a stand against that and to show that Erie is not a place where we're going to make quick decisions or secret decisions about something as important as the health of our residents and the health of our constituents who gave you this job to begin with. And so whether or not in a couple weeks, if you choose to postpone this decision, if you choose to vote for it, that is a decision for you to make. However, tonight, I hope that you can consider not only your obligations to the people that voted you in, but also all of the different benefits and drawbacks to a decision this big, because it's simply too important not to. Thank you so much for your time, and thank you to everyone else who spoke today.

All right, thank you.

Would anybody else like to address us tonight?

My name is Erica Cutlip. My husband and family and I have lived in Erie in Vista Point for roughly 20 years. I would like to say first and foremost that as the mother of a cancer survivor, and there are three of them at my child's school alone, I'm very concerned about all things fracking. And I'm very concerned about the lack of transparency, the ethical shadiness, and the overall opaque process that has gone into coming to this vote. I am just speaking off the cuff right now because I was not intending to speak. I realize that we may not be able to, I realize that it's inevitable that the mineral rights will be sold, but I think this process should be slowed down significantly. And I don't understand what the mad rush is. I don't understand why we have to sell to this particular company right now instead of engaging in a open bidding process like we're supposed to do um that's pretty much all i have to say thank you all right thank you would anybody else like to address this tonight okay i'm going to bring it back come on up

Hi.

Sorry.

My name's Laurel. I do not reside in Erie, but my work brings me here regularly.

I wanted to speak tonight.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge I grew up in Brighton, Colorado. We have a pretty heavy frack culture there. I've been a frack wife. I know the difference between a white hat and a red hat. My background is as a social worker, and part of my responsibility is to speak out when issues disproportionately impact children. My concern is many. When you rush a process and you don't take time to consider, that has significant consequence. That has deadly consequence for children, for your residents, and for older adults. Childhood visits to the emergency room are frequently related to asthma. When you don't take the time to consider, and I say this as someone who has chronic illness. I've had five rare illnesses in my lifetime. including in childhood. It is not cheap to be ill. It takes every part of your life. And for some people, it takes their life. Now, I know that fracking is a reality. I know that oil and gas is a reality. It is also a reality that local governing bodies have a responsibility to the residents to take time. Because when you don't take time, when you rush, when you don't consider options, for you, it might be a day sitting behind the desk. For another person, it might be visits to the emergency room.

And for some people, it may be a visit to a morgue.

Because when you don't slow down, it sends the message that people do not matter.

And people matter.

And again, I know the difference between a company man and a frack man and what it's like when you're on pad and the two weeks on and the two weeks off and FR and all of these things. That was a life that I lived for a long time. And at the end of the day, what it comes to for me is not just economy it's equality because when there are disproportionate health issues that come up from when you rush it's not just financial impact for a city it's the reality that happens for those families and for those children and quite frankly that's a reality for your children for your grandchildren for the people who come after you chronic illness doesn't take a number and say hey i thought it'd be really convenient to show up and ruin your life Nobody called me and said, hey, Laurel, you want to have five serious illnesses over the course of your lifetime? It'll take you three years to be approved for social security disability. You will lose everything you have ever owned.

20 seconds. They don't do that.

But you have an opportunity to slow that down. And I'll be perfectly clear. How many small coffins is it worth buying by rushing this process? Thank you.

all right thank you would anybody else like to um address this tonight hi everyone my name is shannon and i am a resident in thornton

I wasn't planning on speaking tonight but I think after hearing everybody I want to address this at a systems level because I'm not going to talk about the specific content of the mineral rights sale but I want to talk specifically about content that is in your home rule charter which is the governing document of how your legislation and municipality The Charter's preamble pledges that Erie will uphold democracy, equity, justice, and foster a community that is inclusive, diverse, and welcoming to all. Those are powerful commitments, and those commitments need to be real, and the process used to create the Charter must embody them. I think what I'm noticing tonight is that there is a clear misrepresentation of Erie residents that are a part of this conversation. Um, I have testified multiple times over the, um, you know, of the families of communities of color. And we have learned through that process that there is a communication barrier. There is lacking information coming from the town to these families that represent 20% of your population. I've heard multiple times tonight saying, we don't understand, we're confused. And if those people have the access and the privilege to understand in English, what is happening to our communities who don't speak this language? What is happening to their voice? and i think speaking to voice you have a representative who represents your constituent and he is not here and if you are going through with a vote you are not upholding the voice of your erie residents that is not within your home rule charter and so i would encourage you no matter what direction you go when you think about how your municipality represents the voices of Erie, you do not have that tonight. And so I would encourage you to at least withhold your vote so that you can ensure that all residents' voices are heard.

All right, thank you. Any other speakers tonight? Okay, then I'll bring it back to council. This is a portion to be able to ask our attorneys. And then, by the way, we, I believe, are two oil and gas attorneys that were part of this are in the back here. And of course, we have our town attorney as well. Any questions? So I think I'll just start on the right with Council Member Petz-Romelli. I'll just work our way down.

I don't have any questions. Okay.

Mayor. I got a text from someone in the community who has signed up to speak but wasn't called.

Casey Hedrick. I didn't see them. Do you see them online?

Okay. If they're not online, then I don't know. I mean, I'm happy to bring them in, but if they're not online, it's not a way to bring them in. All right. I'll go back to councilor O'Connor.

