Saturday, June 20, the Town of Erie made an announcement that Councilmember Brian O’Connor had reconsidered the mineral rights deal and was bringing the motion back to a vote on June 23. On June 16, the vote failed in a 3-3 tie, with Councilmember Dan Hoback absent and O’Connor opposing the deal. 

Tonight, 47 residents spoke in public comment regarding the deal, with 35 in opposition. Residents also submitted over 428 pages of comments online, with analyses showing over 90% of the letters submitted in opposition. Those efforts also included a letter to the council with 227 signatures requesting that council vote no. O’Connor appeared to hesitate in his closing speech, but his position was clear in his verbiage throughout the meeting.

Consistent with previous votes, which had been controversial among residents (such as Redtail Ranch, pride flag policy and Executive Session transparency), the council chose to vote 4-3 in favor of Erie selling its mineral rights. Councilmembers Anil Pesamarelli, Emily Baer, and Dan Hoback voted against, while Mayor Andrew Moore,  Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell, and Councilmembers O’Connor and John Mortellaro were in favor.

While supporters emphasized the purported safety measures and fiduciary benefits, the opposition scrutinized the processes of the deal itself, raising legal and ethical concerns that have escalated over the past months.

These include violation of town procurement policies when hiring the consultant firm Alameda Mineral Advisors, improper use of confidential Executive Session meetings, possible violations of Alameda’s contract with the town, and lobbying from Alameda CEO Matthew Owens for residents to contact O’Connor and ask him to reconsider his no vote.

Mayor Moore stated that town staff in charge of the procurement process did not follow town guidelines, and that none of the councilmembers were aware of this breach of policy. Hoback stated it differently. “As for not following the town procurement process, to my knowledge, that process was never passed to town staff. Town council was in complete control of the vendor selection process.”

He continued to say, “This deal, since the beginning, has had valuations all over the place.”

Bell spoke for over 24 minutes, as he did at the June 16 meeting. His comments focused on the inevitability of the Draco Pad, the estimated 30 to 44 million dollars of the deal and advice to his critics, whose comments he characterized as “not even worthy of discussion.”

The evening ran long, but after three hours, the council voted 4-3 in favor of selling the mineral rights. Selling mineral or water rights is a permanent, high-stakes financial decision, and one that should not be taken lightly.

The post Rocky mineral rights deal passes in 4-3 vote in spite of opposition appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Less than a week after the Erie Town Council’s deadlocked vote rejected a proposed mineral rights agreement tied to the Draco Pad, Councilmember Brian O’Connor has called for a reconsideration of the decision. The council is scheduled to revisit the topic on June 23, reopening one of the most divisive debates facing the town.

The request for a revote followed a social media post by Matthew Owens, CEO of Alameda Mineral Advisors, the firm hired by the town to negotiate the deal. In the original version of his LinkedIn post, Owens explicitly urged O’Connor to call for a reconsideration of his vote, a directive that was later edited out.

The original June 21 social media post by Matthew Owens, which explicitly urged Councilmember Brian O’Connor to reconsider his vote.

The edited version of the same post published later on June 21, with the direct appeal to O’Connor removed

Beyond the immediate political maneuvering, Owens’ public defense disclosed specific details from confidential Executive Sessions regarding bids, valuations, and negotiations. Residents were repeatedly denied this exact information prior to the vote under the guise of executive session confidentiality. While Owens released these details publicly to defend the merits of the deal, he did so without providing the underlying documentation. Furthermore, several of his assertions directly contradict the public record.

In his post, Owens outlined several key figures regarding the negotiations:

• Marketing Reach: Alameda solicited bids from 25 companies, 19 of which declined to submit offers.

• Competing Bids: The highest competing offer was approximately $5.5 million.

• Internal Valuations: SM Energy (formerly Civitas) internally valued the mineral rights between $54.7 million and $71.1 million. Unsolicited offers implied a baseline valuation of roughly $43 million.

• Contract Changes: Alterations made to the final agreement after Alameda’s active involvement ended allegedly reduced the deal’s total value by roughly $8 million.

Owens’ claim that Alameda actively solicited competitive bids directly contradicts his own previous statements. In a prior council study session, before being cut off by the Town Attorney, Owens told council members and a Yellow Scene reporter that he was “instructed not to” conduct a competitive bidding process by “the people who hired [him].”

Shown Matthew Owens at Counsel Hearing

When pressed in the comments of his post regarding competitive bidding, his editing choices, and SM Energy’s track record, Owens sidestepped the questions. Instead, he engaged critics with generalized political arguments and personal character attacks.

A public records analysis reveals that these claims vary significantly in their verifiability, falling into three distinct categories:

• Claims Supported by Public Records:

  • The Draco Pad project has already received state approval and is highly likely to proceed regardless of Erie’s decision on its mineral rights. The Town of Erie lacks the legal authority to revoke those state approvals.

• Claims Relying Heavily on Projections:

  • Alameda’s estimate asserts the agreement could generate up to $465 million in total value to Erie, projecting that transferred land could eventually generate hundreds of millions in future tax revenue. Conversely, the firm estimated that retaining the mineral rights would yield only $2.7 million to $4 million in royalty revenue over roughly 30 years.

• Claims Lacking Independent Verification:

  • Because no official documentation accompanied Owens’ post and the underlying materials remain shielded by executive session privacy, the public cannot verify the number of companies contacted, the actual value of competing offers, SM Energy’s internal valuation figures, or the alleged $8 million reduction caused by contract changes

The lack of transparency throughout this entire negotiation process has now drawn state scrutiny. The Colorado Attorney General’s office is currently reviewing a formal complaint filed by resident Steve Drew. The complaint alleges a pattern of procedural irregularities, including the lack of a Request for Proposal (RFP) process when hiring Alameda Mineral Advisors, a lack of competitive bidding during negotiations, the potential misuse of Executive Session confidentiality, and conflict of interest concerns.

This sequence of events has intensified the local debate over municipal transparency. The core issue is not whether local governments have the legal right to use executive sessions; Colorado law explicitly permits closed sessions to protect a municipality’s bargaining position during active negotiations. Rather, the controversy centers on whether Erie officials used confidentiality appropriately to safeguard a sensitive transaction, or whether they unnecessarily kept residents in the dark regarding the true mechanics and consequences of the deal.

Information that residents consistently requested during public meetings—including bidder participation, competing offers, and valuation ranges—was withheld from the citizenry only to be made public by a third-party contractor after the vote had occurred.

“The making of this deal is cloaked in secrecy of executive session,” resident Emily Brecht told the council on June 16. “We, the people of Erie, have valid questions. If people here are misinformed about the deal, it appears to be by design.”

The state’s review will proceed independently, but local action moves forward immediately. The Erie Town Council will reconvene to take a definitive vote on the mineral rights agreement on Tuesday, June 23, at 6:30 p.m

Yellow Scene’s 2026 Summer Support Drive is underway with a goal of 1,000 Sustaining Supporters by summer’s end.

For 26 years, we have remained fiercely independent, free from sponsored content and outside editorial influence.

Reader-driven support keeps local journalism unbossed, unbought, and our journalists fed. Become a sustaining supporter for $8/month and get Yellow Scene delivered to your home.

Join the Summer Support Drive and keep local journalism strong.

The post O’Connor Requests Vote After Contractor Lobbies on Social Media appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Mayor Andrew Moore, Town of Erie, CO

Tensions were already running high Tuesday night before Erie Town Council voted on the town’s controversial mineral rights agreement. During public comment, resident Steve Drew delivered a compelling address urging councilmembers to reject the deal, drawing sustained applause from a packed audience (11:31). Mayor Andrew Moore announced a recess at (17:51), he and Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell exited the chamber together after Drew mentioned that the Colorado Attorney General’s Office was reviewing complaints related to the process, as audience members cheered for Drew. This lead to jeering as residents expressed dissatisfaction of the walk-out.

The meeting’s pivotal moment came more than an hour later when Councilmember Brian O’Connor explained his decision. Speaking at 1:26:45, O’Connor said he agreed with residents who argued they still lacked sufficient information to make an informed decision about the proposed agreement. While O’Connor had previously raised concerns about the process, his comments signaled growing skepticism about moving forward without additional transparency, creating uncertainty about the vote’s outcome.

That uncertainty became reality when the council took up the vote beginning at 2:28:05; Councilmember Dan Hoback was absent but widely expected to oppose the agreement. O’Connor joined Councilmembers Emily Baer and Anil Pesaramelli in voting no, preventing the mineral rights deal from advancing. The failed vote marks a dramatic setback for a proposal that has dominated Erie politics for months and generated intense public scrutiny over transparency, procurement procedures, and the town’s negotiations with energy companies.

This is a developing story. A more detailed account of the vote will follow.

Featured Image: Mayor Andrew Moore and Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell walk out of the hearing.

SUMMER SUPPORTER DRIVE:

Yellow Scene’s 2026 Summer Support Drive is underway with a goal of 1,000 Sustaining Supporters by summer’s end.

For 26 years, we have remained fiercely independent, free from sponsored content and outside editorial influence.

Reader-driven support keeps local journalism unbossed, unbought, and our journalists fed. Become a sustaining supporter for $8/month and get Yellow Scene delivered to your home.

Join the Summer Support Drive and keep local journalism strong.

The post Erie mineral rights deal fails as O’Connor breaks from council majority appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

After the Erie Town Council voted 4-2 to stay with the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) on May 26, some might view the decision as a simple $3 million expenditure. However, the vote represents a deeper commitment to a water strategy marked by rising costs and declining participation, yet defended by supporters as a critical hedge against Colorado’s growing water scarcity.

To reach this decision, the council spent over an hour weighing financial risks against future development needs. Supporters argued that abandoning the project would waste approximately $30 million invested over two decades. Conversely, opponents questioned the wisdom of exposing the town to further financial risk as other communities scale back or withdraw entirely.

Erie remains committed to NISP, which involves diverting high spring flows from the Cache la Poudre River into the planned Glade and Galeton reservoirs. After years of environmental reviews and litigation, the regional project is now nearing major construction. For Erie, NISP is a massive long-term investment originally projected to provide 6,500 acre-feet of water annually—enough for roughly 13,000 households.

Despite its history, council members are increasingly questioning the project’s value. Updated modeling discussed this week suggests a lower participation level of 4,500 acre-feet, prompting concerns that the current economics no longer align with original assumptions. This shift is exacerbated by the departure of participants like the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, which cited rising costs as a reason for withdrawal.

As other partners have stepped away, Erie’s responsibility has grown. Mayor Andrew Moore noted that the town’s share of the project has climbed from 16% to 23%, increasing its financial exposure. Staff projections indicate Erie could face a $6.44 million contribution in 2027, with water costs estimated between $85,000 and $95,000 per acre-foot—figures that some members noted are higher than Colorado-Big Thompson water shares.

The financial debate is fueled by NISP’s total cost projections, which have jumped from $2 billion to nearly $2.7 billion. While critics point to withdrawals as evidence of a failing model, staff emphasized that Erie lacks a comparable replacement source for such a high volume of water. Proponents further argue that current costs are secondary to the larger issue of long-term resilience.

This decision comes as Colorado faces some of its poorest snowpack levels in recent history, with federal forecasts indicating runoff in parts of the Colorado River Basin could fall below 30% of average. Supporters warned that if NISP fails, competition for existing supplies will intensify, potentially driving water prices even higher.

The divide on council centered on whether NISP is the most responsible way to handle this uncertainty. Mayor Moore framed the project as a question of equity, arguing that current residents should not subsidize infrastructure for new development. Others viewed it as a necessary investment in town-wide water security, noting that leaving would mean forfeiting decades of investment and a future water yield.

Ultimately, the vote to stay does not provide immediate water or lower utility rates; it merely preserves Erie’s stake and its $30 million investment. Mayor Pro Tem Bell and council members Baer, Hoback, and Pesamarrelli carried the motion, while Moore and Council Member Mortellaro voted in opposition.

The decision is far from final, as significantly larger financial commitments are expected by 2027. For now, Erie remains tied to a project that began as a tool for growth but is now a high-stakes gamble on an increasingly dry future.

Yellow Scene’s 2026 Summer Support Drive is underway with a goal of 1,000 Sustaining Supporters by summer’s end.

For 26 years, we have remained fiercely independent, free from sponsored content and outside editorial influence.

Reader-driven support keeps local journalism unbossed, unbought, and our journalists fed. Become a sustaining supporter for $8/month and get Yellow Scene delivered to your home.

Join the Summer Support Drive and keep local journalism strong.

The post Erie Votes 4-2 to Stay in NISP as Town’s Financial Stake Rises appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

More than 100 Erie residents are now asking Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser to review the town’s controversial mineral rights process, and a Boulder attorney has formally challenged the town’s handling of consultant contracts and procurement procedures.

The twin actions come less than a week before Erie Town Council is scheduled to vote on a proposed mineral rights agreement with SM Energy, a deal that a minority of supporters say would provide significant financial benefits and operational protections for the town.

For many residents, however, the debate is no longer focused solely on the merits of the proposed agreement. Instead, concerns have shifted toward the process used to negotiate it. 

Over the past several months, residents have raised questions about the town’s selection of Alameda Mineral Advisors, the extensive use of executive sessions during negotiations and the role of consultant Matthew Owens, who acknowledged during a June 2 study session that he did not complete the competitive bid solicitation process outlined in his contract with the town. Owens later said he had been instructed not to do so.

When asked who provided that instruction, Owens said it came from “the people that hired me.”  Because Owens was hired specifically to evaluate and market the town’s mineral assets, his admission became central to the legal and ethical criticism against the process. 

Pictured Owens being questioned regarding competitive bidding process

Town officials have acknowledged that discussions surrounding the proposed mineral rights transaction began as early as September 2025. However, details of those negotiations remained largely out of public view until February 2026, when the issue first came to broader public attention through Yellow Scene reporting on an offer for the town’s mineral rights.

