The following letter was sent to Mayor Andrew Moore, Councilmember Brian O’Connor, and the Erie Town Council via council@erieco.gov, and was signed by 227 residents. Yellow Scene Magazine was asked to republish it in the interest of community transparency and public accountability. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Erie Town Council,

I am writing to urge the Town Council to vote NO on the proposed sale of Erie’s municipal mineral rights. This letter is submitted on behalf of myself and the 227 Erie residents listed below, all of whom oppose this transaction.

Last week, the Council heard testimony from residents who have invested their lives in this community. The Council listened, and the sale failed on a 3–3 vote. We also know that the absent council member, Mr. Hoback, opposed the sale. The outcome reflected the will of the people who showed up, submitted comments, and remained engaged on this issue for more than two years.

One week later, the vote has been resurrected. Residents were given one business day’s notice that a re-vote would take place. Many had barely drawn a breath of relief before being asked to once again submit comments, prepare testimony, and restate a position that this Council heard clearly seven days ago.

I ask the Council to reject this sale based on the following critical points:

1. Erie’s Mineral Rights Are Not Symbolic—They Are the Town’s Strongest Tool

Under SB24-185, signed by Governor Polis on May 22, 2024, Erie’s unleased mineral interests cannot be force pooled. If Erie refuses to sell, SM Energy is legally required to avoid the Town’s unleased mineral interests. The Town’s own presentation to Council on June 2, 2026, confirmed this in plain language: “The unleased portions MUST be avoided unless leased or voluntarily pooled.”

This is the Town’s own legal assessment, presented by Town staff. Selling these rights means permanently surrendering the strongest legal tool Erie has to protect residents from drilling beneath their homes.

The claim that “drilling will happen regardless” is misleading. The Town’s minerals sit directly in the path of a significant number of planned laterals. Without these mineral rights, SM Energy cannot drill through those zones.

2. The Deal’s Value Has Been Significantly Overstated

The headline figure of $465 million includes speculative future property and sales tax revenues from undeveloped land—projections that depend on decades of assumptions, not contractual commitments from SM Energy.

The Mayor publicly acknowledged that the immediately quantifiable value is closer to $44 million. Other Town estimates place it at approximately $17 million over 20 years.

Meanwhile, retaining the mineral rights preserves Erie’s royalty interests and, critically, preserves the Town’s legal authority to prevent drilling through its mineral zones. That authority has value that cannot be reduced to a dollar figure because it protects residents’ health, safety, and property values on an ongoing basis.

3. Clear and Documented Conflict of Interest

The Town retained Alameda Mineral Advisors to negotiate this deal—a firm led by a former Civitas executive. Paying an industry insider to represent the same community that spent two years fighting Civitas creates a severe conflict of interest.

Furthermore, Alameda’s fee is contingent upon the deal closing. Its CEO is not a neutral advisor; he does not get paid unless the sale is approved.

Following the June 16 vote, Alameda’s CEO publicly stated on LinkedIn that he lobbied for a re-vote. That post was subsequently edited. Many Erie residents read the original statement and can attest to its contents.

When the person brokering a deal has a direct financial stake in the outcome and is actively lobbying elected officials after a failed vote, residents are entitled to question whose interests are being served.

4. Plugging Legacy Wells Is a Safety Obligation, Not a Bargaining Chip

The framing of plugging 17 old wells as a benefit or gift to the Town is misleading. Remediating aging and orphaned wells is a matter of basic public safety that should have been addressed long ago.

It is an industry obligation, not a concession that justifies a massive new mineral rights sale.

5. The Process Has Undermined Public Trust

Negotiating a deal of this magnitude largely in private executive sessions, retaining consultants with undisclosed industry ties, and rushing a re-vote within seven days of a failed motion have all eroded public confidence that this process is being conducted in residents’ best interests.

6. Erie Is Thriving Without This Deal

Our Town is thriving. Property values have skyrocketed. Downtown Erie has become a destination. Schools, restaurants, and local businesses have transformed this community—all without oil and gas involvement.

Erie is attractive to young professional families precisely because of what it is today. This deal puts that identity and growth trajectory at risk.

Residents have told this Council they will consider leaving if drilling proceeds beneath their homes. The economic damage from declining property values and departing families could far exceed whatever speculative benefits this transaction promises.

The community has spoken clearly and consistently. Hundreds of Erie residents submitted comments. The June 16 meeting filled the council chamber. Hundreds more have expressed opposition on social media. Letters have been sent to the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. This letter alone carries the names of 227 residents asking you to vote NO.

This level of sustained community engagement is extraordinary for a town Erie’s size, and it points in one direction.

We are not asking for anything unreasonable. We are asking our elected officials to listen to the residents they represent, protect the legal leverage the State of Colorado granted this Town, and reject a deal that primarily benefits the operator and its paid intermediary.

A NO vote is not a rejection of economic opportunity. It is a decision to protect the Town’s most valuable assets—its families.

Please vote NO on the sale of Erie’s municipal mineral rights.