Um, I don't have any questions for attorney. Okay.

No question.

Okay.

Council member bear.

I have no questions. Okay.

I have no questions for the attorney.

Okay. Um, i do have a question for the attorney i think the open space has come up a number of times tonight and you've addressed that a number of times and i think it would be beneficial uh to hear that again sure um the open space is defined um or that the term is used in our charter in um

Section 11.02, and in 2024, the then town council made a specific finding that land to qualify needed to be designated as reserved open space. We do not have any current reserved open space land designated in the town.

OK. I have a ton of questions, but questions that have already been asked and answered in the two special meetings that we had. We've now had two meetings for public comment on that. So I know somebody had come up and said we basically had not had meetings on this. We have. We started to share this information at the State of the Town in early April. And then since that time, we've had two special meetings to also cover these points. All right, I'm going to close the public hearing at this point. And the public comment portion of the public hearing is now closed. We'll come back to council deliberations if there are other questions. Just so everybody knows where this is headed is I'll ask if there's a motion to approve. If there's a first and a second, then we will have another chance to be able to discuss this. the ordinance. But at this point, we can also deliberate amongst ourselves. So I think I'll do the same thing. I'll start with Council Member Pressorelli. Is there anything else you'd like to share at this point?

So I have three categories of discussion on this one. One is a severe deficiency in the procurement model where we failed to conduct competitive bidding, lack of weighting of a major contract, there was no RFP and we were bypassing fiduciary safeguards. No data to make sure we are getting the best deal. The second point was transparency. Why are we rushing even to vote? What's the reason for that? And then overuse of executive sessions in which we discussed so many things we can talk here or we are like forced to the decision of hiring matt was also not a 7-0 and so much of information is hidden which people are asking and we are elected here to make the hard decisions and not all decisions are easy and if we have all the data we can make decisions like on the fly but this is a very complicated issue. Public health is involved, future of generations is involved and we just need to make sure we make a decision that is good for the coming generations and also One thing I wanted to also bring up is we just balanced a budget of $393 million last November. And even this year, we had appropriations of making changes. We solved every problem, allocated budget. We stopped projects which are not useful. And now I don't see a reason why we are in a rush to sell an asset which could be more valuable in future. Asset is an asset and you don't see that as okay, now we sell it, we keep the money, we buy a land which is probably we don't even know what to do with that land. And the second thing is there are wells that will be closed as part of the deal. But if the company is a good company, why don't they do it without the deal? Let's do it now as show some good behavior to the town. And these are all the deals that look so shady because this transparency issue is not just this one term. We have seen it like many terms, Red Tail Ranch, It was approved on a toxic dump site. And only four people did vote yes for it. And the land, which was for affordable housing, the same four people wanted to bring in a church in there, give the land away for free. And this mineral sale has been happening, the discussion, for almost a year. and then it's hidden, and when public came up and talked, that's when the megacharts issue went away.

Now public came and they're talking here.

The mineral sale also should be stopped. And the fourth reason I see is long-term benefits versus short-term benefits. We don't sell assets at the personal assets that we hold just because we have it. We save that for a rainy day. And the long-term benefits are not that much in this one. and it's more risks than benefits and uh i i just want to reiterate that my vote is no on this one thank you all right thank you council member o'connor uh thank you uh council member pester melly one clarification never supported a church on the page property just that's out there so um i can change it to majority council

Well, okay, I'm gonna try to keep us on point tonight.

I've gone back and forth on this one.

At the beginning, it was a $2.85 million offer, which wasn't appealing at all.

you know still i feel like we may not have still the residents may not be informed enough on this topic um it's not all the mineral rights it's it's um the cross-section of the uh dg base and it's only a partial um a couple formations that is even being considered to be sold the formations below are not on the table to be up for sale So for the future, we do still retain, and I'm not quite sure what that leverage is, but we still retain some leverage. I own property that's gonna be drilled under. I also own property that, if this goes through, will be drilled under. So that's certainly been a strong consideration of mine. you know i i don't know i i'm hesitant to move forward with it right now um without uh more information being put out there or town hall i know that puts the deal um the agreement in jeopardy um but i just there's been an overwhelming uh amount of residents who've reached out and just even there's just seems to be a misunderstanding of what this is all about draco is going to go through but um it's just how we go about conveying the parts of this agreement i still now feel that maybe that still hasn't been um conveyed well enough to the residents so