Those unanswered questions (and the months-long gap between private discussions and public disclosure) prompted Erie resident Steven Drew to seek outside review.

Drew said he spent months attending meetings, reviewing contracts and attempting to obtain information about the mineral rights negotiations before concluding that residents had exhausted their options at the local level.

“The short answer from the town was we had no rights in this process,” Drew said.

“So where I ended up was in a void where this behavior had no recourse except for those two areas, and that is the attorney general and the civil process.”

On June 11, Drew and more than 100 residents signed a letter asking the Colorado Attorney General’s Office to review the mineral rights process before council votes on the proposed agreement. The signatories include current and former Erie residents, former public officials and professionals with backgrounds in transportation, environmental protection and public administration. The letter alleges that town officials bypassed competitive procurement requirements, failed to conduct required bid solicitations and relied heavily on executive-session discussions during negotiations.

Drew said the goal is not to prevent council from making a decision, but to ensure residents can trust the process that produced it. If the Attorney General’s Office chooses to review the allegations, it could provide the first outside examination of the mineral rights process. 

The same day, Louisville attorney Darren O’Connor, representing Drew, sent a formal demand letter to the town seeking records and explanations related to the mineral rights negotiations. The letter challenges both the consultant procurement process and Owens’ failure to perform the bid solicitation work described in his contract. It also requests documentation showing who instructed Owens not to complete that work and asks the town to delay final action on the proposed agreement until those questions are resolved.

The issue surfaced publicly again during Tuesday night’s council meeting when a motion to enter executive session failed on a 4-3 vote. Councilmembers Emily Baer, Dan Hoback and Anil Pesamarelli voted against entering the closed-door session, citing concerns about transparency and the amount of public business being discussed outside public view. The disagreement led to a tense exchange among council members over issues that have emerged throughout the mineral rights debate. In an interview with Yellow Scene following the meeting, Councilmember Dan Hoback said he was unaware of any public vote, council consensus or contract amendment authorizing a change to Owens’ responsibilities.

“We never went to a straw vote or a poll … certainly not consensus,” Hoback said. “I’m quite sure [council as a whole] never consented to anything of that nature.”

Hoback said that if Owens was instructed not to complete the competitive solicitation process required by his contract, he does not know who gave that instruction.

“If we went behind those doors and modified that contract, well, we broke the law”,Hoback said.

Hoback added that he was unaware of any communication authorizing such a change. “I was not a part of any emails and texts,” he said. “I’m wondering where [Moore] got that.”

Mayor Andrew Moore and Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell have defended the use of executive sessions, arguing that certain negotiations and real-estate matters cannot be conducted publicly without undermining the town’s position. A few supporters of the SM Energy agreement have also argued that the deal secures valuable concessions, protections and financial benefits for Erie.

Whether the Attorney General’s Office takes action before the June 16 vote remains unclear. What is clear is that the controversy has expanded beyond the proposed agreement itself. For a growing number of residents, the central question is no longer whether the deal is good or bad, but whether the process used to reach it followed the town’s own rules.

Yellow Scene reached out to each town council member for comment and did not receive a response.

Yellow Scene’s 2026 Summer Support Drive is underway with a goal of 1,000 Sustaining Supporters by summer’s end.

For 26 years, we have remained fiercely independent, free from sponsored content and outside editorial influence.

Reader-driven support keeps local journalism unbossed, unbought, and our journalists fed. Become a sustaining supporter for $8/month and get Yellow Scene delivered to your home.

Join the Summer Support Drive and keep local journalism strong.

The post Erie residents demand answers before pivotal mineral rights vote appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

NEWS FLASH

A routine Erie Town Council meeting took an unexpected turn tonight, June 9, when three council members voted against entering executive session, halting a planned closed-door discussion related to airport negotiations and triggering a heated exchange on the dais.

Much of the evening focused on routine business, including Juneteenth and Loving Day proclamations, updates from the Erie Chamber of Commerce and We Love Erie Business Collective, and approval of landscaping code changes intended to promote water conservation. But the meeting’s final minutes quickly overshadowed those discussions. Councilmembers Emily Baer, Dan Hoback and Anil Pesaramelli voted against entering executive session. When asked by Andrew Moore to explain his vote, Hoback said the item had been added to the agenda without sufficient explanation and argued that residents were increasingly uneasy about closed-door discussions. “I think we need to bring more transparency into it, as to what these are for,” he said.

Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell pushed back, saying council members had received information about the topic in advance and that executive sessions are routinely used when negotiating real estate transactions. Bell said concerns that the session was intended to discuss the town’s controversial mineral rights negotiations were unfounded and called it “a little disingenuous” to suggest council was attempting to hide information from the public. 

After Bell urged one of the three council members to reconsider the motion, Hoback responded that he did not appreciate “once again, time and time again, being called disingenuous.” As Mayor Moore attempted to regain control of the discussion, Hoback interrupted, telling the mayor, “You let him get away with his crap, Mayor. I’m tired of it.” Moore adjourned the meeting moments later. The clash comes one week before council is scheduled to vote on a proposed agreement with SM Energy regarding the sale of the town’s mineral rights, a decision that has generated months of public debate and scrutiny. 

This is a developing story. A more detailed account of the executive session dispute and the pending mineral rights vote will follow.

2:00:00 Moore’s closing comments followed by the vote to decline Executive Session

Yellow Scene’s 2026 Summer Support Drive is underway with a goal of 1,000 Sustaining Supporters by summer’s end.

For 26 years, we have remained fiercely independent, free from sponsored content and outside editorial influence.

Reader-driven support keeps local journalism unbossed, unbought, and our journalists fed. Become a sustaining supporter for $8/month and get Yellow Scene delivered to your home.

Join the Summer Support Drive and keep local journalism strong.

The post Erie Council Clash Erupts After Three Members Vote Against Executive Session appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

With the June 16 vote on a proposed agreement selling the town’s mineral rights approaching, debate in Erie is shifting from fracking itself to the process behind the deal. In particular, residents and some council members are asking whether the negotiations followed the expectations laid out in the town’s contract and purchasing policies.

The proposed agreement is tied to the Draco oil and gas project, a state-approved development operated by SM Energy, formerly Civitas. The project would drill 26 horizontal wells extending roughly five miles underground beneath portions of Erie. In exchange for selling town-owned mineral rights that lie in the path of the project, officials say Erie would receive a package of cash, royalties, land and environmental concessions from SM Energy, while critics continue to press for details on both the value of the deal and the process used to negotiate it. 

Residents crowded into a June 2 public study session seeking answers about well locations, groundwater impacts, wastewater disposal and what a mineral-rights sale could mean for the town’s future development. 

Beyond the drilling itself, the agreement could shape how Erie grows in the coming years. In exchange for its mineral interests, the town would receive a package of cash, royalties, land and other concessions that officials say could support future development. Some residents, however, remain concerned about potential environmental and public health impacts, as well as whether selling town-owned mineral rights outright is preferable to retaining or leasing those assets for future revenue. 

Mayor Andrew Moore has consistently framed the mineral-rights agreement as an economic-development opportunity rather than solely an oil and gas debate. In his April State of the Town meeting, Moore argued that Erie’s infrastructure and growth needs were going to outpace available capital funding and portrayed the deal as an important source of future revenue. However, previous Yellow Scene reporting found that Erie’s capital reserves and projected revenues appeared stronger than suggested during those discussions, raising questions about how essential the agreement is to the town’s long-term financial plans. 

Moore reiterated that argument during the June 2 study session.

“Yeah, I guess the way I look at this is the first offer was $2.85 million, which is that land. And now we’re up to roughly $35 million plus the value of the land going forward, which goes to over $200 million,” Moore said. “And so, yeah, maybe this isn’t the best deal we can get, but maybe it is by far the best deal we can get.”

Town officials repeatedly emphasized that rejecting the agreement would not necessarily stop the Draco project. During the June 2 study session, Environmental Services Director David Frank said the town’s unsold mineral rights would have to be “avoided,” but what that means in practice remains uncertain. “It could be that the overall direction of those laterals changes to avoid physically contacting those areas,” Frank said. “It’s also possible that they may drill right through our mineral rights and simply not perforate and frack those sections of the casing.” Later in the discussion, Frank acknowledged that the state has not provided a definitive answer on how such a scenario would be handled. “It’s highly unlikely that Draco, which is a $1.5 billion operation, is going to go away,” he said. “Their attorneys told me that they will go forward without the town’s minerals.” 

Toward the end of nearly two hours of discussion, however, council members began asking whether the consultant hired by the town to assist with the negotiations had fulfilled a contractual requirement to solicit bids and whether the town’s purchasing guidelines had been followed when he was hired. Discussion focused heavily on uncertainties about the process itself alongside the specifics of the proposed agreement. 

Currently, council is considering an agreement with SM Energy that town officials have described as one of the largest mineral-rights transactions in Erie’s history. According to information presented during the negotiations, the wellbores would be the longest ever proposed in Colorado and would be drilled beneath an established suburban community rather than a remote oil and gas field, which has been a cause for concern for many residents.

The proposed deal would involve the town selling mineral interests associated with the approved Draco Pad development in exchange for a package of cash payments, production revenue, land transfers, additional monitoring provisions and commitments to plug aging wells. While officials have argued that the agreement would provide significant benefits to the community, residents and council members alike have continued to ask how the town determined that this proposal represented the best available option.

The town’s selection of Alameda Mineral Advisors has itself become a subject of scrutiny, as public explanations of how the firm was identified and brought into the process have shifted over time.

During a March 10 council meeting, Mayor Andrew Moore said Alameda had been recommended by town staff and that council had not played a role in identifying the firm.

“With Alameda Minerals … they were recommended to us by staff and that’s how that contract came about,” Moore said. “There is nobody that personally advocated for them … nobody on council … that was brought to us by staff.”

A different account emerged during an April 21 discussion. Responding to a question from Councilmember Emily Baer about how Owens became involved, Director of Environmental Services David Frank said Moore had provided Owens’ contact information to town staff.

“Mayor Moore sent me an email and said, ‘here’s some contact information from a gentleman. I think it would be a good idea to reach out to him and hear him out,'” Frank said. “I gave him a call. He gave me his pitch…”

Moore offered another explanation during the June 2 study session, describing Owens as someone uniquely positioned to help the town negotiate with Civitas because of his previous experience inside the company.

“Matt was brought in for his unique knowledge of knowing the inside workings of a Civitas,” Moore said. “If you’re negotiating, you always want to have information from those you’re negotiating against.”

Those explanations are not necessarily contradictory, but they describe different accounts of how Alameda entered the process, ranging from a staff recommendation to a referral that originated with the mayor. 

When asked about the hiring process for Alameda Mineral Advisors, Town Attorney Breena N. Meng focused on the town’s procurement policy.

“There is a requirement that was adopted in a purchasing policy that was approved by council to conduct RFPs or solicitations for services like this,” Meng said. “That did not happen.”

In other words, Erie’s purchasing policy requires a public Request for Proposal, where the town publicizes the need for services and companies can submit proposals explaining how they would perform the work in hopes of being selected for the contract. The town is then supposed to choose the best proposal for the services needed.

The admission means Alameda was hired outside the process the town’s purchasing policy requires.

Scrutiny of how Alameda entered the process was compounded by a second issue raised during the June 2 study session: whether the firm completed a key responsibility outlined in its contract with the town. 

Matthew Owens of Alameda Mineral Advisors

At the center of the discussion is the scope of work agreed upon when Erie hired Matthew Owens of Alameda Mineral Advisors in December 2025. The contract’s scope of work states that the consultant shall solicit bids for the sale of town-owned mineral rights and property with comparative analyses of upfront proceeds versus projected cash flows.

The contract language requires more than finding a buyer. It requires that Alameda Mineral Advisors reaches out to a variety of companies that might be interested in buying the mineral rights. Then, all of the offers have to be presented to the town with comparisons of up-front profits, future royalties, and other non-monetary terms. 

That requirement became the focus of a tense exchange between Councilmember Hoback and Owens.

“How did you actually solicit bids?” Hoback asked. (1:19:23)

Owens responded by describing work he had performed before being hired by the town. 

“Before you guys hired me, I worked for a client in this unit, who had a whole bunch of minerals at the end of last year,” Owens said. “So I solicited a whole bunch of bids for him to lease or to monetize them. I followed up in early January and got back to the same folks to ask them about their bids and if they were still in the same range… it was substantially lower than what this deal would be. And so at that point, I was determined to just focus on this deal, since the value discrepancy was so great.”

Hoback immediately questioned whether that satisfied the contract’s requirements.

“That does not sound like a competitive bid to me,” he said.

He continued pressing the issue.

“It’s one thing to have, you know, prior discussions, going back to them. That still is not a competitive bidding process. And your scope of work says you’ll complete a competitive bidding process.”

Owens began to respond. (1:19:30)

“It does, that is why in that Executive Session, we had been specifically asked…”

Before he could finish, Town Attorney Breena N. Meng interrupted him, saying the answer would pertain to matters discussed in executive session.

The topic resurfaced later in the meeting when Councilmember Emily Baer attempted to revisit it. Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell objected.

“I want to make a point of order… we cannot talk about what was talked about in an executive session. I feel this line of questioning is completely disingenuous because you all know what you heard.”

Baer disputed that characterization.

“I have never heard another offer from any other entity… That’s good that we can’t talk about executive session things because that is not something we’ve ever talked about.”

After the study session adjourned, Owens was again asked whether he had completed the solicitation of competitive bids described in his contract.

“I was instructed not to… by the people who hired me,” Owens said. Owens did not identify who gave the instruction.

The statement prompted council members to discuss whether the town’s procurement practices had been followed and whether the contract’s scope of work had been fulfilled.

Councilmember Baer said she wasn’t sure whether the consultant had met the contract’s expectations.