Submitted by 227 Erie Residents

The post Letter to the Editor: 227 Residents Sign Letter Opposing Mineral Rights Sale 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.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

I am a resident of Erie who is not directly impacted by the Draco Pad project footprint and I have zero political aspirations. I also believe that there is a place for oil and natural gas extraction in our energy supply. That said, I stepped off the sidelines and entered into discussions with Mayor Moore and the Town Council four months ago about the potential sale of the Town of Erie mineral rights.

Myself, and other Erie resident requests for Mayor Moore and the Town Council have been straightforward:

1) Provide a forum for all Erie residents to express their concerns or their support related to the potential sale of Erie’s mineral rights. Listen to these concerns and follow-up with third-party studies that help provide answers. 

2) Allow residents of Erie to vote on whether they want these Town-owned mineral rights to be sold, held and/or used to push back against the Draco Pad. This decision has a huge financial impact on the Town of Erie and an enormous impact on residents.

3) If Erie residents choose to sell these mineral rights then run a legitimate process to sell. Issue an RFP to find a low-cost and high-quality Consultant who will run a competitive bid and solicitation process. This will ensure that Erie gets fair representation and that our Town gets top dollar. 

Mayor Moore and his loyal block of Town Council voters (Mayor Pro Tem Bell, Council Member Brian O’Connor and Council Member John Mortellaro) chose to not give residents of Erie a voice or a vote. They chose to withhold all information from Erie residents – feeding messages that this group wants residents to hear while withholding the rest in confidential sessions. Irrespective of your view, Mayor Moore has led a process that has denied you your voice and your vote.

This group also chose to hire the founder of Civitas for $4.5 million of Erie taxpayer money to represent Town of Erie residents in this sale…to SM Energy, who merged with Civitas earlier this year. Per explosive comments from Town Council Members and the Consultant during the June 2nd Town Council Study Session, it does not appear that this Consultant completed his contract. 

The Consultant’s contract required him to complete a competitive bid and solicitation process and to provide competitive offers to the Town Council for them to consider. Instead, the Consultant brought only a single offer from SM Energy / Civitas. His former company.  Rather than addressing this issue, Mayor Moore scheduled a vote for the sale of Erie’s Town-owned mineral rights to SM Energy for June 16th. 

COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE INVOLVEMENT

On June 11th, over 120 Erie Residents sent a letter to Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser asking for State help in this situation. 

On Friday, June 12th, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office (AGO) responded that the AGO has started an official process to review our situation on behalf of Erie residents. The AGO asked me to provide them with all materials related to the Town Council issues noted above, which I sent off over the weekend. I believe others in Erie are supplying details to the Attorney General’s Office for this review as well.

The AGO noted that the official review process could take weeks – well past the June 16th scheduled vote.

Will the Erie Town Council move forward with a vote on June 16th knowing that the Colorado Attorney General’s Office is officially involved? Good question for Mayor Moore and the Town Council. Especially given all of <waves vaguely at the hot mess this group facilitated> this. 

Will Mayor Moore and this Town Council do what’s right for the Town of Erie by working with the AGO and Colorado Attorney General? To officially address all concerns from the AGO and residents prior to a vote? Goodness – I hope so. Better to start doing the right thing late rather than not at all.

Whether you are for the sale of Town-owned mineral rights or whether you are against, please show up to the Town Council meeting on June 16th  where they are set to vote. Let Mayor Moore and the Town Council know that we need a legitimate process to be completed prior to approval of any contract. That all Erie residents – irrespective of their views – should have a voice and a vote in what happens to our Town of Erie mineral rights.

Signed Erie resident,

Steve Drew

The post Letter to the Editor: Attorney General’s Office to Review Erie Residents’ Complaint appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Press releases are provided to Yellow Scene Magazine. In an effort to keep our community informed, we publish some press releases in whole.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Darren O’Connor Law, LLC

ERIE, Colo. — Attorney Darren O’Connor, on behalf of an Erie resident, has issued a formal legal demand to the Town of Erie requesting that the Town delay any final action on the proposed sale of Town-owned mineral rights associated with the Draco project until questions regarding procurement compliance and contract performance are fully addressed.

The demand follows public statements made during recent Erie Town Council meetings indicating that the Town’s procurement process may not have been followed when Alameda Mineral Advisors was retained and that contractual requirements related to competitive bid solicitation may not have been completed.

At issue is a contractual requirement that Alameda Mineral Advisors conduct a competitive bid and solicitation process before recommending the sale of Town-owned mineral rights. According to the demand letter, that process was intended to test the market and help ensure the Town received the best available value for public assets. Instead, questions have emerged regarding whether competing bids were ever solicited and whether negotiations were effectively limited to a single company.

“A competitive bid and solicitation process was required by the contract between the Town of Erie and Alameda Mineral Advisors,” said O’Connor. “That requirement exists to help ensure the Town receives the best possible value for public assets. Instead, it appears Alameda may have negotiated with only a single company. The public deserves a clear explanation and transparency regarding how this process was handled.”