Okay, Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. Sorry, I lost my screen turn off here a second. So I want to point out a few things and then I have a few things to read. I want to point out we've not held an executive session on the subject since February. And in that, we made a concerted effort to ensure after we had those discussions and kind of got the deal where It was really being negotiated by our attorneys that we wanted to get as much information out to the public. So since then, the mayor mentioned we've had two separate study sessions with a listening session. And I'd also point out that I think what people view is hiding things from people. We get direction from council, from our attorneys, and attorney-client privilege is something that needs to be protected, as well as the town's negotiating position. The one thing with attorney-client privilege is if something is revealed to the public, that gets out to the parties we're negotiating with, then we have to release all of it. So one of the things that I first dealt with when I first came on the Board of Trustees back in 2020 was the bridge theft. And that went on for several years, probably three, four years that we were dealing with that issue before that came to resolution. I can't tell you how many times that I had people call to me Where are we at with getting our money back from the bridge? Where are we at with the lawsuit against Aflac? And I simply had to say, we're working on it. I could not tell any other information because we had attorneys that we were giving information for strategic positions to negotiate. And that's the purpose of the executive session. We've held, since February, we've held multiple executive sessions on multiple things, including our water allocation policy and our NIST participation, which have all been revealed to the public now. So we don't hide things indefinitely, and we're not intentionally trying to hide things from the public. It is to protect the negotiation process. As far as Council Member Hoback not being able to be in attendance, I wish he could be here. A few weeks ago when we voted on our NIST participation, nobody has been more involved in our water rights discussion than Council Member O'Connor. I'm very appreciative of that, and you weren't able to be there at that meeting, and It's one of these things where we have timetables on this, and there is a timetable on this agreement. So while this process may appear rushed to some, and I understand that, we've been working on this, as Council Member Pestromelli said, for approximately a year. And some of the roots of this go back before that, which we'll get to in a second. After a certain point, we get to a point where SM has to proceed. And at that point, our mineral rights are worth nothing. They're not even worth selling to a third party, because they're already going to begin production. And they will simply exclude the town's mineral rights. So we had a limited timetable. Our attorneys weighed in on the issue of mineral rights under open spaces, which was discussed here. And we also mentioned that there is no zone reserve or open, excuse me, reserve open space. There's nothing zoned that way at the moment. I want to go through some of this here that wrote a statement, but first I want to, the gavel, I want to apologize to the public. That was probably not my brightest or my best moment, but you know, we did not want this to be a contentious thing and and I very much appreciate that we were able to have a Candid discussion where you were all able to speak. We didn't have people interrupting one another People different viewpoints were made and and it was done out of respect So I want to thank that and I want to thank the public for being a part of this process and I've participate in many executive sessions with the purchase of town property. I can say that with this particular issue, we have tried our best to share as much as we can. Most of the discussions concerning real estate, water rights at times, But because this matter involved mental rights, the conversation was more sensitive given the community concerns around oil and gas in the community. Unfortunately, the scrutiny also brought rumors in the UNO's misrepresentation, including some that were unfortunately purported by members of council. Let me address some of those misrepresentations. Early in this process, Because SM Energy, then Civitas, was focused on purchasing and acquiring mineral rights, we did consider that whether that interest that they held could significantly delay or affect the Draco project to where it wasn't feasible for them. As part of our due diligence, those questions were raised and answered quickly, and it became clear that SM, then Civitas, had already secured the percentage needed for pooling within the Draco drilling unit to proceed before the ECMC. The remaining issue was the town's mineral interest, which in the Draco drilling and spacing unit represents about 8% of the minerals in that spacing unit. In other words, Draco would move forward regardless of whether the town chose to lease or sell its mineral rights. Despite assertions by some that town had leverage to stop Draco, our consultants, town staff, and special counsel all advised that we don't have that authority. The suggestion that the town could continue to oppose the Draco project by denying subsurface easements does not fully account for the legal and practical considerations involved. Staff has advised that further efforts to challenge Draco would likely result in significant legal costs. In addition, the town's previously granted subsurface crossing rates and easements for, including easements related to utility and infrastructure and town center. It's also important to recognize that SM has the technical ability to alter well trajectories to avoid the town's property entirely. However, in doing so, that could significantly increase risk by requiring longer well bores, and by contrast, subsurface evens while ensuring that the well casing does not penetrate the sounds property if the mineral rights sales not approved may actually provide a more practical lower risk approach the other misrepresentation is the claim that accepting the software would devalue home i would just like to point out that the north the northernmost proposed well would run directly or right next to my home