“I do have concerns that the contract, scope of work for the contract hasn’t been met with a competitive bid,” she said. “I would like to understand more about that. Was that a violation of our expected scope of work of the contract that we signed? That’s what people in the community are asking me.”

The issue raised during the study session was not whether the town ultimately received a favorable offer, but whether the process outlined in the contract was completed in the manner council expected when it approved the agreement. 

The discussion continued when Mayor Andrew Moore suggested that auditors review the issue. Interim Town Manager Meredyth Muth responded that auditors had already identified it.

“[Auditors] have noted it as a finding or possible finding,” Muth said. Neither Muth nor other officials elaborated during the study session on the nature of the finding or whether it related specifically to procurement procedures, contract administration or another aspect of the process. 

None of the officials suggested rejecting the proposed agreement because of these discrepancies. 

Town officials continued to argue that the agreement would provide substantial value to the community. According to information presented by the town, Erie owns approximately 183 acres of mineral rights associated with the Draco area. Of that total, roughly 103 acres remain unleased while about 80 acres are already subject to existing leases. Officials repeatedly emphasized that the town’s unleased mineral interests represent only a small percentage of the overall drilling unit and argued that recent changes in Colorado law increased the town’s negotiating leverage by limiting the circumstances under which municipal mineral interests can be pooled into development without the town’s consent.

Officials also argued that the proposed agreement would convert that leverage into tangible benefits for residents. According to town presentations, the package includes a multimillion-dollar upfront payment, future royalty revenue, approximately 158 acres of land along County Line Road, commitments to plug additional wells and inspection access at the Draco facility. 

Representatives of the negotiating team argued that the town would forgo significant benefits if it rejected the agreement. They also noted that the Draco project has already been approved by the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission, meaning the debate before council is no longer whether the project will be drilled, but whether Erie should seek compensation and concessions tied to that development.

Not everyone on council accepted the negotiating team’s assessment of the town’s leverage. Throughout the study session, questions surfaced about whether Erie had adequately tested the market, whether other operators may have been interested and whether the town’s mineral position provided more bargaining power than officials suggested. 

For many residents, however, the conversation extended beyond the financial terms of the deal. Residents repeatedly focused on where water used for hydraulic fracturing would come from, how wastewater would be handled, whether groundwater resources could be affected and what authority Erie would have if environmental problems occurred in the future.

Officials acknowledged that while the town negotiated monitoring and inspection provisions, much of the regulatory authority over drilling operations remains with state agencies. Residents also asked whether the proposed land parcels are worth as much as stated and how much of the transferred acreage could realistically be developed.

Several residents noted that council is expected to vote on the agreement only weeks after the first major public discussion of its details, which they noted as a major issue they wanted addressed.

Those continuing worries come after months of criticism regarding how much of the process occurred in executive session and how little information was publicly available before the proposed agreement reached council. During the June 2 discussion, questions surrounding executive session matters were redirected, renewing the public’s concern about the confidentiality of the negotiations.

Council is scheduled to vote on the proposed agreement June 16. 

By the conclusion of the meeting, many of the concerns raised by residents remained unresolved. Alongside issues of water, drilling and future development, council members found themselves conflicted over procurement, transparency and accountability.

The post Town Council to Vote on Mineral Rights Sale June 16; Bidding Process Draws Scrutiny appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The Erie Town Council will hold a public informational meeting on the Draco Well Pad and the selling of the town’s mineral rights on June 2 at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers at Town Hall.

The meeting follows months of discussion over whether Erie should sell or lease town-owned mineral rights associated with the state-approved Draco oil and gas development. The issue has generated significant public interest, with residents and council members debating questions of transparency, local control and the town’s potential financial return. 

According to a Town of Erie Facebook post, the meeting is intended for discussion and information sharing only. No decisions will be made, and public comment will not be accepted. If a final agreement regarding the town’s mineral rights is reached in the future, officials say a separate public hearing will be scheduled with an opportunity for residents to provide feedback. The meeting can be found on the town’s calendar.

Yellow Scene first broke the news about the potential sale on February 24. Prior to this, discussions were being conducted in Executive Session outside of public view. Previous reporting has included concerns about negotiations occurring largely outside public view, questions about the town’s leverage over the project, and divisions among council members regarding the potential sale or lease of mineral assets.

For readers looking to catch up on the issue, see Yellow Scene’s previous reporting:

• Erie Mineral Rights Deal Advances Largely Out of Public View, Raising Concerns Over Transparency and Conflicts (March 23)
• Erie’s Mineral Rights: What’s at Stake (April 18)
• Erie Mineral Rights Hearing Divides Council Over Control, Transparency and Who Decides (April 24)

Meeting materials and a livestream link are expected to be available through the Town of Erie’s public calendar before the meeting.

The meeting begins at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2, at Erie Town Hall.

A group of concerned citizens have stated they will be gathering on the lawn ahead of the meeting starting at 5:15 PM.

Yellow Scene’s 2026 Summer Support Drive is underway with a goal of 1,000 Sustaining Supporters by summer’s end.
For 26 years, we have remained fiercely independent, free from sponsored content and outside editorial influence.
Reader-driven support keeps local journalism unbossed, unbought, and our journalists fed.

Become a sustaining supporter for $8/month and get Yellow Scene delivered to your home.

The post Erie Council to Hold June 2 Public Hearing on Sale of Town Mineral Rights and Draco Impacts appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Following Erie citizens’ approval of home rule in 2023, supporters argued that moving to the new system would empower Erie with better decision-making ability as the town continued to grow rapidly. However, less than two years after this historic vote, Erie continues to make crucial decisions in which the town’s future increasingly becomes defined by a stable four-member coalition on the Town Council that has consistently banded together on several of Erie’s major controversies.

These voting patterns have been observed on multiple occasions. Mayor Moore, Mayor Pro Tem Bell, and Town Council Members O’Connor and Mortellaro vote in favor; Town Council Members Pesaramelli, Baer and Hoback vote against the motions. During debates over Pride Flag policy, community grant programs, urban renewal financing, marijuana regulations, board reconfiguration, sustainability plans, annexation agreements, and redevelopment tools, the pattern is consistent.

Not all council decisions pit the two factions against each other, especially on issues related to the town’s physical development. Erie’s council has routinely agreed on road construction, water utility infrastructure upgrades, flood management initiatives, policing services, and even some development applications. It is primarily on issues relating to governance, civic identity, administrative structure and financing initiatives that these opposing factions tend to form.

Erie’s post-home-rule Town Council is clearly showing two sides when it comes to the future of the fast-growing town. The four-member majority seems to support policies that facilitate institutional expansion, structured governance, and regional cooperation, while a three-member minority consistently opposes these types of initiatives. The disagreements extend beyond headline-making issues like Pride Flag policy and marijuana legalization to other lesser-known policies such as board reconfigurations, grant oversight, metro district management and redevelopment tools.

Erie’s council appears committed to increasing the town’s use of urban renewal authorities, tax increment financing, redevelopment districts, and urban planning agreements as tools for long-term growth planning.

For instance, the council unanimously approved the town’s urban renewal plan for Erie Town Center and related tax increment financing agreements with Boulder County, the St. Vrain Valley School District, the Mountain View Fire Protection District and other entities. The plan officially designated certain areas of Erie Town Center as redevelopment areas and allowed for financing arrangements where any increase in tax revenue can be used for those purposes.

This represents another in a string of initiatives that use urban renewal and tax increment financing as tools to finance infrastructure and redevelopment efforts. The year prior, Erie Town Council had already approved a comparable urban renewal plan and associated tax increment financing mechanism for the Erie Gateway. Supporters believe these are necessary tools for the town to remain competitive with neighboring communities along the Front Range.

However, critics increasingly wonder how much oversight is possible once these complicated financing districts are created.

Some of these debates emerged over annexation and development agreements.

For example, during March 2024, the Town Council approved an annexation and zoning agreement for the controversial multi-family housing project proposed by Thompson Thrift for 111th Street and Arapahoe Road after widespread opposition over concerns about density, flooding, increased traffic congestion, and strained infrastructure systems resulting from rapid growth. Despite the opposition, the council voted to approve the annexation of the parcel.

The vote illustrated the lack of perfect ideological consistency when it came to growth.

Dan Hoback often aligns himself with the council minority on governance and civic-policy disputes but was supportive of this annexation, which shows Erie Town Council doesn’t have exact ideological consistency regarding growth policies and initiatives.

However, in general, what seems more apparent in these voting patterns is that the Town Council is divided regarding governance and civic philosophies rather than over the topic of growth.

Indeed, the recurring majority seems to be united behind one particular vision for the town – one that sees Erie transitioning into a metropolitan-style community.

This vision has appeared throughout multiple discussions involving sustainability planning, transportation coordination and administrative governance reformation.

The council adopted Erie’s Climate and Sustainability Action Plan Agreement in January 2025 and went on to adopt initiatives related to beneficial electrification, air quality agreements, and floating solar energy systems at the Erie water reclamation facilities. The council also unanimously approved a range of agreements related to regional transportation coordination.

These include an RTD inclusion plan, the launch of Erie Flex Ride Transit Service, and Southwest Weld County Transportation Coordination.

On top of all of this, the majority has also repeatedly supported procedural and governance changes within town government.

An example of this appeared during the September 2025 special council meeting when the council decided by a vote of 4-3 to reduce board and commission terms. This happened following the restructuring of the entire municipal governance framework after home rule approval.

The vote occurred after a heated discussion between Council Member Emily Baer and the rest of the council in which she argued the initiative showed disrespect toward volunteers serving on the town’s various boards and commissions. 

Nevertheless, the council decided to go through with the reorganization as directed by staff. In addition to this governance reform, the majority has approved tightening the rules for Erie’s community grant programs and non-profits.

After adopting more detailed procedures in August 2025, opponents expressed concerns that the town will burden local cultural events with unnecessary bureaucratic requirements. The council, on the other hand, believes that these are necessary measures to ensure accountability among taxpayer programs.

Many of these debates around accountability and governance were brought to head during one of the most divisive council meetings in 2025 – the Pride Flag Policy meeting.

As the crowd packed the chambers, Council Member Emily Baer introduced a motion to add a discussion regarding the installation of Pride Flags at Town Hall to the meeting agenda. This was quickly approved by the council in a 6-1 vote where the Mayor alone voted against adding the motion.

However, the issue of what should be done regarding Pride flags was left unresolved.

In response, Mayor Andrew Moore introduced the motion to direct the Town Attorney to draft policies regarding these Pride flags. The measure received 4-3 support from the council, with Andew Moore, Brandon Bell, Brian O’Connor and John Mortellaro approving the direction to staff while the minority trio opposed the motion.

This vote echoed an earlier disagreement over marijuana policy in September 2024. The council passed regulations related to marijuana land use and licensing after months of deliberation, with council members Sawusch and Bell opposing the policy. 

The marijuana policy discussion highlighted yet again the fluid nature of alliances based on policy. However, it also illustrated the fact that the topics of civic identity and governance seem to generate the sharpest divisions.

Moreover, Erie’s most ambitious redevelopment projects continue to receive broad support from the council majority.

The council unanimously approved multiple agreements tied to Erie’s Town Center Development Strategy, including amendments to development agreements with Evergreen-County Line & Erie Parkway LLC. Council members also approved additional agreements related to Colliers Hill urban renewal financing, flood-control infrastructure, roadway feasibility studies and redevelopment-related land acquisitions. 

Most of the aforementioned votes were unanimously approved by the council, however, their cumulative effect amounts to multi-million dollar commitments to infrastructure development and redevelopment.

This combination of ambitious redevelopment projects coupled with divisive political debates reflects the very nature of Erie’s political transformation.

Erie is no longer just a semi-rural town governed locally.

Rather, it’s a growing municipality that makes decisions involving regional transportation agreements, urban renewal districts, annexations, sustainability strategies, regional water infrastructure coordination, and multi-million dollar redevelopment financing projects.

The political question, therefore, is no longer whether Erie should undergo development.

Erie is developing.

What needs to be addressed instead is how Erie’s growth priorities are shaped, who controls those decisions, and how those projects are financed.

The majority faction at the council appears comfortable facilitating Erie’s transition to a more metropolitan-style community using the new home-rule powers.

The minority faction, however, opposes moves toward increasing government complexity, suggesting that Erie risks losing transparency and its traditional character in the process.

This struggle will define the next phase of Erie politics. As redevelopment projects begin, annexation fights escalate, and more sophisticated financing tools are used, Erie residents will be called upon to trust more than just developers – they’ll also have to trust their elected representatives in directing Erie’s future.

Journalism That Answers To Readers

The post The 4–3 Split: How Rapid Growth is Fracturing Erie’s Politics appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The Erie Town Council is discussing a proposal for a north-south connector road near Erie Municipal Airport. The proposal became controversial following the release of feasibility study on May 5 that found the project would cost roughly $50 million, face major environmental and regulatory hurdles, and save drivers only about 2 minutes of travel time.

The plan l, known as the Airpark North-South Connectivity Study, would connect County Line Road to Colorado Highway 7 through or near airport property south of Vista Parkway. 

At Erie’s April 2 State of the Town event, Mayor Andrew Moore described the proposal as an exploratory effort intended to relieve congestion on Vista Parkway while potentially unlocking economic development opportunities near the airport.

“This is a thought and I just want to stress this is a thought,” Moore said during the event. “This is not a done deal. We’re waiting for the feasibility study to come back.”

Mayor Moore explaining the project to residents at the State of the Town Meeting, April 2.

Moore argued that a new connection to Highway 7 could divert traffic away from Vista Parkway, which experienced increased traffic after County Line Road was rerouted westward as part of Erie’s settlement with Lafayette. He also emphasized the possibility of future commercial growth.

“If you can get the road there, all of a sudden land on both sides of that road becomes economically viable where it isn’t as viable today for economic reasons,” Moore said. “Businesses that could come in there.”

But the feasibility study presented to council May 5 painted a far more complicated picture.