According to O’Connor, these issues extend beyond routine procedural questions and involve the Town’s responsibility to protect public assets, comply with its own procurement requirements, and enforce contractual obligations entered into on behalf of Erie residents.

“The Town should not proceed with a major mineral-rights transaction while unresolved questions remain about whether the consultant was hired in compliance with Erie’s procurement rules and whether the consultant performed the competitive bid-solicitation work required by contract,” O’Connor stated in the demand letter.

The demand requests that the Town provide records related to the procurement and selection of Alameda Mineral Advisors, determine whether contractual bid-solicitation requirements were fulfilled, identify whether any Town official instructed the consultant not to perform those duties, and explain any actions taken to modify or waive contractual requirements.

O’Connor is also requesting that the Town defer any final vote, execution, or implementation of the proposed mineral-rights transaction until those questions are resolved and the public has received a clear explanation of the process.

The legal demand includes a records preservation request and asks the Town to provide a written response within two business days due to the Town Council’s scheduled June 16 vote on the proposed mineral-rights agreement.

“The public is entitled to a transparent explanation, and the Town is obligated to protect municipal assets and taxpayer funds,” O’Connor wrote in the demand.

A copy of the demand letter has been provided to the Town of Erie and is available upon request.

###

Contact: Darren O’Connor

720.961.3869

darreno@dolawllcocm

Darren O’Connor, Esq.

Darren O’Connor  Law, LLC

Tel.: 720.961.3869

www.dolawllc.com

The post Attorney for Erie Resident Demands Delay of Mineral Rights Vote Pending Procurement and Contract Review 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.

720.470.9098 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.

Correction: An earlier version of Yellow Scene’s 2026 Primary Election Endorsements incorrectly identified Heidi Henkel as the incumbent in House District 33. The incumbent is Rep. Kenny Nguyen. The error was corrected shortly after publication.

Editorial endorsements are a longstanding function of journalism. Yet as media has consolidated and nonprofit restrictions have reshaped the industry, fewer newsrooms continue the practice.

Yellow Scene believes election endorsements remain an important public service. Our editorial board debates the issues, examines policy and records in depth, and does not lightly arrive at endorsement decisions, particularly in closely contested races. This guide focuses on races within Yellow Scene’s Boulder County and North Metro coverage region rather than attempting to cover every contest statewide. Over 26 years, Yellow Scene’s Election Guide has received multiple journalism awards, including three first-place honors, and earned a reputation for asking difficult questions and examining candidates beyond campaign slogans.

U.S. Senate

John Hickenlooper v. Julie Gonzales

The Pick: Julie Gonzales

Julie Gonzales

John Hickenlooper

State Democrats deemed this the most contested statewide race this spring. At the state assembly, activist turned politician Julie Gonzales took home nearly 75% of the delegate share. Gonzales, who has been working in the Colorado Senate since 2018, will face incumbent US Senator John Hickenlooper. While the Hickenlooper campaign leans into terms like “grassroots” and “independent perspective,” his lengthy résumé as the former mayor of Denver, Colorado governor, and current senator tells a different story.

Having taken over $500,000 in AIPAC money, Hickenlooper’s narrative conflicts with his status as a political insider. Some argue Hickenlooper has been unable to meet the political moment, voting with Trump 11% of the time in his first term and saying Democrats need to “select our battles.” In 2020, an ethics committee ruled he violated state law by flying in a donor’s private plane.

Gonzales has decried the war in Gaza, pledged to back antitrust enforcement to break up monopolies, and supported Medicare for all, positions that demonstrate she has the energy and fresh perspectives the party needs.

Governorship

Michael Bennett v. Phil Weiser

The Pick: Phil Weiser

Phil Weiser

This race features two prominent Colorado politicians vying for higher office, starting with Michael Bennet, a former school superintendent turned U.S. senator. During his years in Washington, Bennet has drawn criticism for confirming eight of Donald Trump’s nominees and for his extensive campaign support from major donors and political action committees.

Michael Bennet

He has accepted over $300,000 in AIPAC funds and holds a significant edge in super PAC support. In fact, a May report showed Bennet tallying over $4 million, including substantial “dark money” from undisclosed donors, compared to Weiser’s just over $1 million. Policy-wise, Bennet’s affordability platform caps housing costs at 30% of household income, and he champions a public Medicare option alongside childcare tax credits. However, these are proposals that some progressive Colorado Democrats might view as lukewarm or tepid at best.

In contrast, Phil Weiser enters the race as the state’s former attorney general and one of the few Colorado leaders boasting a rising approval rating. As AG, Weiser built a reputation as a consistent fighter during the Trump administration, taking the federal government to court when it threatened funding for hospitals, Social Security, and Medicare. He has also leaned heavily into consumer protection, returning millions of dollars to Coloradans by taking on corporate landlords, fraudsters, and major pharmaceutical companies.