so I have a direct and personal interest in ensuring that that doesn't occur for homeowners in the town.

There also appears to be a significant misunderstanding about what the town is actually selling, and as Councilmember O'Connor pointed out, in this case, the leasing is only related to two particular formations. The lower formations are not included in the sale, and that does give us future leverage should somebody come back to the town and want to access those minerals um there have been serious misstatements and quite frankly false claims about alameda minerals and its role in this process although alameda's initial contact was with mayor moore he immediately directed that individual to town staff or environmental services director the accusations made by some that council members and the public are unfounded and unfairly disparaged Mr. Owens and our staff. I can say with confidence that Matt Owens negotiated on the town's behalf and worked to secure the best possible outcome for the town. There have been suggestions that unethical, You're entitled to your opinion. There have also been suggestions that unethical for the town to retain a negotiator who had previously served as an executive with a company on the other side of the transaction. He no longer served in that capacity when he was hired by the town and that was clear. That accusation is also unfair to our staff attorneys whose responsibility is to vet consultants appropriately. Before Alameda Minerals was engaged, our efforts to negotiate directly with Civitas were unsuccessful. and the initial offers were not remotely competitive alameda's work was instrumental in attaining the value we were seeking which extended beyond monetary compensation alone there's no evidence that anyone at alameda can coordinated with sm energy or civitas against the town's interest in fact the suggestion the contrary may expose the town to legal risk for damage to professional reputation for Mr. Owens. Let me also address concerns regarding the town's purchasing policy. Although we should have pursued the RFP process for mineral rights brokers, staff advised, because of the unique nature of this matter, the intended approach was to use a sole source vendor. That process, however, was not followed, and we fully acknowledge it. The oversight seems more of an honest mistake rather than an intentional malfeasance. And I would remind the public The council members that opposed the contract never brought up that concern to the rest of council until we had a public listening session, then afterwards made statements to the media. The mayor stated that the matter will be included in our audit so we can identify what was missed and ensure that the process is closed and corrected. I also want to address a statement from certain members of council that Alameda did not fulfill its contractual obligations, particularly with respect to pursuing a competitive process of potential buyers, lessees, or the town's minerals. The determination of whether Alameda met its contractual obligations rests solely on the council and our legal staff has confirmed that point. The history of this transaction begins with land the town sought to acquire along Arapahoe Road because of its importance to future economic development. Discussions about developing that land date back to December of 2020 when the AEDAB considered a new airport entrance and FBO building. That concept was further developed when the town hired ABS Aviation in 2023 to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the economic development opportunities at the airport. That report, which was presented to council at that time, identified potential of a road connection and FBO building on the property. In late 2024, the town approached Civitas regarding the acquisition of the 7N property. Civitas made it clear that it was not interested in the town buying the property outright, but it was willing to deed property to the town in exchange for a lease or sale of the town minerals in the Draco DSU. The point of the land is to state that it was clear from the beginning our bargaining partner would be Civitas, eventually SM Energy, as they were the owners of the land. Early conversations made that clear. Having Alameda solicit competitive bids seems superfluous, and the council was made aware from Alameda of similar competitive bids for minerals in the formations under discussion. The purpose was not to sell or lease to even the highest bidder, but to get an estimate of approximately what our minerals would be worth to ensure just compensation. From the beginning, this process, our negotiating partner was SM Energy, and that was clear to all of council. When I say that three members opposing this deal are being disingenuous, that is what I'm talking about. Sadly,