According to town staff and consultants, both proposed roadway alternatives would cost between $49 million and $50 million before right-of-way acquisition costs. 

Alternate routes of the Airpark North-South Connectivity project, presented by town staff on May 5.The study found the routes would provide only about two minutes of travel-time savings compared to existing routes via Coal Creek Boulevard.

The report also concluded that both alternatives scored below 0.50 on benefit-cost analysis metrics commonly used for federal transportation funding competitiveness, making outside funding uncertain.

Staff presentations identified several “high risk” barriers to the project, including floodplain impacts, complications involving a Highway 7 signalized connection requiring Colorado Department of Transportation approval, and impacts to already entitled land uses. Environmental approvals were labeled a “moderate risk.”

Jason Neumeyer Director of Survey Research speaks about feasibility study

The project corridor crosses Coal Creek floodplain areas that would require FEMA review and approval, according to the presentation.

Perhaps most notably, the study’s feasibility findings showed that the staff did not recommend moving forward with either major connector alternative. Instead, staff recommended continued buildout of Coal Creek Boulevard, improvements to Vista Parkway, and developer-funded Airport Drive signal enhancements.

Those conclusions fueled sharp disagreement during the May 5 study session.

Councilmember Dan Hoback argued the project should end immediately, calling the proposal “a solution to nothing.” He also criticized the design concept as unsafe and inconsistent with Erie’s standards. “That’s not a gateway. That’s an alleyway and it’s unsafe for pedestrians and bikes at a horrific cost.” 

Another point of contention centered on whether the road would meaningfully reduce traffic congestion at all. The feasibility study’s traffic redistribution estimates showed only modest reductions in traffic volumes on Vista Parkway and surrounding roads.

Still, Moore resisted fully abandoning the concept, instead advocating for keeping future options open while gathering additional traffic data and exploring whether alternate alignments or developer participation could reduce costs.

During the meeting, developers connected to nearby projects warned that prolonged uncertainty surrounding the roadway could affect planning timelines and investments already underway. Councilmembers also discussed whether continued staff work on the project would take resources away from existing priorities.

At one point, officials acknowledged the connector project is not currently part of Erie’s active work plan.

The contrast between the State of the Town presentation and the May feasibility study discussion shows gaps in public discussion of issues. While the April presentation emphasized congestion relief and economic potential, the May study session focused heavily on floodplain permitting, multimillion-dollar bridge costs, weak funding potential and uncertainty over whether the road would substantially improve traffic conditions at all.

For now,the council  has given no formal direction to proceed or terminate the proposal. Instead, officials appeared split between those who see the concept as a long-term economic and transportation opportunity and those who view it as an expensive, high-risk project searching for a problem to solve.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays ready to lead, no matter who’s in charge.

The post Erie’s airport connector road faces scrutiny after feasibility study appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

At recent public meetings in Erie, Colorado, residents have pressed town officials on whether growth can be slowed, citing concerns about water supply, traffic and infrastructure capacity.

But town officials may have their hands tied.

A review of town planning documents, development agreements and recent approvals shows that a substantial portion of Erie’s future housing, land use and infrastructure commitments is already locked in through legally binding entitlements, limiting how much current leaders can change.

Several of Erie’s largest developments illustrate how much growth it has already committed to.

The Redtail Ranch project, located north of Baseline Road and west of Interstate 25, is one of the clearest examples. The development includes more than 500 homes and spans roughly 300 acres. It moved forward in 2025 after the town settled a lawsuit with the developer, despite earlier attempts by the council to block it.

As part of that process, the developer invested more than $10 million in environmental remediation over several years . Once a project reaches a certain stage, denying it can expose the town to significant financial liability. Town officials indicated that continuing the legal fight could have cost Erie tens of millions of dollars, a risk the town ultimately chose to avoid.

Erie Highlands Open space Courtesy of the Town of Erie

Another major project, Spring Hill, is embedded in long-term approvals. Town records show the development includes 632 residential lots across approximately 301.89 acres south of Highway 52 and west of County Road 3.

Additional filings across the town reinforce the scale of already-approved growth. Summerfield includes multiple phases totaling hundreds of homes, including 300 single-family lots and 195 townhome units on more than 295 combined acres.

Parkdale, another development area, includes at least 141.55 acres of planned residential construction.

Together, these projects alone represent well over 1,000 housing units that have already received approval and are progressing through final platting and construction phases.

Town planning records show that large portions of Erie’s remaining developable land are already designated for residential or mixed-use development through planned developments and annexations.

• The Spring Hill project covers more than 300 acres.
• The Redtail Ranch site spans roughly 300 acres.
• The North Station planned development amendment encompasses approximately 597 acres near Weld County roads 7, 10 and 12 and Interstate 25.

In addition, proposed and ongoing annexations continue to expand the town’s development footprint. A 2026 application for the Front Range Landfill area includes annexation of 159 acres and rezoning of a total 630-acre site along Weld County Road 5. These figures point to several square miles of land, much of it already entitled or in active planning stages,being committed to future development.

The financial structure behind these developments further limits the town’s flexibility.

In Redtail Ranch, more than $10 million has already been spent by the developer on cleanup and site preparation.

Development agreements across Erie also typically require developers to provide financial guarantees for infrastructure improvements, such as roads, utilities and drainage systems. A 2016 Vista Ridge development agreement, for example, included formal acceptance of financial guarantees tied to required improvements, a common structure for infrastructure funding.

Vista Ridge neighborhood Photo courtesy of Erie Protectors

Those guarantees are tied to approved plans, meaning that once agreements are executed, both the town and developers have financial stakes in seeing projects move forward.

At the same time, municipal finances are often structured around anticipated growth. Impact fees, property taxes and future retail activity tied to new housing are incorporated into long-term planning assumptions. While exact revenue totals vary by project and phase, the town’s willingness to settle litigation in Redtail Ranch highlights how financial exposure can restrict future decisions.

Even before full buildout, development generates revenue streams for the town.

These include building permit fees, impact fees and property tax revenue as homes are completed and occupied. Infrastructure built by developers—such as roads, water systems and public improvements—is often transferred to the town, reducing the need for direct municipal capital spending. Once a development is completed that was paid for using town bonds, the sales tax from that property is used to pay back the initial investment and for future developments.

However, those revenues are phased over time and are often offset by the cost of providing services to new residents. That dynamic is one reason growth is frequently built into long-term fiscal planning, making it difficult to abruptly halt projects without financial consequences.

The legal framework surrounding these projects is a key factor in why they continue moving forward.

Once development agreements are approved and vested rights are established, municipalities face limits on their ability to impose new restrictions. In the case of Redtail Ranch, approval of the settlement and preliminary plat effectively established the project’s entitlement framework, reducing the town’s ability to add new substantive conditions without reopening litigation.

That pattern applies more broadly across Erie’s development landscape. Projects that have progressed through annexation, zoning and preliminary plat stages are often legally protected, leaving current officials with limited options beyond managing how those developments are implemented.

For many residents, the scale of already-approved development is not immediately visible.

Public debate often centers on whether growth should continue at its current pace. But planning documents show that much of that growth has already been approved in earlier years, under different assumptions about infrastructure, water supply and community priorities.

The result is a disconnect between what residents believe can still be changed and what is already contractually obligated.

Despite those constraints, not all land in Erie is fully vested. The town still has authority over future annexations, zoning decisions on unentitled land and aspects of design and infrastructure timing.

Understanding how much of that growth is already set in motion may be essential to understanding what choices remain for the citizens of Erie.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays ready to lead, no matter who’s in charge.

The post How much of Erie’s growth is already set in stone? appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The Town of Erie Colorado is weighing whether to sell or lease a portion of its mineral rights tied to the state-approved Draco oil and gas project, a decision that has exposed divisions on council, raised questions about the town’s negotiating process, and highlighted uncertainty about how much authority Erie actually has.

At a special meeting on April 21, town staff emphasized that no final agreement has been reached and no vote has been scheduled. Council questioning made clear that key aspects of the proposal, including how it originated, how consultants were selected, and what the town actually owns,remain unresolved.

Erie Environmental Services Director David Frank

The Draco project, approved in March 2025 by the Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC), allows for up to 26 wells to be drilled from a site in unincorporated Weld County, extending horizontally beneath portions of Erie. Town officials reiterated that the project is expected to move forward regardless of local action. “I would fully expect, no matter what action the town takes, that 26 wells will be drilled,” Erie Environmental Services Director David Frank said.

Town of Erie Councilmember, Dan Hoback

Early in the meeting, Early in the meeting, Councilmember Dan Hoback began pressing staff on the fundamentals of the deal: when the town was first approached, how negotiations began, and why Alameda Minerals was selected without a competitive process. When asked about this piece of the process, Frank said, “I’m not aware of any other companies that do this exact work.”

 By the end of the meeting, those questions had evolved into a broader challenge to both the process and the assumptions underlying it.

“I have serious concerns about conflict of interest,” Hoback said. The consultant, Alameda Minerals, is led by a former oil and gas executive with ties to the industry involved in the project, a connection that drew scrutiny during the meeting. He also warned that the absence of a formal request-for-proposals process could expose the town to legal and audit risks.

More significantly, Hoback disagreed with the idea that Erie lacks leverage. While town staff and some council members emphasized the town’s relatively small percentage of mineral ownership, Hoback emphasized that without permission to drill through town-owned minerals, operators may not be able to reach large portions of the approved drilling area. “The inability to drill through Erie land without owning its mineral rights can be a major, major impediment to the ability of Draco to drill much of its planned area, currently approved or not,” Hoback said.

Town officials declined to provide additional documentation or answer detailed questions about the procurement process, citing the ongoing nature of negotiations.

Those competing interpretations of the town’s authority sit at the center of the debate. Erie’s leverage stems from Colorado SB24-185, which prevents operators from forcing municipalities into pooling agreements. But how that law will function in practice, and particularly whether operators can drill through or around municipal minerals, remains untested.

Public comment reflected both that uncertainty and a sharp divide over how the town should respond. Sixteen residents and stakeholders spoke at the meeting, with the majority opposing a sale or urging alternatives such as delaying action or retaining the town’s mineral rights. Five supported moving forward with a sale or lease, including three who identified themselves as representing business or industry interests, such as mineral rights owners and energy companies.

Former state senator and attorney, Mike Foote

Former state senator Mike Foote, who worked on oil and gas legislation for years, described the current moment as the result of a long effort to give local governments control over their mineral rights. He recalled earlier policies that allowed a single mineral owner to force others into leasing, calling it something he “couldn’t believe” when he first encountered it. 

The 2024 law, he said, was designed to change that dynamic. “This was a hard-fought provision,” Foote told council, urging them to “take advantage of it” and follow the will of the community. “There’s nothing in the law anymore that says that you have to say yes.” He warned that approving a deal would entangle the town with the oil and gas industry for decades. “This puts Erie in business with oil and gas for a long, long time,” he said. “I would urge you [… ] to say no.”

Other residents raised concerns about long-term environmental and infrastructure risks. Steve Hochgesang pointed to the lifespan of plugged wells and containment systems, warning that decisions made now could create long-term liabilities, particularly for groundwater and waste disposal.

In contrast, speakers aligned with mineral interests emphasized financial realities and potential legal consequences. Kole Kelley, an oil and gas attorney at Fennemore Law, argued that development is already approved and that refusing to participate would not stop drilling but would result in forgoing compensation. He warned that the town could face litigation if it interferes with mineral owners’ ability to realize value from their assets.

Those competing perspectives were reflected in the council’s closing statements.

Hoback remained the most openly critical, raising concerns about procurement, transparency, and conflicts of interest, while also emphasizing the town’s decision-making power in this moment. “Other companies cannot drill through our land to reach other people’s mineral rights. So I’ll be a bit of the voice of the wilderness and say, yeah, we can impact Draco, despite the narrative that’s been making its way through social media and tonight’s presentation. um The initial approval of the Draco pad was not a rollover and play dead moment.  In fact, we should be fighting harder than ever,” Hoback said.

Councilmember Anil Pesaramelli aligned more directly with residents opposing the deal. “I am for health and safety,” he said. “I urge everyone to stop this sale.”

Councilmember Brian O’Connor took a more cautious position, expressing frustration with the process and emphasizing the need for more information before any decision is made.

Town of Erie Councilmember, Emily Baer

Councilmember Emily Baer delivered one of the most detailed and forceful closing statements, drawing on years of work in oil and gas regulation. 

She pushed back on the idea that selling mineral rights would improve safety, noting that many of the cited protections are already required by the state regardless of any deal. “To imply there are safety regulations that will go unenforced unless Erie sells its minerals is misleading,” she said.

Baer also argued that the town retains meaningful authority under current law, including the ability to deny subsurface access. She framed the decision as a question of values and long-term governance. “My principles are not up for purchase,” she said, reiterating her opposition to selling the town’s mineral rights.

Councilmember John Mortellaro took a more logistical tone, emphasizing that the project has already been approved and suggesting the town should consider whether it can secure benefits from an outcome it cannot prevent.

Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell and Mayor Andrew J. Moore both framed the decision in similar terms, emphasizing inevitability and the potential to capture value. Moore rejected claims that the town could significantly alter the project, calling that idea “100% false,” and stressed the importance of protecting negotiations.

Bell drew a direct comparison to a past landfill decision, where the town chose to accept development in exchange for compensation rather than oppose it without leverage. “If you’re going to dump trash in my backyard, you’re going to pay me for it,” he said, describing the philosophy guiding his position. His remarks made clear that he views the mineral rights as a negotiating tool rather than a mechanism to stop drilling.

To some council members, the project is unavoidable and selling the mineral rights are a means of extracting value and oversight. Others view those same rights as one of the town’s only remaining tools to challenge or constrain development.

No vote has been scheduled, and officials said any agreement would be subject to a future public hearing. Until then, core questions remain unresolved, including the exact location and value of Erie’s mineral rights, whether the town followed standard procurement practices, and how much influence Erie ultimately has over a project already approved by the state.