Attorney General

Hetal Doshi v. Michael Dougherty v. Jena Griswold v. David Seligman

The Pick: David Seligman

David Seligman

Jena Griswold

Jena Griswold, current CO Secretary of State, has leveraged internal polling to claim her campaign is running away with this race. Griswold claims a lack of familiarity with the other candidates is solidifying her position among voters. In her time in office, she attempted to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot and urged the Supreme Court to remove him as president. She is hoping her name recognition and history of standing up to the administration will win her the race.

Michael Dougherty has perhaps the most impressive experience of these candidates. He has a string of high-profile, Colorado DA endorsements. In Manhattan, he led the sex crimes unit at the DA’s office. In Colorado, he developed a DV response team and a vehicular response team. He prosecuted the King Soopers mass shooting and the Boulder Pearl street firebombing.

Michael Dougherty

Dougherty, however, has a lackluster vision for AI, vaguely promising to enact “smart policies” at a time when data centers are contaminating water in states facing droughts. Dougherty has faced harsh criticism for his decision to neither press charges nor launch a criminal investigation into the death of Jeanette Alatorre. Furthermore, he remained silent when the city moved to illegally block access to the body camera footage. While his extensive experience is undeniable, Dougherty’s platform ultimately plays it too safe and misses the vision Colorado needs.

Hetal Doshi

Hetal Doshi is a first-generation American who has been an assistant attorney in CO and a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. Her career has focused on breaking up big tech monopolies and protecting Colorado from Trump’s funding cuts. In Colorado, though she supports investing in “entrepreneurs working in tech,” a position at odds with her previous work against monopolies. Doshi also maintains a stance against oligarchs, a group Seligman has promised to go after. Whereas Seligman’s proposals are comprehensive, Doshi’s are vague.

David Seligman is the director of the nonprofit Towards Justice, which he built to support labor rights. He was the Supreme Court Chair of the Harvard Law Review. Seligman is more of an outsider than the other candidates, and it shows in his policy proposals. He’s focusing on breaking up tech monopolies and holding corporations that exploit workers and drive up housing and healthcare costs accountable, and drive up housing and healthcare costs. Affordability is one of the biggest political issues facing Coloradans, and people need elected officials who will fight for it fiercely.

For that reason, we think that Seligman’s ambition makes him the strongest candidate.

Secretary of State

Jessie Danielson v. Amanda Gonzales

The Pick: Jessie Danielson

Jessie Danielson

As the first Latina and openly queer recorder in Jefferson County, Amanda Gonzalez would certainly bring a fresh voice to the state office. However, in contrast to Danielson, her experience is underwhelming.

Amanda Gonzalez

At her nonprofit, Jessie Danielson helped develop the bills that would become voter modernization acts in Colorado. Appointed by the governor at the time, she expanded mail-in ballots and access for those with disabilities. She also helped codify abortion into Colorado law.

Her track record makes her the best option for Democrats in this race.

Congressional District 1

Diana Degette v. Wanda James v. Melat Kiros

The Pick: Melat Kiros

Melat Kiros

Diana DeGette

This district features three candidates. Diana DeGette, the incumbent, has a great track record on climate but has come under fire for tiptoeing around the war in Gaza, as well as taking corporate money. 

Wanda James

On the other hand, Wanda James built the first Black-owned dispensary in Colorado and serves on the CU Board of Regents. Her campaign focuses heavily on serving Black and Brown communities and peaceful foreign policy. She is, however, in favor of “smart, technology-driven” border security, which is linguistic cover for technologies that harvest biometrics and drive racial profiling. She has a weaker position on combating ICE and supports entrepreneurs like herself. Her withdrawal from assembly and switch to petition also signal a lack of local support.

Melat Kiros is the Democratic Socialist candidate. She is championing the types of policies that have won the mayoral election in New York and have launched Graham Platner into political stardom in Maine. She supports federally subsidizing 30% of all long-term house developments, universal childcare, an end to military aid to Israel, and a zero-emissions US grid.

Democrats who want to see the continued growth of a bolder party with a clear vision for the future should vote for Kiros.

Congressional District 8

Shannon Bird v. Evan Munsing v. Manny Rutinel

The Pick: Shannon Bird

Shannon Bird

Manny Rutinel, a rising star in the party, tore through the assembly process, garnering over 90% of the delegate vote. He is a fresh, young voice whose background as an economist for the Army Corps of Engineers promises to combat Colorado voters’ most important issue: affordability.

Manny Rutinel

Evan Munsing

Evan Munsing also has a military background. The former Marine’s bare-bones platform and lack of vision on immigration suggest that the candidate’s plans may be under-conceived.

Incumbent from the 29th District, Bird was ranked the most effective Colorado lawmaker in the ‘23-’24 term by the independent organization, Center for Effective Lawmaking. She is now running to face off the Gabe Evans, the incumbent in District 8. That effectiveness is reflected in the detailed, clear proposals Bird has made central to her campaign. Of particular note are her detailed pragmatic proposals for restraining ICE. In the same study, Rutinel was ranked 45th out of 50. Bird sponsored 104 bills in 2025, passing bills supporting affordable housing, workers’ rights, and education, among others. Bird was one of 17 subjects of an ethics complaint related to a dark-money-funded 2024 retreat connected to the Opportunity Caucus. The complaint was ultimately dismissed, however, and Bird was neither part of the caucus at the time nor did she attend the event.