I was going to say, please, keep your comments. We've listened to the audience. Now it's our time to be able to clearly articulate what's on our minds. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. Sadly, the opposing members decided that their focus was going to be to kill the deal. of hurting the reputation of Alameda could put the town at risk for damage to professional representation of a consultant under a contract with the town. Before Alameda Minerals was engaged, the proposed value consisting of one of the properties plus cash was approximately $2.8 million. It was clear to the council that this offer fell well short of the value of the assets the town would be exchanging. Although town staff attempted to negotiate directly with Civitas, the compensation being offered was not adequate. At that point, we discussed engaging with the mineral broker to better understand the value proposed. Although town did not follow standard RFP process, Staff indicated this matter would likely be handled either through a professional services agreement or a sole source agreement because of the unique nature of the transaction. Unfortunately, we did not follow through with that process, and the town will review this issue through its internal audit process and implement a closed-loop corrective process to help ensure this does not happen again. It was also clear from the outset that the town's objective was to maximize the overall value of the agreement with SM Energy. Financial compensation was not the council's only priority. Our primary interest was the land held by Civitas under the 7N name. We were seeking not only the land adjacent to the airport, but also the northernmost property along Arapaho, in addition to large acreage near the Leone World Service Center. While not all of this property is developable, most of it is. The land currently appraised at 13.575 million and could ultimately generate up to 200 million in value for the town through future development. In addition, this land is essential for expansion of our public works facility. This council previously voted against constructing a separate public works facility at the Page property because doing so would have created disjointed operations to the town. The connecting roads, which were designed for limited traffic, would instead have been burdened by heavy truck traffic, industrial activity, and a full fleet fueling station. Acquiring 7N properties provides the most practical and logical location for expanding our public works facility. In addition to the property itself, this agreement would provide for the plugging and abandonment of 17 additional wells not covered under the Draco agreement with the ECMC. You've heard others say that these wells will eventually be capped regardless, but that overlooks the fact that these wells may have 15 to 20 years of remaining life, whereas this agreement would require them to be capped within five years. These wells are primarily located in my district, including around Kenosha Farms, Erie Village, and Erie Highlands where I live. In my view, Council members who are opposing this agreement are putting an unwarranted risk and an opportunity to improve resident safety. Without this agreement, those wills will unlikely to be addressed in the foreseeable future. Finally, the town would receive 4.5 million upfront and potentially 25.5 million over the life of operations representing 3% of production revenue after recovery of two times the capital cost. Some of you may have noticed that the projected production revenue increased after the last study session two weeks ago. That change occurred because Matt Owens reviewed the contract and identified the production revenue had been reduced to 2% for whatever reason. He brought this to staff's attention, and thanks to the persistence of Councilmember O'Connor, the mayor, and our town attorney, the issue was addressed promptly uh without matt owens identifying that discrepancy we may have not caught it and correcting that provision represents an additional eight million uh potentially to the town compared with figures uh presented two weeks ago suggest that a potential deal of 43.575 million in land cash and additional safety regulations 17 plug-in abandonments that would take decades otherwise is not acting in the best interest of the town or could potentially be subject to legal challenges for not fulfilling our fiduciary responsibility is quite frankly laughable three counselors misrepresented who was actually negotiating this deal it wasn't by the four of us and it wasn't even by alameda minerals in the end alameda only came up with the deal points in conjunction with our staff for our attorneys who actually drew up the contract that is before us tonight in addition with sm attorneys but these three decided rather than to participate in a process that could have improved this deal, they chose a path of obstruction. Tonight, I've tried to be as transparent as possible with the community because for the last nine months, there were three members of council that made it clear from the outset that they were not interested in any agreement. Rather than participating constructively to improve the process, they chose obstruction and accused others of acting against residents' interest. Four of us remain silent publicly because executive session exists to protect the town's bargaining position. As I've outlined tonight, that approach enabled the town to negotiate an agreement worth more than 10 times the value of Civitas' original offer. Put simply, we would not have the agreement before us today without Matt Owens and Alameda Minerals. Four of us honored our obligations confidentially throughout this process while also pressing staff to release information to the public as soon as our attorneys advised it was appropriate to do so. Four members of council worked to maximize this agreement, understanding that if we failed to act, Draco would proceed and the town would receive nothing in return. Four members fought for the health and safety of residents by demanding onsite inspections for a drilling location in another jurisdiction and by seeking the plugging and abandonment of 17 additional wells that likely would not be kept for 15 to 20 years. Four members of this body fought for land critical to the town's future development. Finally, I want to address one last talking point of the opposition, that we should pause this process and continue to future date and do a full competitive bid process and have another public meeting to discuss potential bids. This represents another false talking point that has no basis in reality. The deal as proposed and negotiated with SM by our staff is the only deal that will be made or offered If this is not passed tonight, there is no competitive bidding process. The simple fact of the matter is had we gone out for a competitive bid for minerals, there would be no agreement which would be acceptable to the three opposing the deal. It is simply a stall tactic to try to delay this deal to the point where it's irrelevant. We've had nine months for you three to be a part of the process. And you made it clear that you did not want to be a part of this deal. The simple fact of the matter is if we do not pass this tonight, there will be no deal. There will be no continuance. And Erie will be drilled under. And we will get nothing tangible of value in return. This deal represents a significant benefit to the town for the land, the monetary compensation, and more importantly, the added health and safety benefits, adding a plug-in abandonment of 17 wells and on-site inspections and access to the Draco pad. This agreement reflects a significant accomplishment by town staff, and I would like to personally thank David Frank, our Environmental Services Director, Julian Jackwin, our Economic Development Director, Brina Meng, our Town Attorney, Kendra Carberry, our former Town Attorney, our Oil and Gas Council, John Sullivan and Barbara Green, Interim Town Manager Meredith Meemuth, and Director, uh town manager melissa wiley and uh matt owens are our consultant uh i am supportive of this deal and uh thank you for your time all right thank you council member bearer thank you um let's take a deep breath everybody