For now, the debate in Erie is not just about oil and gas. It is about whether a town that fought for the authority to say no will use it.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays ready to lead, no matter who’s in charge.

The post Erie mineral rights hearing divides council over control, transparency and who decides appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The Erie Town Council considered a major residential development and heard concerns from residents about new event permitting requirements during its April 14 meeting.

Council members held a public hearing on the Spring Hill preliminary plat, a proposed residential development north of Morgan Hill that would bring 632 housing units to roughly 300 acres.

Town staff said the project includes a mix of single-family homes, duplexes and townhomes, along with open space, trails and a future school site.

“The project area is designated […] as low density residential,” said senior planner Harry Brennan, noting the proposal aligns with the town’s comprehensive plan and falls within expected density ranges.

Plans for the development include approximately 35 acres of public open space, additional private open space and trail connections throughout the site.

Planning Diagram Courtesy of the City

The project also requires continued remediation of at least one former oil and gas site before final approvals can be granted.

“The town would not be able to approve a final plat […] until the point where that cleanup is completed,” Brennan said.

The applicant, represented by PCS Group, emphasized that oil and gas operations would be removed from the property as part of the project.

“There will be no more oil and gas operations on this property,” said planner John Preswitch.

Following the hearing, council is expected to consider the proposal as it moves through the approval process.

Earlier in the meeting, council members approved a consent agenda that included a series of routine but wide-ranging municipal actions.

Items approved included intergovernmental agreements, infrastructure-related contracts and updates to town code, along with appointments and administrative approvals tied to ongoing town operations. The consent agenda also covered agreements related to public works and utilities, reflecting continued investment in infrastructure and maintenance as the town grows.

Council additionally adopted proclamations recognizing community initiatives and observances, continuing a pattern of formal recognition for local programs and national awareness efforts.

The approvals were passed unanimously without separate discussion, a common practice for items considered non-controversial or administrative in nature.

During public comment, several residents raised concerns about new permitting requirements affecting community events, particularly the Erie High School senior parade.

Residents said they were recently informed of a 90-day permit requirement and changes to support from town departments, creating uncertainty for an event that has traditionally been organized by volunteers.

“We’re just asking for that to be waived so we can meet the requirements for the new permit,” said Adrienne Hillary, who is helping organize the parade.

Kate Arnold, vice president of the Erie High School Booster Club, said the changes have strained relationships between volunteers and town staff.

Kate Arnold addressing the council.

“The relationship between our town administration and the volunteers […] has become unnecessarily adversarial,” Arnold said.

Arnold added that increased requirements risk discouraging community participation.

“It feels very much like we are effectively being discouraged from building the community ties that keep our youth engaged,” she said.

Jessica Ferman, who is organizing the school’s after-prom event, said communication about the new requirements has been inconsistent.

“If you put these kind of processes in place, you need to advertise it and you need to let us know,” Ferman said.

Other speakers urged the council to waive the 90-day requirement for this year’s parade and provide clearer guidance for future events.

Additional public comment addressed broader concerns, including communication with diverse communities and the importance of multilingual outreach in the face of ICE presence in the community.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays ready to lead, no matter who’s in charge.

The post Erie advances Spring Hill development, hears parade concerns appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

In late 2025, a proposal from Civitas Resources brought an often-overlooked asset to the center of one of Erie’s most consequential policy debates: the town’s mineral rights.

Since then, key elements of the discussion have unfolded largely out of public view. Town officials approved a contract with Alameda Mineral Advisors to help evaluate and negotiate the potential sale, while substantive deliberations about the deal have taken place in executive session. The limited transparency has drawn criticism from residents who say the decision could shape the town’s future for decades.

The proposal remains under consideration. But experiences from other Colorado communities suggest that once mineral rights are transferred, the ability to influence what happens next can narrow significantly.

Mineral rights determine ownership of the oil and gas beneath the ground. This is a legal framework that is separate from surface land ownership. 

State law allows companies to access underground resources through mechanisms such as forced pooling, meaning drilling can proceed even when surface owners or nearby residents object. For municipalities, retaining mineral rights can provide leverage in negotiating the location, scale and conditions of development. Selling those rights generally transfers that leverage to private operators, reducing a local government’s ability to shape future activity.

That distinction has become central to the debate in Erie, where the question is not only how much the rights might be worth, but what control the town would be giving up in exchange.

Matt Owens receiving an Oil and Gas award, courtesy of LinkedIn

The town’s decision to hire Alameda Mineral Advisors has intensified scrutiny of the process, particularly because of the background of the firm’s founder, Matthew Owens.

Owens previously held leadership roles at Extraction Oil & Gas, which grew into a major Front Range operator before filing for bankruptcy in 2020. Following that restructuring, the company’s assets became part of Civitas Resources. Owens later served as a Chief Operations Officer at Civitas until his departure in 2023, and founded Alameda Mineral Advisors the following year.

In 2025, Erie retained Alameda to help evaluate and negotiate a potential mineral rights transaction, including with Civitas. Extraction Oil & Gas, as a subsidiary of Civitas, operates the Draco Pad, a large-scale drilling project near Erie that has already generated public concern.

Oil and Gas wellsites, Erie, Colorado, courtesy of Erie Protectors

The overlap does not, on its own, establish a conflict of interest. However, it places a former Civitas executive in the role of advising the town on a potential transaction involving that company. Residents have  highlighted that relationship in calling for additional disclosure and independent review of the process.

Examples of municipalities explicitly selling mineral rights in Colorado are less common than leasing or inheriting split estates, but where they do occur, the outcomes illustrate the same underlying tradeoff: immediate financial return in exchange for long-term control.

One recent example comes from Berthoud, where town officials approved the sale of a portion of municipally owned mineral rights tied to land near a wastewater treatment facility. According to town documents, the transaction severed the mineral estate from the surface property, meaning the town would receive an upfront payment but would no longer collect royalties or retain authority over how those minerals are developed.

Berthoud’s case is notable because it demonstrates the effect of these deals. Instead of acting as an owner with negotiating leverage, the town becomes one stakeholder among many, with limited influence over how extraction occurs.

More broadly, statewide data shows that dozens of Colorado municipalities receive revenue tied to mineral development, often through leases, legacy agreements or federal mineral distributions. Cities including Greeley, Rifle, Commerce City and even Erie itself receive funds connected to mineral activity.

In many of those cases, however, the rights were not recently sold but separated decades earlier, leaving current officials to manage the consequences.

That long tale of past decisions is visible across the Front Range and Western Slope. Municipalities that no longer control their mineral estates often retain limited tools to influence development, even when public opposition emerges. Because mineral rights can be sold, leased or severed entirely from surface ownership, control over subsurface resources frequently rests with private entities rather than local governments.

The result is a consistent pattern. Communities that have transferred or lost control of their mineral rights tend to move from deciding whether development happens to negotiating how it happens. Financial benefits, including lease payments or distributions, are often realized early, while land use conflicts, citing disputes and mitigation efforts play out over a much longer timeline.

Erie is part of a shrinking category of communities that still has ownership of its mineral rights, and the implication of losing them poses a fork in the road for what Erie’s future will look like. At the same time, the limits of local control are well established in Colorado. Even if a municipality retains mineral rights, it cannot fully override state authority over oil and gas development. What it can do is influence where and how development occurs, and under what conditions.

Communities across Colorado have faced similar tensions between local control and oil and gas development, often with comparable outcomes.

In Lafayette and Boulder County, longstanding mineral leases and development rights have limited what local governments can prevent, even amid sustained public opposition. Legal challenges and public pressure can influence setbacks, mitigation measures and site design, but rarely eliminate development entirely.

Because Erie has not yet finalized a sale, the outcome is still subject to local decision-making. Residents seeking to influence that outcome are not without options, though those options are shaped by both procedural realities and state law.

Public engagement remains one of the most immediate avenues. Attendance and comment at council meetings can shape how elected officials assess both the political and practical implications of moving forward. Requests for public records under the Colorado Open Records Act can also bring greater visibility to contracts, communications and financial analyses that have so far been discussed largely behind closed doors.

Residents can also press for independent evaluation of the proposed deal, including third-party analysis of valuation, environmental impact and long-term fiscal trade-offs. In situations where a consultant has prior ties to industry, such requests can carry additional weight.

Erie officials have a choice between short-term financial gain or long-term leverage over fracking in their community. Other Colorado communities offer a preview of what can happen once that authority is diminished.

Erie has not reached that point. But the window to decide which path to take may not remain open indefinitely.

The Erie Council is hosting a public forum on April 21st. A large turnout is expected.

Council to Host Public Meeting on Draco Well Pad and Mineral Rights: April 21st, 2026

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays ready to lead, no matter who’s in charge.

The post Erie’s mineral rights: what’s at stake appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Erie officials outlined an ambitious vision for the town’s future last Thursday during a State of the Town presentation,  yet much of the evening left out key details that would determine whether that growth is financially and environmentally sustainable.

Colton Jonjak Plahn and Jillaire McMillan, candidates for state House District 19, attended to hear from residents. Councilmembers Baer, O’Connor, and Pesaramelli were in attendance, as well as Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell. Mayor Andrew Moore delivered a wide-ranging presentation covering development, infrastructure, water supply and economic planning before opening the floor to the audience. 

The audience’s questions, particularly around water supply, mineral rights, and infrastructure funding, quickly became the focus of the discussion, as residents pressed officials on decisions that could shape the town’s long-term trajectory. 

Outside the event, roughly 25 residents gathered beforehand, some holding signs, protesting the lack of transparency surrounding mineral rights, recent land use decisions, and the firing of Town Manager Malcolm Fleming.

The meeting was undergirded with tension as the town faces differing visions on how to continue to develop. 

Erie’s Growth and Home-Rule Governance

Many of the issues discussed at the State of the Town meeting  were driven by Erie’s growth.

Erie’s population has grown rapidly over two decades. The town had roughly 1,200 residents in 1990 and about 8,000 by 2000, before expanding to more than 40,000 today.

Much of Erie’s current growth is tied to development agreements and approvals dating back years or decades, including large-scale projects such as Vista Ridge and Redtail Ranch. These “vested” contracts can legally constrain the town’s decisions on current and future development.

The town is now in its first full year operating under home rule, which expands local authority by allowing towns to create a charter, which is a local constitution. A home rule municipality can pass its own ordinances and determine governmental structure without needing state legislature to determine taxation, land use, and local regulations. Under home rule, council members are elected by district, while the mayor is elected town-wide.

However, home rule does not extend to key constraints shaping Erie’s future. Oil and gas operations remain largely regulated at the state level, while water rights are governed by Colorado law.

During the town hall, Mayor Andrew Moore cited the town’s recent community survey as justification for his approach to affordable housing, saying residents support it only under limited conditions. 

“Affordable housing is important to us — so long as you don’t use Erie taxpayer money to subsidize it,” Moore said, adding that residents are open to projects funded through state or federal sources rather than local revenue. He framed the survey as a key tool guiding his decisions, describing it as evidence that town leadership is acting in alignment with public sentiment.

Former Mayor Justin Brooks disputed Moore’s interpretation.

 “He made it sound like the survey results said that the town of Erie supports affordable housing as long as it doesn’t use taxpayer money. That’s not what the survey said at all,” Brooks said. 

As previously reported and as seen in the survey, residents ranked affordable housing as among the town’s top priority.

Brooks added that this is not the first time that Moore has minimized or misframed what the survey demonstrated about a resident’s priorities.

Brooks noted, “Housing affordability is a top issue.”

Throughout the meeting, Moore’s perspective on growth was clarified as he argued that reaching a “critical mass”  was key to attracting businesses and services.

“In a community, you’re really either growing or you’re dying,” he said.

Some residents questioned whether that approach is sustainable given infrastructure demands and resource limits, particularly water.

Mayor Claims Capital Needs Outpace Funding

One of the clearest claims made during the presentation was financial: that Erie lacks sufficient capital funding to meet projected infrastructure needs.

Mayor Andrew Moore told residents the town “doesn’t have enough money going in to expand our facilities to keep up with the growth” and warned Erie could struggle to “keep the niceties and the services” as it expands.

However, public budget records show a more complex picture. Erie’s adopted 2026 budget totals approximately $393 million, and the town maintains tens of millions in the capital improvement fund with a financial plan projected to remain structurally balanced through 2030.

Former Mayor Justin Brooks said the presentation of Erie’s capital improvement outlook overstated financial strain by omitting key context.  According to Brooks, the town’s capital improvement fund has recently received significant investment, and the chart shown at the town hall did not account for millions in grant funding outside of the capital improvement funds that typically support large infrastructure projects. 

He also said some of the projects included in the projection were not formally adopted capital plans but preliminary or aspirational ideas, which could give residents the impression that the town is facing a larger funding gap than it actually is. 

“I think it was misleading. He showed capital projects that are not officially in the plan. They’re just ideas,” Brooks said. 

The funding challenges Moore presents might stem not from a lack of shovels,  but from trying to dig too big a hole. While incoming revenue has remained consistent, the scale of planned developments has accelerated alongside the booming population. The big question is: Does Erie have the resources to sustain this rapid growth? Capital planning documents outline years of major projects, including water, transportation and public facilities, with hundreds of millions of dollars in costs that extend well beyond a yearly budget and must be funded over time through a combination of reserves, taxes, and development-related financing.

Another pressure stems from how growth is being financed. New development can generate long-term tax revenue but requires significant upfront investment in infrastructure. When developments fall short of covering their own costs, the difference is typically absorbed through public funding. In some cases, that investment reaches tens of millions of dollars — including up to $21.3 million in public support for the Erie Town Center project.

With this in mind, the town must be selective in which developments receive funding. Moore mentioned an idea for a new north–south roadway connection linking County Line Road to Airport Drive. The current road is a narrow residential street, surrounded by development and difficult to expand. 