Her record makes Bird the choice.

State House District 19

Jillaire McMillan v. Anil Pesaramelli v. Colton Jonjak Plahn

The Pick: Anil Pesaramelli

Anil Pesaramelli

Anil Pesaramelli has taken the traditional approach in this election; he knocked on 4,000 doors, gathering local support and listening to the community about local issues. He is an immigrant and former engineer. He has stood firm during several closely divided 4–3 Erie Town Council votes, challenging the council majority on issues including mineral rights negotiations tied to Draco, housing affordability, and support for local nonprofits and community organizations.

Colton Jonjak Plahn

Colton Jonjak Plahn was a late addition to the ballot in this district. At 25, he would be the youngest state legislator in Colorado. While his idealism and separation from political money and machinery make him an exciting voice, his limited experience weighs heavily in our consideration.

Jillaire McMillan

Jillaire McMillan, a small business owner and community leader, is no slouch either: she ran in 2024 when the incumbent dropped out with only 89 days left and only lost by 110 votes. Her experiences in legislation are limited, and while she states civic engagement, it is Pesaramelli who is hitting the streets.

Pesaramelli’s support for universal healthcare and stronger unions align him more with what the electorate in Colorado desires. McMillan has establishment endorsements without a stronghold of local support.

Pesaramelli is the pick. 

State House District 31

Gabriel Cervantes v. Jacque Phillips

The Pick: Gabriel Cervantes

Gabriel Cervantes

Gabriel Cervantes, a nonprofit cofounder, places a large emphasis on affordable housing, specifically blocking private equity and corporate entities from buying single-family homes. His campaign also promises to explore avenues to prosecute ICE agents overstepping their authority. He supports grants and tax credits for Colorado’s growing senior population, an under-discussed issue in this election. Cervantes also has an endorsement from Julie Gonzales.

Jacque Phillips

Incumbent Jacque Phillips’ platform offers no plan on immigration, vague promises on climate change, and broad references to “high-quality jobs and vocational training.” While her voting record is okay, she is an establishment, smaller-scope candidate whose vision pales beside Cervantes’ ambition.

Our choice is Gabriel Cervantes.

State House District 33

Heidi Henkel v. Kenny Nguyen

The Pick: Heidi Henkel

Heidi Henkel

Henkel has been working for Broomfield since 2007, where she was a teacher and a math tutor. She worked on the Broomfield Resettlement Task Force, helping refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan. Henkel supported Senate Bill 181, legislation born from years of advocacy that returned greater local control over oil and gas development near homes and schools. Henkel also garnered over 60% of the delegate share at assembly.

Incumbent Kenny Nguyen has worked for nonprofits as well as the lieutenant governor in recent years. However, Nguyen brings less experience and a less developed policy platform than Henkel in this district. His platform on climate and workers’ rights lacks specificity, and while his platform mentions immigration, it makes no reference to ICE.

With her focus on affordability, Democrats should be excited to see what Henkel can do in this term.

The post 2026 Colorado Primary Election Endorsements 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.

This piece is part of Yellow Scene Magazine’s Opinion section. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent a reported news position. At Yellow Scene, opinion pieces speak freely, challenge assumptions, and say the quiet parts out loud.

Oil hasn’t been in the news this much since Diddy’s trial last fall.

In another essay I ranted about the media’s obsession with gas prices. Children are slaughtered in Iranian schools and thousands have died elsewhere in the Mideast, but those damn gas prices!  If I see one more entitled American whining about the cost of filling the ravenous tank on the pickup they use only to drive to Starbucks…

Oil is in the news these days in my hometown of Erie. A political flare-up has been sparked by our Town Council’s rather sneaky negotiations to either sell or lease the town’s mineral rights. The process is driven by the conservative majority and their methods are Trumpesque: Highly secretive, probably self-dealing, and rife with obvious conflicts of interest.

A note on the euphemistic phrase “mineral rights.” In policy and public discourse this phrase is employed to wash a patina of innocence over the dirty business of the oil and gas industry. “Mineral” is a class of substances including diamonds, emeralds, gold. and quartz. 

Our no-longer-little town is not haggling over the rights to mine for gold or emeralds. It’s all about “Drill Baby Drill.” Most community chatter is about the comparative benefits of leasing vs. selling. The esoteric economic calculations should be of little interest. Whether in our town, the nation, or the withering planet the only calculation should be the toll on our communities or the planet’s health. 

The local quest for more oil and gas includes horizontal drilling of nearly five miles. This bit of trickery allows a greasy corporation to set up extraction businesses in a more sympathetic or stupid jurisdiction and then access the “minerals” from beneath homes like mine. Health and environmental concerns be damned. The oil and gas companies assure us that there are no health and environmental risks. Ummmm…yeah, sure. The risks are significant and quantifiable.