All right. I want to thank the community for coming out and showing up and showing up in our email. It's been important to hear from you. I did want to recognize a few of the public comments that were made that we should align our values with our principles. And uh the idea that we should have a risk analysis to understand the benefits of saying no because we don't have that in front of us i thought that was a very good point um the fact that we don't have reserved open space in the town is a technicality and does not reflect the intent of the charter and the charter was voter approved so that that does not reflect the intent of the community um uh and also that we are voting for the future of erie i think that is also a very um good point and i i we heard some powerful testimony and i want to thank you for coming and some of you don't speak um publicly very often and i appreciate you sharing your story um and so i i will read my statement um though I do feel like I'm on trial a bit after Mayor Pro Tem's comments. But he's not wrong. I was never in favor of this. Yeah, so I guess that's true. I'm here because I think government should care about people. I think that decisions that are made by people in positions of power should be made from a place of great concern and care for folks. And I think about that with every decision that's before me. And I don't mean that as a dig towards other council members. I'm saying that is my focus. That is my purpose. That's my reason for being here. and and so the decisions that i make are from a place of great care and concern um i just want to point out that the argument that draco is already happening and we should get something for it is an inept argument it's a narrative used by politicians to justify their abandonment of community values If this vote passes today, it's a spit in the face to the vast majority of people we have heard from these past many weeks and over many, many years. The fact that a letter was penned, circulated for signatures, and sent to the Attorney General's office requesting they intervene on behalf of citizens of Erie should be a wake-up call for this council. And if we vote in favor of this deal, you are doing it in direct opposition to the people you represent. Erie has a long history with extractive industry. And when we talk about history, it's important to acknowledge all of that history. I couldn't find Erie's land acknowledgement, so I'd love to request that we put that on the website. But I'm going to borrow Boulder Valley School District. Boulder Valley School District resides and operates on land that is the ancestral home and unjustly and illegally taken territory of the Ute, Puebloan, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Apache, Navajo, and 48 other tribal nations. historically tied to this land, who have called this land home since time immemorial. We acknowledge the atrocities committed here, including the painful history of genocide, forced assimilation, and efforts to alienate the indigenous inhabitants from their homeland, supported by the policies of the United States government. So Erie's history, the land that we call Erie, is more recent. And our history of extraction begins with coal mining. We're still dealing with the wounds of extractive history today. I think that if at any time over the last 100 years or 20 years, our Erie leaders would have stood up to say no to the industry, our maps would look different. We wouldn't have legacy wells or stripper wells in our neighborhoods. We wouldn't be faced with cleaning up contamination from leaks, spills, dealing with venting and flaring adjacent to our neighborhoods. Our lateral maps would look more like those of Boulder County and Broomfield. But that isn't the Erie legacy we inherited. I have worked hard for most of the last decade to change laws and regulations at the legislature and regulatory tables so that local leaders can stand on solid footing when we fight for public health, safety, welfare, and the environment. Senate Bill 24185 is the latest in a string of regulations meant to empower that fight. It's not too late to draw the line and say no more, but we need leaders who are willing to hold the line. I will keep pushing towards health and safety. We learned on June 2nd that there's a portion of Erie-owned minerals in the Draco DSU that were leased between 2003 and 2012. Imagine if any of those councils had chosen to decline an offer. Where would we be? It's time to draw the line. There are serious concerns in the public with the way this contract has been executed. From the purchasing policy violation that we failed to conduct an RFP before approving a contract with Alameda Minerals, to the mixed stories from Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor more about how the relationship with Alameda Minerals came about, to the failure of the contractor to conduct a competitive bid, and subsequently stating via a memo from June 4th that Alameda Minerals had decided to move forward with a competitive bidding process. and um that matt owens had alerted his contacts at sm to view this as inconsequential that is not a competitive bid process this process has not been conducted properly any material change to a contract of this size should be amended by council in a public meeting we amend contracts all the time often on consent agenda uh we were told that this amendment came from the town and is memorialized in email i was not part of those emails it's not right that this meeting was scheduled while council member hoback is attending his son's college graduation despite justifications it's just not right it's also not right that the terms of the deal are wildly wildly disparate and confusing um i'm going to skip that part the legacy wells in erie neighborhoods are a problematic part of the long history erie has had with extractive industry they just shouldn't be there at the very least they should be long plugged and abandoned our residents health and safety should never be a bargaining chip the assumption that this won't happen but for erie agreeing to this deal is gross and a failure i have already begun to convene a working group of regional leaders to look at what changes need to be made to state policy so that legacy wells are cleaned up much more expediently and this gross tactic goes away i have talked before about senate bill 24 185 and the dominant mineral estate doctrine and how that shifts implied right which means the operator cannot perforate our substrate estate, but only if this council does not agree to this deal. Saying yes to this deal abdicates our authority to stand for residents during the most impactful parts of oil and gas development pre-production, including drilling, casing and cementing, perforation and well completion, hydraulic fracturing, and flow back. According to the contract, item 41A says that if either of the following occurs any time prior to commencement of production of wells as set forth in the approved Draco OGDP, this is the termination clause. 7N, in its discretion, may terminate this contract by written notice to the town, in which case all parties will be relieved of their obligations here under, except for the obligations at 4th and 41B below. Number one, letter I. If the town takes formal action to object to the Draco pad for purposes of this section, formal action to object the Draco pad means a vote or other official action of the Erie Town Council that authorizes or directs town staff to take a position contrary to the approved OGDP. Now, I've been advised that this may not have been the intent of the agreement, but it is how it's written. And it expressly states that any time prior to the commencement of production of wells. This sounds to me like the town will be hamstrung should a need arise to object to any of the production activities that have the most egregious impacts. We may be forced to choose between public health and safety or profit. and is my personal experience that public health and safety rarely rise to a level of importance when budgets are tangled with oil and gas money. We should not abdicate our hard-fought authority to prioritize our residents' health and safety. I'm going to borrow Mr. Bell's favorite word. It's disingenuous that this ordinance says the town council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. 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. Not just to delay, but an ardent no to the deal. um to approve this ordinance and i encourage my fellow council members to join me i also want to mention that while 17 legacy wells and communities is it's important that those are gone there are other wells that are not in this deal including a low producing well directly adjacent to red hawk elementary but since it is not technically within the town boundaries it's not included And I'll end there. Thank you.