 “What he’s describing is a $20 million road,” Brooks said, saying that it could cost millions to save only marginal travel time for a subset of drivers. With the risk of the costs falling on the taxpayer, developments receive significant public scrutiny.

Mayor Moore pointed to a gap between infrastructure needs and available funding, particularly for roads, public facilities, and recreation. What remains unresolved is how those costs will ultimately be distributed. Whether through taxes, existing revenue, or funds processed through the Urban Renewal Authority, the financial burden of growth may fall on residents, future development, or both.

Water Scarcity  

Water supply remains one of the most pressing issues facing the town. 

Erie’s primary water source is Lake Granby through the Colorado-Big Thompson system. While it currently meets demand, future supply remains uncertain as Colorado faces long-term drought conditions.

Two major projects intended to expand supply — Chimney Hollow Reservoir and the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) — are part of large-scale regional water projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars, requiring participating municipalities to commit to long-term infrastructure and delivery costs. These costs are typically passed on through utility rates, development fees or other public funding mechanisms.

Residents repeatedly pressed officials on how continued growth aligns with water uncertainty. 

“If there’s a water concern, why are we still building out?” one resident asked. 

Moore responded, “I can say with all honesty, I don’t have a full answer.”

That admission leaves a central issue unresolved: whether sufficient water exists to support the town’s long-term growth plans, which has been a rising concern as Erie, along with the rest of Colorado, implement water restrictions.

Additional audience comments focused on groundwater impacts, private well users, and water use tied to oil and gas operations. 

“I’m not prepared tonight to talk about wells in our town,” Moore stated.

As growth decisions continue, the town’s long-term water availability remains unsure, limiting the public’s ability to assess risk.

Mineral Rights and Transparency 

The most contentious issue of the evening centered on the town’s mineral rights and ongoing negotiations tied to the Draco well site in Weld County. Previous reporting found discussions involving the mayor and outside parties had been underway since December 2025 before being disclosed publicly. These discussions included an offer from Civitas Resources, the same company operating the Draco pad.

While the Draco project itself has already been approved at the state level, Erie retains ownership over certain municipal mineral rights, which give the town leverage over how future oil & gas development proceeds.

While the town may not be able to stop the Draco Pad, Erie is not required to sell the mineral rights it still owns, which would open the door to more drilling in the future.

That leverage is at the center of the current debate within the Town Council. The mayor is exploring whether to sell or lease those rights, a move that could generate revenue but also eliminate the town’s ability to influence future drilling activity.

Residents also raised concerns about the town’s consultant, Matthew Owens of Alameda Mineral Advisors, who was the COO of Civitas Resources until 2023. Alameda Mineral Advisors’ compensation depends on completing a deal. Under the agreement, the firm is responsible for conducting market analysis, running a competitive bidding process, and negotiating deal terms. The contract allows for up to $4.5 million in compensation, including payments tied to the value of any resulting transaction. That creates a financial incentive for Alameda Mineral Advisors to complete a deal regardless of whether it’s in the town’s best interest.

Public safety was another hotly debated topic. Former Erie mayor Justin Brooks, speaking as a resident who lives near the proposed Draco site, challenged the assumption that negotiating with operators would improve safety. 

Drawing on his experience in office, he said the town has limited input once drilling begins, noting that during his tenure “there were multiple […] spills, industrial accidents in town,” and that when they occur “there is very little that the town can do about shutting down the operations.”

Erie Resident: “Then what are you selling?”
Moore had just clarified that he possessed “zero maps” for public disclosure.

Brooks warned that relying on cooperation from operators may not meaningfully reduce risk, calling the idea that the town could gain leverage over safety through a deal “a dangerous line of thinking.” He added that even when issues are identified, “it could be weeks before they fix it… it doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re going to be any safer.”

Oil and gas incidents remain relatively common across major producing regions. A 2024 analysis of state-reported data found at least 2,709 oil and gas spills across Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming in a single year, totaling roughly 7 million gallons of liquid released into the environment. 

In response, Mayor Moore said, “The reality is it’s about safety, and it’s about compensation. I cannot say anything more than that at this point.”

Former Mayor Justin Brooks strongly disputed that framing after the fact, arguing that selling or leasing additional mineral rights would not increase safety and could instead reduce the town’s control over oil and gas operations.

Brooks pushed back on Moore’s suggestion that negotiations could improve outcomes for residents, arguing that making concessions only benefits the operators. 

“To clear the way for their drilling only helps them. It does not protect us,” he said.

He noted that the town’s regulatory authority is severely limited regardless of any agreement. 

“The highest potential penalty we […] can impose for an industrial accident… is $1,000 a day,” Brooks explained, emphasizing that Erie lacks the power to shut down operations or prevent drilling directly. He concluded that “selling or leasing additional mineral rights will inherently make the town less safe.”

The town is expected to receive approximately $4 million from existing mineral leases once drilling begins, according to Moore, though details about timing and conditions were not fully disclosed.

Residents also expressed misgivings about transparency, particularly after Moore said the town does not have maps showing the extent of its mineral holdings.

“Then what are you selling?” one resident asked.

Residents repeatedly pressed for basic information, including valuation, deal structure, and whether the agreement would involve a lease or outright sale. Mayor Moore remained noncommittal on the details of the valuation and agreement structure

A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 21, though residents are concerned that a vote will be called without further input.

St. Scholastica and the Page property

Conversations surrounding the lack of transparency extended beyond mineral rights to the Page property near Coal Creek.

The timeline of how a proposed land swap involving St. Scholastica Catholic Church emerged has drawn scrutiny, particularly after reporting found discussions involving the mayor and outside parties had been underway for months without the knowledge of most of the Town Council. This information was acquired via a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request of the mayor’s emails, and Yellow Scene’s reporting of the issue was the first that other councilmembers had heard of a potential deal.

The property was purchased using a combination of open space tax revenue and federal pandemic relief funds through the American Rescue Plan Act, making it a publicly funded asset. Town officials initially indicated that ARPA funds used to purchase part of the site would need to be allocated toward affordable housing. That interpretation later shifted, with the mayor stating the funds could be used more broadly.

One resident, a nurse, questioned whether such a proposal would comply with federal restrictions on ARPA funds, saying she was “aware that ARPA monies […] cannot support religious and or religious-based anything,” and asking how the town could move forward if those funds were involved.

The mayor responded that any agreement would likely involve reimbursement or a land exchange rather than direct use of federal funds, but acknowledged the legal details had not been fully resolved.

A proposal introduced by Moore and state Rep. Dan Woog (whose name elicited booing from the audience) would relocate the church and partner with Catholic Charities to build affordable housing on the site.

Moore defended the process, describing the discussions as preliminary.

“Every idea starts somewhere,” he said, adding that proposals are often explored informally before being shared more broadly.

The situation has also exposed divisions within the Town Council, where several recent decisions related to development and mineral rights have split along a 4-3 vote.

Officials said any final agreement would need to comply with federal rules governing ARPA funds, though details remain unclear.

Elections and Planning Updates

Erie is preparing for municipal elections, with several council seats, including those held by Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell and councilmembers John Mortellaro and Brian O’Connor, up in November.

The town is also revisiting its comprehensive plan and Unified Development Code, which are the two primary documents that determine what can be built, where, and at what density.  Back in October of 2024, Erie greenlit a new “Ellevate Erie” Comprehensive plan after a multi-year process. The plan increased allowable density and laid out a long-term vision for accommodating significant population growth, potentially doubling the number of homes over the coming decades.

Now a year and a half later, the council has already begun reconsidering aspects of those density assumptions and how they align with infrastructure, water supply, and community priorities. At the same time, the Unified Development Code, which governs what developers can    actually build, has not yet been fully aligned with the 2024 plan, creating a gap between policy goals and enforceable regulations.

That combination of a newly adopted plan, ongoing reconsideration of its key elements, and an out-of-sync development code has introduced uncertainty about the town’s long-term strategy and what standards developers will ultimately be held to.

The mayor said the updates aim to align policy with long-term goals.

Looking forward

The meeting left Erie’s most significant decisions unresolved and obfuscated. By moving forward without disclosing vital financial and environmental data, the town is forcing a choice: residents must either accept the plans blindly or demand a more transparent process before the deals are finalized.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth without ever accepting quid pro quo. Your support helps us keep holding truth to power.

The post Erie faces tough questions on water, mineral rights and growth appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The Erie Town Council appointed three new members to the town’s Planning Commission during a special meeting April 7, selecting a slate of candidates that did not include current commissioner Tim Burns.

Council voted to appoint Alex Schatz, Sherri Booth and Paul Leath to fill three open seats following a round of candidate interviews conducted during the meeting.

Burns, who has served on the Planning Commission for four years and reapplied for another term, was among five finalists interviewed but was not selected as part of the final vote.

The appointments came after council reviewed a pool of 11 applicants, later narrowed to six and ultimately five candidates who participated in interviews during the meeting.

Prior to the vote, council members briefly discussed the strength of the applicant pool.

“I think we had some quality candidates that presented here,” councilmember Hoback said, thanking residents for applying and participating in the process.

During his interview, Burns emphasized continuity and ongoing work tied to the town’s comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 2024. He pointed to the commission’s role in shaping long-term growth and said he was interested in continuing efforts to align development regulations with the plan.

“I think that we have done some pretty good work here,” Burns said. “I still think that there’s more to be done.”

Burns also highlighted the need to revisit and refine elements of the comprehensive plan over time, describing it as a “dynamic document” that should evolve alongside the town’s growth.

Other candidates brought a range of professional backgrounds, including planning, engineering, finance and land use law, and spoke about priorities such as infrastructure capacity, affordable housing, and managing future development.

Schatz, a landscape architect and attorney, said he was motivated to apply after becoming more engaged in local land use decisions and emphasized the importance of strengthening the public record in planning cases.

Booth, a retired planner, said she hoped to contribute her experience while becoming more involved in the community, while Leath pointed to continued implementation of the comprehensive plan and alignment with development code updates as key priorities.

The Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the Town Council on land use and development matters, including reviewing site plans, rezonings and updates to the town’s Unified Development Code.

Following interviews, council members cast paper ballots selecting their top three candidates. The votes were tallied by staff, and the three candidates receiving the most support were appointed without further debate.

The meeting concluded shortly after the appointments were approved.

The post Erie council selects new planning commissioners, incumbent not reappointed appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

On March 24, Erie Town Council advanced drought planning and cut fire sprinkler mandates, amid heated public debate over immigration and mineral rights transparency.

Public comment dominated the meeting, with roughly six speakers raising concerns about immigration enforcement and a similar number addressing the town’s handling of a potential mineral rights sale.

Multiple residents described a growing climate of fear among local families, particularly  children. Erie resident Anna Clark told the council that her daughter had wept at the thought of ICE taking her classmates. ”

Clark urged the council and local leaders to respond, calling the fear “real” .

Other speakers echoed  her concerns and called for more visible leadership. Shannon Milikin said recent outreach from council members was a step in the right direction but emphasized the need for clearer public action., 

“Families of color in your community are living with real fear because of ICE activity,” She pointed out.

Several speakers  identified a nearby federal immigration facility in Frederick as an area of interest. The Frederick site is part of a network of short-term federal holding facilities that have drawn scrutiny over conditions and transparency, according to reporting from KUNC.

Laurel O criticized the facility’s detentions.

Laurel O speaking about ICE.

“Less than 10 miles from where you are sitting now, a man was held in the Frederick, Colorado ICE ERO location for 34 days. The youngest person detained at the Frederick Ice ERO location was 6 years old […] These spaces are designed to be temporary, short-term. They frequently lack beds and access to showers.”

Residents repeatedly asked council to issue a formal statement acknowledging the impact of ICE on the community and to take a more proactive approach to community safety.

A second major theme of public comment focused on the town’s consideration of a potential municipal mineral rights sale.

Residents said they have been unable to access key information about the proposal, including its scope, intent and potential impacts. One speaker said “there have been no dedicated meetings to this topic” and questioned why information has not been made publicly available.

Others criticized the prevalence of executive sessions, arguing that  they limit transparency. Speakers called for public hearings, impact studies to evaluate which properties would be affected and what the sale would mean for property values, environmental damage, and public health, and a commitment not to move forward with any agreement before broader community engagement.

Tonia Sharp, an Erie resident, said “The Draco Pad, as I understand it now, is an unprecedented project. A lot of what they’re doing in the drilling has not been done in Colorado before. Five miles of drilling, and everything else. I would hate for our mineral rights to give them an even bigger reason to expand it.”

Several residents also questioned potential environmental and financial impacts, including effects on home values, public health and future development.

Resident Tonia Sharp, speaking about mineral rights.

The debate follows ongoing reporting on the town’s mineral rights discussions, including concerns about transparency and potential conflicts tied to negotiations with oil and gas operators.

Later in the session, the Council  received a drought and water supply update under Resolution 2026-2022.

Town staff outlined pressure on Erie’s water system following an unusually dry winter and historically low snowpack along the Front Range. Officials reported limited seasonal reserves and an early spike in demand driven by warm weather and irrigation use, conditions that have strained system capacity earlier than typical.

The town is encouraging residents to begin conserving water early, including adopting a voluntary two-day-per-week watering schedule, and warned that additional restrictions could be put in place if conditions worsen. The discussion follows earlier reporting that Erie implemented some of the region’s earliest irrigation limitations amid drought conditions.

Council also approved changes to the town’s building code removing a requirement for fire sprinklers in new residential construction (Item 2026-185).

The decision came despite opposition from fire officials, who raised concerns about increased safety risks. The discussion reflected broader tensions between development costs and public safety standards as Erie continues to grow.

Earlier in the evening, the Erie Urban Renewal Authority approved Resolution 26-007, a supplemental budget request to carry forward funding for several incomplete 2025 projects, including the Colliers Hill pedestrian bridge, pedestrian safety improvements and historic Old Town upgrades. Officials said the request does not include any budget increases and that some projects may come in under budget.