As with bitching about gas prices, the earnest capitalists in our community are focused on money, not ethics. “The sale or lease of “mineral rights” will benefit the town!” “Imagine the tax savings!”

Should the odd conservative or oil baron accidentally land on this essay, I will acknowledge that the topic of the world’s energy resources is complex, perhaps beyond my progressive educator ken. I know that a windmill in every backyard or a sudden total switch to so-called “renewables” is not possible.

But it is undeniable that burning fossil fuels is bad—inarguably catastrophic—for the planet and our survival as a species. But despite that inevitability, ya know – those gas prices! We’ve gotta keep that oil swooshing through the vulnerable pipes beneath my grandchildren and through the Strait of Hormuz.

The enormous, and enormously complex, global economy largely runs on fossil fuels. Starving that beast can have dire consequences. The world, at least the privileged world, is gluttonous. A gastric band—pardon the pun—might reverberate through the world economy in ways that would also cause great harm. But as with gluttons everywhere, a little diet wouldn’t hurt. 

In a chat with one of my many doctors this morning, we commiserated over the broad abdication of our collective responsibilities for the future of our children and (my) grandchildren. I used to claim, with empirical justification, that my environmental conscience was selfless, that I would not be alive to see the devastation being wrought by our greed and ignorance. Now, through the years gifted by my medical treatments and by way of several decades of flaccid environmental activism, the effects of global warming are bearing down on my retirement years like a freight train of oil cars.

Pushing back on powerful corporate interests, climate change denialists, and oil-slick local politicians is like trying to stop that freight train. It takes every set of hands we can muster.

The answer to Erie’s “sell or lease” question is “none of the above.” We should hold on to  “mineral rights” as if they are the diamonds and gold they are not. Will saying “no thanks” have economic consequences? Perhaps. Can it even stop them? Perhaps not.

The struggle to save the planet requires all world citizens to do what they can. Conserve energy, use alternatives when feasible and point out the gas and oil industry’s greed and dishonesty to your family, friends, neighbors, enemies and Town Council members.

And don’t whine about oil prices. The higher they are, the less we burn.

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 Nelson’s Corner: Don’t Whine About Gas Prices 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.

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.

To learn more, you can find background stories here.

Press releases are provided to Yellow Scene Magazine. In an effort to keep our community informed, we publish some press releases in whole.

Council to Host Public Meeting on Draco Well Pad and Mineral Rights

Tuesday, April 21 at Town Hall and Online Participation

The Town of Erie Town Council will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, April 21 from 6-10 p.m. at Town Hall (645 Holbrook Street) to hear from residents about a possible sale of Erie’s mineral rights at the Draco Well Pad. Community members are encouraged to participate and may sign up in advance to provide public comment.

The meeting will be held live on Zoom (accessible at www.erieco.gov/CouncilMeeting) and streamed on YouTube (www.youtube.com/eriecolorado), allowing residents to watch and participate from anywhere.

Meeting Details

When: Tuesday, April 21 from 6-10 p.m.

Where: Town Hall Council Chambers | 645 Holbrook Street

Agenda:

Brief Staff Presentation

Public Comment (non-interactive with Council)

Meeting Wrap Up (no Council vote will be taken)

Materials: Staff presentation is available for review.

Public Comment Details

Residents may speak either in person or online. While early sign-up through the online form is strongly encouraged, participants may also register to speak up until the start of the meeting. Speakers will be called in the order in which they have signed up.

Each speaker will be allotted three minutes to address the Council. If more than 20 speakers register, speaking time will be reduced to two minutes to allow broader participation.

Speakers may choose to pool their time with one additional participant, allowing a designated speaker to use the combined time. A 20-second warning will be given before time expires, and speakers will be asked to conclude promptly at the buzzer.

Presentations are not permitted during public comment; however, written materials may be submitted to the Town Clerk for distribution and inclusion in meeting records.

Attendees are asked to keep any signs or materials small enough to avoid obstructing others’ views. A general estimate of speaking times will be posted on the day of the meeting. Due to anticipated attendance, participants are encouraged to watch portions of the meeting remotely when possible to help accommodate others.

For questions regarding the meeting or public comment process, please contact: communications@erieco.gov.

Translation & Accessibility

Persons planning to attend the meeting who need sign language interpretation, translation services, assisted listening systems, Braille, taped material, or other accommodation should email the Town Clerk’s Office at townclerk@erieco.gov or call 303-926-2710. Please submit requests at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

Si requiere una copia en español de esta publicación o necesita un intérprete durante la reunión del Consejo, por favor llame a la Ciudad al townclerk@erieco.gov o 303-926-2710. Por favor envíe sus solicitudes al menos 48 horas antes de la reunión.

The post Council to Host Public Meeting on Draco Well Pad and Mineral Rights: April 21st, 2026 appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

Submitted by Steve Drew, Erie Homeowner

March 26, 2026 

This Letter to the Editor is meant for Erie families, homeowners, business owners, and mineral rights holders. This is worth a read if you own a home in Erie or could be impacted in other ways by the expansion of fracking in Erie. 

