Taxes, Public Trust, and the Mineral Rights Petition

For weeks, questions about trust in Erie government have centered on the town’s controversial decision to sell municipal mineral rights. Last Tuesday’s Town Council meeting continued those conversations. While staff presented two potential November ballot measures, council members spent hours debating meeting start times, agenda schedules, advisory board appointments, and updates to the town’s ethics code. By the end of the night, the session had evolved into a broader examination of how Erie should govern itself. 

The evening’s most immediate action focused on what voters will see on the upcoming fall ballot. Council directed staff to draft formal language for a 0.5% sales tax to fund expansion, renovation, and long-term maintenance of the Erie Community Center. Council also advanced draft language for a new lodging tax designed to collect revenue from visitors and tourists rather than residents.  

While these tax proposals represent major policy decisions, they moved forward with surprisingly little friction. Instead, institutional procedures and public confidence dominated the council’s time. 

Members generally agreed to standardize a 6:30 p.m. meeting start time, release agenda packets earlier, establish clearer rules for removing items from the consent agenda, and modernize virtual meeting rules. They also directed staff to refine proposed updates to the code of ethics and code of conduct, focusing on harassment standards, complaint procedures, retaliation protections, and censure provisions. Additionally, council revisited how volunteer advisory board members are appointed following criticism of this year’s selection process, weighing standardized procedures to increase council liaison involvement while preserving board independence. 

Although none of those formal agenda items explicitly cited the mineral rights deal, the shadow of that agreement drove much of the public’s engagement. Public comments brought the ongoing mineral rights dispute directly into the room, linking routine administrative decisions to a broader crisis of trust. Residents pointed directly to newly released documents, including the disputed invoice from consultant Matthew Owens of Alameda Mineral Advisors. As reported by Yellow Scene, Owens’ billing statement uses complex valuations to argue his firm created over $401 million in value, yielding a theoretical $30.1 million fee and laying the groundwork to ask the town for a payout above its contractual $4.5 million cap.

Colliers Hill resident Steve Drew addressed the council during public comment, criticizing town officials for staying silent after receiving the invoice in late June.

“On a bingo card, I did not have an invoice that vaguely looks like a threat,” Drew said. “[…] He’s angry and put it in his invoice. And the real issue is that what was on the bingo card is that we haven’t heard from you. Once again, silence.”

Drew urged the council to commit to immediate transparency regarding the invoice, expand an upcoming third-party review of the procurement process to include council members rather than just staff, and establish stronger ethics oversight.

“Scraps online are all related to the fact that your choice has been no information, silence,” Drew added, pointing to the line items in Owens’ bill. “It has Owens quoting your blog post for $12.5 million in calculated compensation. This is a hot mess. Let’s get it out in the open as fast as possible.”

Staff is expected to return in August with final ballot language for both tax measures as well as revised governance policies. Meanwhile, residents continue circulating a referendum petition seeking to repeal the Town Council’s June 24 approval of the SM Energy mineral rights agreement. 

Organizers (reachable at [email protected]) need to gather roughly 1,400 valid signatures from registered Erie voters to force action. If the petition hits that threshold, the town will not add the measure to the regular November ballot; instead, it will trigger a dedicated special election where voters can directly approve or overturn the deal. Whether a successful referendum would legally void the signed SM Energy contract or trigger litigation remains an open question, ensuring that the debate over transparency and public trust will carry well into the fall.

For more on the narrow 4-3 vote that approved the mineral rights sale, including public testimony and council debate, read our previous coverage here.