During the council meeting, members also approved Resolution 2026-214, recognizing Dave Sullivan of the Erie High School Education Foundation as the town’s Outstanding Resident of the Year, and a proclamation designating April as a month honoring Olympian Jaccob Slavin for his achievements as a part of the 2026 U.S. Men’s Hockey Team.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays, ready to lead no matter who’s in charge.

The post Erie Council Tackles ICE, Drought, and Sprinklers appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Erie officials are considering selling or leasing the town’s mineral rights to energy company Civitas Resources, a decision that could determine oil and gas development beneath large parts of the community, as talks continue largely behind closed doors. Municipal mineral rights refer to the town’s ownership of minerals beneath the surface that can be leased or sold to energy companies for drilling.

Over the past several months, the council has met in executive session at least 10 times to discuss matters related to negotiations and the potential sale of property, with little public disclosure about the scope, timeline or terms of a possible agreement with oil and gas operator Civitas Resources. Public agendas describe these sessions using broad statutory language — such as “negotiations” or the “purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale” of property — without identifying specific projects or mineral rights. The lack of detailed public information has raised concerns among residents, who say they were unaware that discussions were taking place until recently.

The issue at hand is whether Erie should sell or lease its mineral rights,  which are tied to the approved Draco Pad and could involve drilling beneath large portions of the town, and how that decision might affect public health, development, and  property values.

That distinction could be significant. If Erie retains its mineral rights and declines to lease them, it may be able to influence the configuration of drilling operations. If it sells those rights, that leverage could be reduced or eliminated.

The response received from Mayor Moore was the same as his March 17 Facebook post.

The issue first surfaced publicly in December 2025, when the Town Council voted 4-3 to move forward with hiring Alameda Mineral Advisors to negotiate a potential agreement involving the town’s mineral assets. The firm is led by Matthew Owens, a former chief operating officer of Civitas Resources. Under the agreement, Alameda is tasked with representing the town in negotiations and helping structure a potential sale or lease of its mineral rights.

According to town documents, the agreement allows for up to $4.5 million in compensation tied to the negotiation process and any resulting transaction, including a commission based on a percentage of the deal’s value. 

While the council has not publicly confirmed the full structure of a potential deal, in a December 16th council meeting Mayor Moore mentioned that Civitas Resources expressed interest in acquiring the town’s mineral rights. Civitas is the parent company of Extraction Oil & Gas, which owns the approved Draco Pad project, a fracking development that has drawn sustained opposition from some community members.

Former Erie Mayor Justin Brooks wrote in a Facebook post that selling the town’s mineral rights would be “clearing the way for this massive and experimental drilling project to move forward.”

The involvement of Owens has become a focal point for criticism, particularly given his prior role with Civitas and the perceived lack of transparency.

Many residents,  like Jennifer Bertman, have raised concerns that a consultant who stands to benefit financially from a successful deal may not be positioned to provide impartial guidance.  “To hire a former Civitas employee as a consultant who stands to make millions if the sale goes through is a conflict of interest,” Bertman wrote in an email to the Town Council.

Civitas Resources declined to comment.

Town code requires public officials to disclose and recuse themselves from decisions where conflicts of interest exist, though it is unclear how that standard applies to contracted consultants.

Owens has declined to comment.

As Erie mineral discussions struggle to find footing in a public forum, some argue that the lack of transparency is due to the format of conversations.

Councilmember Dan Hoback said the structure of executive sessions can limit meaningful public input. “Contract negotiations always take place in executive session, so public engagement often comes only once a contract or other agreement is largely in place,” Hoback said.

Under Colorado law, public bodies may enter an executive session to discuss negotiations, legal matters, and personnel issues. While no formal votes can be taken in those sessions, discussions can shape decisions that are later approved in public.

Some residents feel this “closed-door” dynamic has effectively frozen them out of the conversation regarding mineral rights. With no public hearings scheduled and only a brief window for comment at the upcoming March 24 meeting and a town hall scheduled for April 2nd, many feel the town’s feedback loop is broken.

Councilmember Emily Baer has publicly urged community members to become involved. “Council serves to represent the people,” Baer said. “Democracy is not a spectator sport.”

Still, many residents say participation is difficult due to the lack of public information on what is being considered. Without dedicated public meetings or detailed disclosures, some residents argue that by the time a vote reaches the floor, the real decisions have already been made in private.

The questions facing Erie are unfolding within a broader shift in Colorado oil and gas law.

A 2019 law, Senate Bill 19-181, shifted the state’s regulatory framework to prioritize public health, safety, and welfare while giving local governments more authority over siting and land use.

More recently, Senate Bill 24-185 introduced new limits on the forced pooling of municipal mineral interests. The law requires state regulators to deny certain pooling applications involving local government-owned minerals unless operators revise their plans.

However, the law remains largely untested in practice, and it does not offer a guaranteed path to stopping drilling entirely.

“It requires the operator to amend the application to avoid municipal unleased interests — not deny the whole thing outright,” said Heather Sabo, an Erie resident who has closely followed oil and gas permitting.

County Line Rd & Arapahoe Rd, Erie Colorado

That shift gives Erie greater authority over where and how drilling occurs within town limits, but it does not eliminate development altogether, making decisions about whether to retain or sell municipal mineral rights a key factor in how much leverage the town ultimately has.

Beyond legal and financial questions, many residents point to potential health impacts associated with oil and gas development near residential areas.

Baer cited research and personal experience in describing those concerns, including her son’s illness following nearby drilling activity. “There are more than 1,700 peer-reviewed health studies that point to the negative health impacts that can and have been recorded, living near oil and gas development,” she said.

Public health findings on oil and gas impacts vary, though multiple studies have identified associations between proximity to drilling and certain health risks. The role those findings play in shaping local policy decisions is often debated.

Erie does not currently have a dedicated public health department, and residents have called for more localized study of potential impacts.

A central question remains unanswered: why would Erie choose to sell its mineral rights at this moment?

Possible motivations could include financial considerations or efforts to influence how future oil and gas development in Erie takes place. However, the town has not publicly outlined its reasoning.

Without that explanation, some residents say the process feels driven more by private negotiation than public deliberation.

Residents have organized online and through community networks, calling for the release of nonconfidential documents, dedicated public meetings and greater transparency about the potential deal.

For now, the outcome of the mineral rights discussions — and their implications for Erie’s future — remain uncertain. What is clear, residents say, is that decisions of this scale carry consequences beyond any single contract.

When decisions of this scale are made largely out of public view, residents say, trust in the process itself becomes part of what is at stake.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.
Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays, ready to lead no matter who’s in charge.

The post Erie Mineral Rights Deal Advances Largely Out of Public View, Raising Concerns Over Transparency and Conflicts appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The Erie Town Council approved supplemental budget appropriations, heard resident concerns about the potential sale of municipal mineral rights, and adopted several proclamations during its regular meeting.

Council members unanimously approved a resolution authorizing supplemental appropriations for the 2026 budget year. The adjustments primarily allow departments to roll over unspent funds from 2025 to continue ongoing projects and multi-year initiatives.

Finance Director Sarah Hancock and Budget and Fiscal Manager Cassie Bethune presented the update, noting that most of the requests involve projects already approved in the prior year. Departments requested funds for infrastructure, water and wastewater improvements, transportation projects and capital maintenance. Among the largest rollovers are utility and public works projects, including water transmission infrastructure, Erie Lake dam repairs, the Schofield Farm project and roundabout construction. Other items include streetlight acquisition and conversion to LED systems, trail construction and solar installation at the North Water Reclamation Facility. Town officials said the rollover process is typical early in the year, though the town split the requests into separate categories this year to distinguish routine project rollovers from budget increases caused by unforeseen circumstances.

Updated projections also showed Erie’s general fund beginning balance increased by roughly $10 million compared with earlier estimates, though finance staff cautioned that year-end accounting is still in progress and final numbers will be confirmed later this spring.

During discussion, Mayor Andrew Moore said the town’s long-term capital improvement plan could include expanding the Erie Community Center or building a second recreation center.

“Our capital improvement is showing that we don’t have the funds to do all the things we’ll need to do five years down the road, include things like expansion of the rec center or a second rec center or the Leon A. Wurl Public Service Center,” Moore said, noting the town may survey residents about potential support for a sales tax to fund recreation facilities.

The council opened and closed the required public hearing on the supplemental appropriations without public comment before approving the resolution unanimously.

Several residents used the meeting’s public comment period to raise concerns about the town’s potential sale or lease of municipal mineral rights, an issue that has drawn increasing attention in recent weeks.

Steve Drew, a Colliers Hill resident with experience in the energy industry, urged the council to slow the process and examine the broader financial implications for homeowners before moving forward.

Steve Drew, a Colliers Hill resident, urges the Erie Town Council to consider a slower, more transparent approach to the sale of the town’s mineral rights.

“I think the key here is that’s going to have a negative impact, anybody that lives in Erie that owns a house,” Drew said, adding that potential oil and gas development tied to those rights could negatively impact property values.

He recommended the town hold a public meeting to review the proposal and evaluate the potential financial and environmental impacts on the community.

Amy Becker, an Erie Commons resident attending her first council meeting, also called for greater transparency in the mineral rights discussion and expressed concerns about decisions being discussed in executive session.

“I would ask that we have meetings where we are all able to express our concerns,” Becker said.

“I’m very concerned that decisions regarding the selling of Erie’s minerals have been made in executive sessions and not in public sessions, and that’s a problem,” she added.

Becker said she intends to remain engaged in local government decisions and encouraged the council to allow more public discussion before considering any agreement related to the mineral rights.

Another resident, Kaycee Headrick, asked how the appraisal process for the mineral rights is progressing and whether retaining those rights could affect the proposed Draco oil and gas development project.

Kaycee Headrick discusses concerns about the consequences of selling the town’s mineral rights, particularly pertaining to the health issues caused by drilling.

“There’s conversations about leaving Erie because we don’t want to be part of this potential health or environmental risk,” Headrick said.

Hedrick said some residents fear potential health or environmental risks and are seeking clarity on how council decisions could influence drilling activity.

Moore responded that if the council decides to move forward with any action regarding the mineral rights, the matter would require a public hearing before a final decision is made.

In other business, the council approved two proclamations recognizing community initiatives and observances.

Council members proclaimed March 2026 as “March for Meals Month” in recognition of Coal Creek Meals on Wheels, which has served the region since 1972. According to the organization, more than 77,000 meals were delivered across its service area in 2025, including more than 8,700 meals to Erie residents. The program provides meals to seniors, people with disabilities and others experiencing food insecurity, and also offers additional services such as post-hospital meal delivery and expanded food access for children during school breaks.

The council also proclaimed March as Women’s History Month, recognizing the contributions of women to civic life, business, education and community leadership.

Following regular business, council members discussed the process for filling three open seats on the Erie Planning Commission. Eleven residents applied, and council members selected six finalists who will be interviewed at a special meeting April 7.

During council reports, Council members Emily Baer and Dan Hoback said the town should consider holding a public town hall or listening session to allow residents to discuss the town’s mineral rights before any decision is made.

“I think it’s not wrong for us to hold a public listening session or some kind of town hall meeting where folks can come and learn more about that,” Baer said.

Council members also highlighted upcoming community events, including an April blood drive at the Erie Community Center and an upcoming town recognition of Olympic gold medalist Jacob Slavin, an Erie native and member of the U.S. men’s hockey team.

The meeting concluded with the council entering executive session to discuss water supply strategy and negotiations related to town property matters.

The post Erie approves budget, hears concerns over mineral rights appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Last Tuesday, the Erie Town Council authorized the initiation of a zoning amendment for the Erie Town Center planned development, heard public concerns regarding construction at Vista Ridge detention ponds and approved interim town manager appointments during its Feb. 24 meeting.

During public comment, several Vista Ridge residents expressed frustration over ongoing construction at detention ponds A19 and A20 near the Colorado National Golf Club, citing a lack of communication and transparency. Derek Tuz of Erie said he has sought answers about the ponds since 2014 and described ongoing confusion among the town, metro district and homeowners association regarding maintenance responsibilities. Tuz said recent construction began without residents receiving renderings or detailed information about the final design.

“We have zero answers,” Tuz told council members, noting that more than seven trees have been removed despite earlier notices stating tree removal was not anticipated.

Steve Clark, a new Vista Ridge resident, said the ponds and surrounding landscape were a significant factor in his decision to purchase his home. He described the site as a “mud pit” following tree removal and drainage work and asked the council to share final design renderings with the community. Clark also raised concerns about environmental impacts and potential effects on property values, urging council members to visit the site.

Derek Tuz, an Erie resident, speaks to Erie Town Council on February 24, 2026 about his frustrations with the town’s detention ponds and a lack of accountability.

Former Mayor Justin Brooks said he plans to meet with the Vista Ridge HOA president and will follow up with staff regarding renderings.

Immigration concerns also surfaced during public comment. Shannon Millican, a Thornton resident whose child attends school in Erie, urged the council to publicly acknowledge fears among residents related to immigration enforcement activity in surrounding communities. Millican said while U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not been active in Erie, reports from nearby cities have created anxiety among some residents. She called on the council to communicate directly with impacted community members.

“When leadership does not acknowledge these fears, it does not create neutrality,” Millican said. “It teaches people that belonging is conditional.”

No formal council action was taken on the matter.

Turning to general business, the council unanimously approved a resolution authorizing staff to initiate a land use application to amend the Erie Town Center planned development, originally adopted in 2020. Planning and Development Director Deborah Craig, who is retiring after 27 years with the town, presented the proposal during her final council meeting. Town officials recognized her tenure and service to the community.

The proposed amendment is intended to provide greater flexibility in the mixed-use development area and address challenges encountered during implementation.