PLEASE reach out to your Erie Council Members and Mayor Moore if you have any questions or would like to provide them with comments. They have the answers.

I am one of your Erie neighbors who happens to have over 20 years of experience in the energy space. I’m not generally politically motivated, but I was alarmed when I read a Yellow Scene Magazine article about how Mayor Moore and members of the Town Council were negotiating with Civitas, the owners of the Draco Pad. 

I dug in and, yes, what Yellow Scene reported is true. The Erie Town Council has been in active negotiations for over 6 months to:

• Annex Draco Pad and future ‘hydrocarbon production properties’ into the Town of Erie
• Sell Erie-owned mineral rights to Civitas and/or other oil and gas companies
• Pay the former Civitas COO $4.5 million to help Erie in this process

A Civitas Offer Brings Erie’s Mineral Rights Into the Spotlight

Erie Mineral Rights Deal Advances Largely Out of Public View, Raising Concerns Over Transparency and Conflicts

What the heck!  Why have Erie families not heard about this? Why have there not been any meetings or information provided by Mayor Moore and the Town Council on this? 

So we have two BIG issues today. One is the financial, health, and environmental impact that fracking expansion would have on Erie homeowners and mineral rights holders. The second is the fact that Mayor Moore and certain members of the Town Council have chosen to withhold all details from Erie families.

The good thing is that this decision has yet to be made. The bad thing for Erie families is that the Town Council stated that they will bring a binding contract to vote … but have chosen not to provide a timeline in addition to not holding meetings to solicit feedback from Erie families, and in addition to holding ALL information around these discussions in Executive Sessions out of the public view.

Why are Mayor Moore and Town Council members doing this? Great question, and it’s one that you really need to ask Mayor Moore and certain Town Council Members.

Why have Mayor Moore and certain Town Council members withheld non-confidential information from Erie families about this deal? Why have they not held informational meetings when this could have a major impact on home values and more? Another good question for this group.

Why did the Town Council hire the former Chief Operating Officer for Civitas for $4.5 million to represent Erie in negotiations with Civitas? This was the same executive who presided over Draco Pad – does he still have financial interests with Civitas or affiliates? Again … questions that only Mayor Moore and certain Town Council Members can answer. But they have chosen not to answer. 

Here are the Town Council Members who voted ‘yes’ to hire this Civitas executive for $4.5 million. Best to reach out to them for your many questions:

• Brian O’Connor, Council Member – District 3
• John Mortellaro, Council Member – District 1
• Brandon Bell, Mayor Pro Tem
• Andrew Moore, Mayor

This group of four from the Town Council has stated that they cannot provide information due to Executive Session confidentiality. That’s a process where the Town Council is allowed to keep confidential information related to things such as negotiations from the public. The issue is that the Town Council is also keeping non-confidential information from us, Erie families, as well. They have chosen not to provide their intent, plan, updates, timeline, and to not include input from Erie citizens.

They have also stated that Draco Pad is a done deal, so Erie might as well make money off of the situation. That raises many more red flags and questions. If Erie held onto these rights, could it block some of the Draco Pad fracking process and protect those homeowners? Would it allow Civitas to force-pool Erie families that own mineral rights? Would this be an expansion of future fracking, leading to more Draco Pads and more of Erie impacted?

Mayor Moore and the Town Council have not responded to these questions, citing confidentiality. Goodness, that’s a heap of red flags for any Erie citizen.

Does all of this feel a little odd? It did to me, so I spoke about this to the Town Council on March 14th, and several of our Erie neighbors spoke up on March 24th. That is the only venue that this Town Council group has provided for public input. 

We asked the Town Council to slow down and set up public meetings. To share non-confidential information about their plans and to solicit feedback from Erie homeowners, families, business interests, mineral rights holders, and more. To address our concerns.

I asked each individual Council Member to commit to holding these sessions and follow-ups before bringing any contract to a vote. We have yet to hear back.

We also asked the Town Council to end the rolling process of hiding information from Erie families through Executive Session. These Executive Sessions are not meant to be used to withhold non-confidential information from the public. To stop this process, we only need three brave Town Council members to stand up against four.

What a mess. And it’s one that is ongoing as long as Mayor Moore and the Town Council continue to patronize Erie families. “We hope to find a time.”’ and “there are certain things that we will be able to discuss in the future comments.” It’s four members of the Town Council who have chosen not to share a thing with us for over 6 months. 

Can this Town Council and the Mayor share Executive Session ‘confidential’ information? Absolutely. Mayor Moore chose to take ‘confidential’ information out of Executive Session on December 16th and to make it public to help bolster the reason to hire our $4.5 million Civitas executive. This was a selective release of Executive Session ‘confidential’ information that shows how holding information from Erie families is a choice. Not a rule or the law.