All right. Council Member Morcalero.

Okay. Well, thank you, everyone, for attending today and also for those who spoke. I hope you're also willing to listen because I've got a few things to say. First, Draco is happening. That's not a political statement. That's reality. And that's where we should start. That's the starting point when evaluating this deal. Draco is happening. It was approved by the ECMC March 2025 by a four to one vote. 26 Wells. All the concerns about air pollution, noise pollution, traffic, and health and safety concerns, all there. Approved. The community did a great job coming together at the middle school, the write-in campaign, and the two ECMC hearings. I participated in all of those.

it was still approved.

Every expert that we've worked with throughout this process has agreed Draco is happening. If you're still in denial, that it's either wishful thinking or you've been given misinformation.

So please challenge your sources.

I challenged mine multiple times. I've met with three geologists and the ECMC petroleum engineer, as well as many others, all of whom are saying we're not stopping Draco, whether we approve this proposed deal or not.

Draco is a $1.5 billion operation.

Yes, billion dollar. Civitas has been working on it for three years, over three years. They have acquired the approvals, the mineral rights, and made commitments based on it. Do you believe that a 2.7% of the minerals is going to have a significant impact on the scope of this project? No, it's not. I'm glad that several here have finally come to that point through the two study sessions and the multiple public hearings, the two public hearings that we've had on this one. I'm glad that we're making progress on at least that point. So what we might have influence on is the spacing. So we've got 26 lateral wells going about two to three miles wide. We might be able to, and this isn't for sure, this is theoretical law, that we might be able to affect the path of those 26 laterals. There's no guarantee there. So, and that would be to avoid our mineral rights. So the rough calculation I did was centerline to centerline, these laterals are about 600 feet apart, right? So one of the ways they might go about avoiding our minerals is to go north and south of our minerals and put these laterals closer together. Does that harm the homes north and south? Maybe. Does that help the folks that are under our minerals? Yeah, if that's the way they choose. Again, it's theoretical law that we'd have to prove. They could continue on the path that they're currently going on and not perforate and call that avoiding our minerals. We don't know. So that's the only influence our minerals give us, is changing the spacing. of lateral wells that are, and if they do avoid, if we do force them to go around, then the laterals are now gonna be longer, longer than they're currently projected, which is four to five miles currently. How does making the laterals longer help us? These laterals are 7,500 to 8,000 feet below us. with a thick shell layer of over 1,000 feet between the weld bores and the surface. I find some comfort in that. I've discussed this with the ECMC petroleum engineer, and basically they pointed out that this layer acts as an impermeable, flexible seal between us and the thing, and the weld bores. So let's talk about the health and safety improvements of this deal that will provide the town. The 17 wells near homes, commercial properties, and Kenosha farms, Erie Highlands, College Hill, and Parkdale neighborhoods, plugged and abandoned on a timeline within five years. These are older wells. And they're on top of the 22 wells that are already in the Draco deal with the state. But these 17 wells are outside the Draco drilling area. And therefore, they could be in operation for decades. There is no incentive for these wells to be plugged without this deal. Um. And these are older wells, right? So they don't have any of the modern technology or detections of determining leaks and whatnot. There's no leak detection equipment on these wells. Like the well near my house. I have a well that's 500 feet from my home. It had no leak detection on it. It's been in production for the 25 years I've lived there. It leaked. They found it when they went to plug it and they've been mitigating that contamination for the past year and a half to clean that up. So these 17 wells are the same type of wells that are 500 feet from my house. We will celebrate when the mitigation is finally complete. I walked around and talked to my neighbors around there. They're as frustrated as I am. I reached out to David from our environmental services, and he's met with ECMC and SM on this to make sure it stays a top priority and finally gets cleaned up this time around. I get it. I understand it. I've lived these concerns. Also, I attended a webinar a few weeks ago called Plugging the Problem, Marginal Wells in Colorado. It pointed out how challenging it is to get marginal wells plugged. There's no incentive by the oil and gas operators to plug these for a variety of reasons. The top priority of the webinar was to get 42 wells that are near schools plugged. There are many challenges associated with this. The webinar was hosted by Christian, who's in the audience tonight. And he had folks from ECMC in attendance. With this deal, we get 17 wells plugged and abandoned bringing the total plugged and abandoned wells for NJROCO operation to 39. This is almost as many as was highlighted in the webinar. But these 39 wells will have a clear timeline. So I don't understand why there is not unilateral support for significant health and safety gain from this deal. So again you know um i i know that i know the improvement i know the uh like say i've lived it i'm 500 feet uh from uh a well that's been active for the 25 years i've lived there so something to celebrate uh when when it finally gets gets mitigated that my wife and i will will definitely appreciate that being gone and so will all of our neighbors So again, plugging those 17 wells in a timeline, that's a huge health and safety improvement for our town. So now let's talk about the monthly inspections. of the well site that's not in Erie, but in unincorporated well county. Monthly inspections during the drilling and fracking and quarterly inspections for the entire time Draco is in production. We don't get that without this deal. We have an awesome environmental services team that have the equipment, the expertise to discover and report any issues at this site. This is a historic deal from a health and safety perspective. If you'd like to learn why, please ask Christian for the presentation on plugging the problems. There is no plan for those 42 wells. We could have a plan for 39. We have a plan for 22. 17 will be added to this deal if we approve it. Now let's briefly touch on the compensation that the town will be getting with this approval. The cash, the land, the revenue, the well mitigation. Tangible current value is equivalent to two times what Erie brings in in sales tax in a year. It's more than five times what Erie brings in in property tax in a year. It doesn't even take into account the potential future economic value, which could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I think it's sad that some will not vote to approve this deal due to politics, instead of voting for what is best for the health, safety, and prosperity of our town. I can make a strong argument for this deal if we were only getting the 17 additional wells plugged. It's even stronger argument in the deal with these 17 additional wells. This will plug all the wells in Erie that are owned by SM Energy. So there will be no more wells in Erie that are operated by SM Energy from that point on if we approve this deal within the five year window. plus the monthly inspections of the well site. When I was a kid, my mom used to say, tell me and my brothers, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. An interesting way of saying, don't harm yourself in an attempt to punish or harm someone else. Let's not walk away from this health and safety improvements. The 17 plugged old wells with no leak detection and access to the well pad because we tried and failed to stop Draco. I would like to thank the staff and Alameda Minerals for the work that they've done on this historic deal. And my apologies to Alameda Minerals for the unwarranted scrutiny and accusations. They have been nothing but professionals and amazing partners helping us understand the value of our minerals. I am confident that outside the purchasing policy, this process and due diligence has been done completely and properly. Again, this deal brings significant health and safety to the to the to the community versus possibly altering the path of some of the 26 laterals. That's what we're talking about. 17 wells access to the to the well site for inspections, possibly being able to affect the path of some maybe five, six of the other well bores, and making them go around our minerals, and then making them longer. Thanks again.

all right thank you um there's so much to say so much that has already been said um i feel what you're saying i'm an erie resident too 28 years in erie i also own three properties that will be drilled under so i'm not sitting somewhere going hey this is something that's going to happen to somebody else i've had to internalize that as well Another council member up here said that some of us have abandoned our values. This is the hardest thing about being an elected official. Having fiduciary responsibility means you are legally and ethically bound to act in the absolute best interest of the organization you're serving. In that case, we are legally and ethically bound to have ERIE. is who we're serving, not our own values. When you're a fiduciary, you must put other parties' needs, financial well-being, and interests ahead of your own. It is the highest standard of care recognized by the legal system.