Key changes under consideration include:

1. Allowing live-work units in certain commercial areas.
2. Expanding permitted uses in general urban (GU) zoning districts to include hotels, museums, urgent care facilities and parking structures.
3. Permitting civic buildings and parking garages up to 45 feet in height, consistent with current hotel allowances.
4. Clarifying frontage build-out requirements and excluding driveways and pedestrian accessways from frontage calculations.
5. Establishing parking maximums at 125% of standard requirements.
6. Updating sign regulations to align with the town’s Unified Development Code.
7. Adding a trail connection from the Creekside neighborhood to County Line Road.

Craig emphasized that Tuesday’s action only authorizes initiation of the amendment process. The proposal will still require staff review, referral agency input, a neighborhood meeting, a Planning Commission public hearing and a final public hearing before the Town Council.

Council members discussed balancing commercial tax base goals with added flexibility for residential and mixed-use development. The measure passed unanimously. Staff will incorporate council feedback and return the items for future consideration.

Following the executive session, the council approved two resolutions related to town leadership.

The council formally appointed Melissa Wiley to serve as acting town manager from Feb. 18 through midnight Feb. 24. Members then unanimously appointed Administrative Services Director Meredith Muth to serve as interim town manager effective Feb. 25. Council members thanked Muth for stepping into the role. The meeting adjourned following the appointments.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays, ready to lead no matter who’s in charge.

The post Erie Approves Town Center Zoning, Debates Detention Pond appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Update: Correction to clarify that Civitas is the one driving the deadlines. One of the conditions for the Draco Pad is that all pre-production must be completed by October 15th, 2027.

A brief discussion at Erie’s Dec. 16 Town Council meeting revealed what had previously been kept behind closed doors: Civitas Resources has made an offer to buy Erie’s mineral rights. This revelation immediately raised concerns about transparency and the town’s direction on oil and gas issues.

The comment surfaced as Mayor Andrew Moore introduced a contract with Alameda Mineral Advisors to assess the value of the town’s mineral holdings. Moore described the consulting work as a step to better understand the town’s assets. The explanation, however, included a significant detail.

“This will give us information on what those are worth,” Moore said from the dais. “Civitas has given us an offer, we’re not sure that offer is market-competitive. If nothing else, this will give us that information. This does not approve anything, it doesn’t spend any money, it simply gives us information. Then we can go back and ask the question, ‘Is there enough here? Is this worth it?’”

That statement marked the first time the public learned that Civitas — operator of the widely opposed Draco Pad oil and gas project — had approached the town about purchasing its mineral rights. The matter had previously been discussed only in Executive Session.

Councilmember Dan Hoback said the lack of public discussion is central to the concern.

“All of the details, all of the pros and cons, are happening behind closed doors,” Hoback said. “If this makes it to a council vote, that will be the first the public is hearing of it.”

The announcement also landed in a charged political climate. Residents have long and vocally opposed expanding oil and gas activity, especially around the Draco Pad. Sustainability consistently ranks as one of the community’s top priorities, Hoback noted.

“In our survey, people ranked sustainability as a number one issue they want to focus on, and we’re going against that,” he said.

A potential sale of the town’s mineral rights could carry consequences for nearby property owners. Under Colorado law, a sale could enable pooling, a practice that allows an operator to combine adjacent mineral interests into a single unit for development.

“One consequence could be, what is called forced pooling, where mineral rights owners are forced to sell their minerals when a company obtains their rights to a certain percentage of surrounding rights,” Hoback said.

He added that timing may also be a factor.

For many residents already skeptical of oil and gas activity, the thought of a fast-moving, privately negotiated deal could deepen that skepticism. 

“Given how opposed people were to Draco,” Hoback said, “this will definitely lead to a concerning lack of trust from the residents.”

His assessment of the situation was blunt: “We’re dancing with the devil.”

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays, ready to lead no matter who’s in charge.

The post A Civitas Offer Brings Erie’s Mineral Rights Into the Spotlight appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

ERIE, Colorado—Residents raised concerns about flooding, drainage infrastructure and accountability during public comment at the Erie Town Council meeting Tuesday night, as council members also approved major financial, accessibility and community funding measures.

Several speakers described ongoing groundwater and drainage issues affecting homes and properties near recent developments. John Rondash of Lafayette told council members he is pumping approximately 100 gallons of water per hour from his basement and said groundwater saturation has caused his septic system to fail. Rondash cited standing water in culverts near KB Home’s Nest Reserve at Canyon Creek development and asked the town to commission an independent hydrological assessment and improve communication with affected residents.

Meg Noffsinger, also of Lafayette, echoed those concerns and said she previously lost her home in Lyons due to extreme flooding. She told council she rebuilt and invested everything she had into her current property but is now facing similar conditions. Noffsinger said her horse can no longer live on the property due to recurring hoof abscesses caused by wet ground conditions. She urged the town to address what she described as a lack of accountability.

Additional comments focused on drainage ponds associated with the Colorado National Golf Club facility in Erie. Christine Emerson and Derek Tuz, both Erie residents, expressed concern about the maintenance, elevation and infrastructure of the ponds, particularly Pond 820. While noting the environmental and wildlife benefits of the ponds, Tuz said drainage pipe elevation and long-term maintenance plans remain unresolved. Speakers also referenced difficulties obtaining public records related to the issue through Colorado Open Records Act requests.

Following public comment, the council approved several agenda items unanimously.

Courtesy of the City

Martin Luther King Jr Day

Council members adopted a proclamation recognizing Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Jan. 19, 2026, with the national theme “Mission Possible 2: Building Community, Uniting a Nation the Nonviolent Way,” and encouraged residents to observe the holiday.

Capitol Projects

The council also approved an ordinance establishing financial parameters for the acquisition and construction of several capital projects, including an expanded police station, a public safety building, mine mitigation work in the Town Center area and improvements to the Erie Community Center. The public safety building carries an estimated cost of up to $47 million. Under the approved framework, the town would incur approximately $3.4 million in annual debt over 30 years at an interest rate of about 4.66 percent, with the option to renegotiate after 10 years. Town officials said additional information will be shared with residents about opportunities to purchase bonds related to the projects.

Americans with Disabilities Act

Council members also adopted the town’s Americans with Disabilities Act Access Audit and Transition Plan. The plan, developed by the WT Group following audits conducted between 2023 and 2026, identifies barriers to accessibility in town facilities, parks and rights-of-way under Title II of the ADA. The plan outlines methods for improving access, assigns responsible officials and establishes a long-term retrofit schedule. Minimum compliance is projected to take 16 years at an estimated cost of $250,000 annually, though total costs could reach $40 million if optional improvements such as trail upgrades are included.

Grants to Communities Program

Finally, the council approved funding allocations through the 2026 Grants to Communities Program. With $80,000 available, which is less than in previous years despite $200,000 in requests, the council prioritized organizations providing direct services over event-based nonprofits. Officials noted that demand for grant funding continues to exceed available resources.

The post Erie Addresses Flooding Approves Capital Financing and Grants appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

We have the power as consumers to stop giving money to billionaires who perpetuate violence and injustice. The people in power, who control the headlines, are listening to your purchases. They listen to their bottom line. Taking small, actionable steps can make a difference for a world in crisis. If you are looking for a sense of connection or a way to make your money matter, consider shopping at independent businesses that share your values.

One main difference between shopping with big corporations and your neighborhood outlets is the mission. Most Big corporations operate solely to make a profit, but at Elevated Communities in Longmont, their mission is to use their thrift store to make an impact for Coloradans with disabilities.

“We have our thrift store, and we recently opened our cat cafe. But really, the whole mission is our resource navigation program,” says thrift store manager Angie Clements. The funding that we receive through the cat cafe and the thrift store helps to give people with disabilities connected to long-term services.” “We want to offer work clothing that people can afford and look good in.”

Tabor Acres, Makenna Hart wearing Treasures Upscale Consignment

The Neighborhood Plant Plug, Shannon Milliken wearing Elevated Communities

Authentic Cotton, Laurel Okasaki wearing Elevated Communities

The clothes donated to Elevated Communities make their way into the hands of individuals who can use them to transform their lives. For a more sustainable option or help others in need, they are a great place to shop or donate used clothing.

Just as Elevated Communities fosters connection through giving, other shops connect over shared passions. For those who find their joy in the mountains and trails, Jax Outdoor Gear brings people together in a different—but equally important—way.

Sharing hobbies brings people together. For outdoor enthusiasts, visiting a neighborhood-based outdoor gear shop can make a world of difference. The employees of Jax Outdoor Gear are part of the region and share your passion for the outdoors.

“I like talking to people and hearing outdoor stories, because I am an outdoorsman. I love hiking, backpacking, and biking, and it is really nice to talk to people who are in the same niche,” manager Jonathan Brennan said.

The people at Jax Outdoor Gear take the time to get to know you and what you love about being outdoors. That is the kind of familiarity you will not get at a big-name store.

“A lot of these corporations are tailoring their business more towards a fast, quick pickup environment. We at Jax started out as a small family company. We still provide that face-to-face interaction that you do not get a lot of these days with online shopping,” Brennan said.

Shopping small is rooted in trust, and independent businesses are a place where expert craftsmanship and personal service are built over generations. At the Eric Olson Master Jeweler shop in Louisville, customers enjoy a personalized jewelry buying experience backed by years of quality craftsmanship. Unlike many corporate stores, Eric Olson has built lasting relationships with his customers, offering a unique and trustworthy bond.

Shannon wearing Eric Olson necklace and Jax shirt

Laurel wearing Eric Olson necklace and Elevated Communities earrings and dress

Makenna wearing Schapell’s jewelry in Aflorae outfit

“A jeweler is the person who sits at the bench and does the work,” says Olson. So, if you are talking to somebody behind a counter with a jacket and tie on and he calls himself a jeweler, chances are very good that he is not a jeweler. He deals in jewelry. He sells jewelry.”.

As a longtime resident of Louisville, Olson has built a connection based on transparency and a genuine love for the craft. “For people in the community, I have been their jeweler for two generations now. Parents who got their wedding bands from me have kids who have gotten their wedding bands from me.”

A significant portion of the money spent ultimately ends up in the pockets of nameless, faceless corporations. Schapell Jewelers in Boulder is another place where you can build a relationship that goes beyond a transaction.

“You are always going to see the same faces. We are always going to go above and beyond to take care of our customers, follow up with birthday cards, thank you notes, and things like that,” manager Maddi Barraza said.

Beyond that personal touch that only independent establishments can provide, there is a deeper connection to fellow entrepreneurs and Boulder County. “We are involved in the community, and we are involved with our neighboring businesses. We are going to be doing a silent auction later this year for a local charity,” Barraza said.

Morton’s Orchards, Shannon Milliken wearing Pink House, Erie Farmers Market

Deborah Ann Does Donuts, Ayce wearing Jax Outdoor Gear, Erie Farmers Market

Supporting neighborhood shops is not only about service or craft, it is also about reducing waste and protecting our environment. That is where consignment stores shine.

Sustainability has both environmental and social impacts.  Fast fashion overproduces clothing that ends up in landfills and encourages a mindset of consumerism. Instead, recycle and reuse your clothes for a new experience. Treasures Upscale Consignment in Lafayette specializes in transforming one person’s trash into another’s treasure.

Owner Jaya Lopez explains, “People always ask me, ‘Are you the owner?’ I always tell them that we are the owners. The people who share here, consign here, and work here are the owners, because every single piece comes from somebody else. This is a community store by the community for the community.”.

Ayce and Shannon wearing Jax, 47 Bakery at the Erie Farmers Market

Shopping secondhand at stores such as Treasures Upscale Consignment not only promotes sustainability but also strengthens a sense of shared responsibility and connection. By choosing to buy used, consumption habits can be transformed,  protecting the environment while simultaneously celebrating the diverse stories and treasures that each item carries.

Some vendors go even further in their efforts to uplift the community by offering immediate, meaningful help in moments of need. Sportique Eyewear of Boulder takes the time to understand each and every customer that comes their way.

Owner, Jim Taylor, recounts,”There is a gentleman who is leaving on a flight at 1 p.m. He came in at 5 p.m. the night before with broken glasses, and he has no other glasses to wear on his business trip. I said, ‘I can do that for you.’ We love to help, regardless of where you get your glasses. It is a sincere desire to assist people on their way.

Taylor has been in optometry since 1982, and he and his staff understand the intersection of fashion and health care. The attention to detail, quality work, and investment in helping you look and feel your best set them apart.

“It is not the kind of thing you would see at a corporate store or a big chain. We do not have time constraints. I do not have another patient coming out of the doctor’s office. So we decided to do what is right for our consumer consciously, and we love to do it,” Taylor said.

Others aim to bring beauty and identity into the daily lives of their customers through boutique experiences and thoughtful design.

Confetti Confections, Makenna Hart wearing Aflorae, Erie Farmers Market

If you are looking for the kind of elevated aesthetic that an upscale boutique offers, Aflorae in Longmont is the go-to destination. Rachel Hunter started Aflorae as a florist shop, and when the pandemic hit, she expanded her repertoire to include retail. Now, Aflorae sells clothes, jewelry, accessories, and home goods in addition to her floral arrangements to add a little beauty to people’s lives.

Another boutique worth checking out is The Pink House in Louisville. The owner, Heather Mills, is dedicated to providing affordable and accessible fashion to the public while also connecting with what makes the town special.

“Creating a local economy and supporting your community is so important, and we want to make fashion as accessible as possible. Fashion is all about showing your true self to the world,” Mills said. “Main Street is the heart of Louisville, so we are right there. There is a trick-or-treating parade with the local elementary school, the Labor Day Parade, and the Festival of Lights. We are very involved.”

 The average American’s wallet has a loud voice. For quality service from people who genuinely want to engage, shop local, independent stores. All of the shops showcased here are on the side of the customer, something that will be hard to find through a large online distributor.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter (and get our printed copy monthly at home.)
Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

The post Connection over convenience: Why shopping local matters in today’s America appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.