And I take that seriously.

I've been your mayor for seven and a half years. And there isn't a vote up here that I don't care about Erie to my core. I think part of the challenge that we have on this, and I saw it in many of the comments tonight, was that it felt like you were lobbying the ECMC to stop Draco. And that decision has been made. Draco will happen. We've been told that by our attorneys. I was told that by the executive vice president in charge of this last week. This is the only opportunity we have now. If the vote goes down in failure tonight, we're done. Erie will get nothing. Draco will continue. If the vote passes tonight, then the agreement that's in front of us and that we've explained through two study sessions, two public comment input sessions, an FAQ that is on the website to explain the intricacies. And I say the intricacies because this is nuanced. We have been thinking about that as a council for a long time. And it's easy to forget about all of the things that many others have said here about the benefits. And so I look at this from the lens that it's happening. And if it happens and the Erie residents get nothing, then my fiduciary responsibility has not been met to ensure that fiscally and the well-being of our residents is met. Alameda Minerals was selected for its unique position in understanding Civitas' and S&M Energy's internal economics. The owner of Alameda Minerals left Civitas three years ago. He served not as their CEO, as some have said, but their COO. The difference there is that he knew the operations. He knew the details of Draco. he had critical information we could not get elsewhere that helped us leverage Senate Bill 24-185 to parlay the first offer by over tenfold. It's true that the town staff did not follow procurement best practices, specifically sole source justification. This is highly concerning and is being handled as a separate matter, including an independent audit. This lapse in the internal procurement process, however, does not negate the contract itself. As for the overuse of the executive session, I find that just absurd. We had definitely discussed this in executive session like we do with so many contracts. If there was an issue, all of us at the time of the executive session has the ability to call an objection in the executive session where we have attorneys that help us navigate the executive session comments. We've all been briefed on things that we can say and can't say in executive session. No one up here said that there was an issue with any of the executive sessions until we got down to this point. And so I just find that an assault on what some of us have been trying to do up here to ensure we're doing the right thing from a fiduciary standpoint. I think that the pros of this have been stated. If the drilling has happened, 17 wells, additional wells and tanks plugged outside of the Draco drilling area. So these are communities that many of us live in, and that's a positive. That's in addition to the 22. There's no way to get around it that any producing well right now is putting off some type of vocs and if we could stop that sooner then it's a positive for us the local oversight huge being able to get on the drilling rig in weld county outside of our jurisdiction on a monthly basis during drilling and on a quarterly basis after the production starts that's something we have no control we simply can't go there today The compensation is significant. When we first started this and we had the first offer, $2.8 million. I think all of us said, well, that's not worth our time or energy to even get involved. But when you get it to $40 million, but more importantly, we get control of strategic land. We have a problem right now with the ability to expand our facilities in Erie as Erie has grown rapidly, I think more rapidly than most would have liked. But we need to solve those problems, right? We need places for our snow plows so that in the winter, when we've added hundreds of miles from the growth, we have enough plows to be able to plow our roads without the ability to expand. this becomes a problem, no different than the problem our chief was facing with the police force not being able to have enough space, which we solved another way. But the economic benefit and the memos we've received from staff to help us understand unlocks, in addition to that $40-ish million of compensation, up to $200 million of economic benefit to the town. So that's a fiduciary responsibility to look at that as well. If we could stop Draco, it's a different discussion. But we've been told we can't.

Mostabiri is already fracked.

When I sent out the blog I did, I sent a graphic on there. There were yellow lines on it. Those yellow lines are where we were already drilled under.

This is no different.

We've been through this. Property values have not fallen as some have suggested. Others have suggested foundations are going to crack. We haven't seen that either. The fact is this is deep in the ground. It's over a mile, close to a mile and a half down. And so when they're doing the drilling, there's no evidence that there's going to be subsidence, that foundations are going to crack. We've already been drilled under in many neighborhoods, including Collier Hill, which I was getting people concerned about that. When I shared they'd already been drilled under, they were surprised. And I think it's just true. We have drilling all over Erie as it is now. This is just another place that the drilling will happen. This is hard. I'm the mayor of a town where I don't even want to be dealing with this. I want to be talking about how we keep that small town feeling. I want to be working on what's the next thing that brings us together. One thing that's interesting is that when the hearings were going on with ECMC, the rooms were packed, packed, hundreds of people. And over time, that has dwindled to what we see here tonight, which is, if I'm counting right, before many people left, there's 40 to 50 people here. You are the hardcore. You are the people that want this stopped. And I wish I had a way to stop Draco. I don't have a way to stop Draco. And that is the reason why I think the benefits we've discussed is why I will be voting yes. Not sure if I closed the public hearing, so I'll officially close the public hearing.

Then I'll see if we have a motion to approve Ordinance 28-2026.

So moved.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Will the town clerk please take a roll call vote?

Council Member Mortallaro.

Yes.

Council Member Behr. Absolutely not. Mayor Pro Tem Bell.

Yes.

Council Member O'Connor.

No.

Council Member Passamarelli.

No.

And Mayor Mohler.

Yes. So the motion fails. adjourn the meeting.