Please step in with questions directed to Brian O’Connor, John Mortellaro, Brandon Bell, and Mayor Andrew Moore. Do not accept any deflection – these are supposed to be your representatives. Feel free to get angry about this. Please be sure your voice is heard. You can email them at: council@erieco.gov

Steve Drew & Family

Erie Resident and Homeowner

Erie Town Council Meeting Analysis – Tuesday, March 24th

Steve Drew, Erie Homeowner

NOTE: The following was an attempt to sort out financials and to provide estimates of impacts based on the limited information Erie Town Council has provided to-date about this potential mineral rights sale. These figures are indicative and not meant to be a professional analysis.

The key here is that this is the type of data that the Erie Town Council has chosen to withhold from Erie families. Statements such as ‘this is not correct’ from Council Members should be interpreted as ‘we have withheld the correct information and continue to withhold that information by choice.’

Please send your questions to the Erie Town Council members who are voting to hold information from Erie families, homeowners and more. Ask for the facts if they claim that any estimates and analyses are not correct. Demand third-party, independent studies and transparency.

All comments, views and assumptions are from a business perspective and do not contain a legal opinion or guidance. Assumptions have been made from publicly available information.

What are some quick summary statements about this potential transaction and vote – from publicly available information? 

• It appears that the Town Council is conducting a process that would expand fracking and oil and gas interests throughout the Town of Erie.
• The impact of a ‘yes’ vote would be $1.2 billion in total homeowner losses and $80,000 in personal losses per homeowner.
• It appears that the Town Council has excluded this financial impact to Erie families from the potential sale of Town-owned mineral rights.
• If Erie were to hold onto mineral rights, the Town may be able to help homeowners in the footprint of the Draco Pad plan.
• There are a number of conflict concerns related to the Consultant hired by the Town Council to represent Erie in this potential sale.
• The Town Council is working with the Consultant to annex the Draco Pad and/or additional hydrocarbon producing properties into the Town of Erie. 

This plan should involve another set of studies and public meetings.

• It also appears that the Town Council may be on track to potentially vote for a binding contract to sell Town-own mineral assets prior to holding dedicated meetings with Erie homeowners, families and businesses.

What is the flow of money and value if Council Members voted ‘yes’ to sell Erie mineral rights to Civitas and/or other oil and gas interests? 

• It appears that Town Council is working on a deal where Civitas would receive mineral rights and other real estate interests. In exchange, the Town of Erie would receive payments and potential real estate interests. The former COO of Civitas, who is working as the Town Council Consultant during this process, would receive $4.5 million.

Civitas wins, the Town government wins and the former Civitas executive hired by the Town Council wins.

This potential deal would cause total losses to Erie homeowners of $1.2 billion. Per publicly available information, a ‘yes’ vote would be a personal loss of $80,000 per homeowner.

• Civitas could receive value in the range of $750,000,000 to $1 billion+ due to the transfer of Town-owned mineral rights

A study by a neutral, third-party should provide a much more accurate assessment of the value of this potential deal to Civitas.

• Town of Erie government would receive unknown financial and value compensation. Assume $500 Million based on value provided to Civitas? 

Any Town Council deal with Civitas and/or other gas and oil interest should be balanced based on the value that company receives. 

• Consultant and former COO of Civitas receives $4.5 Million paid by Town of Erie.

The contract is structured so that the Consultant gets paid irrespective of results.

• Erie homeowners and families lose $1.2 billion in home values
• 15,000 Erie homes * $800,000 average value = $12 Billion 
• 10% impact to home value based on independent studies = $1.2 Billion

Why so many assumptions?

The Town Council has both the authority and choice to discuss with Erie families all non-confidential information related to the potential sale of Town-owned mineral rights. This can be done through dedicated meetings and regular communication.

Since the start of this process in 2025, the Town Council has chosen to not set up any dedicated public meetings designed to explain the Council’s plan, intent, timelines, checks-and-balances or to solicit feedback. All of this is non-confidential information.

The Town Council has used rolling Executive Sessions since Civitas provided an offer to acquire Town of Erie mineral rights in mid-2025. These Executive Sessions have been used to shield both non-confidential information and confidential dealings from Erie families and citizens. 

• Has the Town Council hired neutral, third-party consultants who can provide more accurate assessments of value? When will the Town Council share this information?
• Has the Town Council solicitation process incorporated a wide range of interest from the top US oil and gas companies? Competitors of Civitas / SM Energy? When will the basics of this process be shared so that Erie citizens know the assets have been property valued?
• Has the Town Council conducted a full study on the impact to Erie homeowners? Business owners, families and other property owners? When will this study be shared?
• What additional information can the Town Council provide to help Erie citizens understand this potential deal better?

Any additional considerations for a $1.2 billion loss in Erie in home values?

Does the Town Council have a plan in place to compensate Erie homeowners for losses incurred due to this potential Town Council decision?

• Does the Town Council have a strategy where revenues received from this transaction are greater than projected individual home value losses? A plan in place to compensate Erie homeowners for the difference?

Would the Town of Erie, Weld County and/or Boulder County need to raise property taxes based lower property values from this Town Council decision?

• Has the Town Council calculated the net impact that these home value losses would have on the portion of Town budget based on property values? 
• What would be the impact to property values in Weld County and Boulder County budgets that may cause the Counties to raise taxes on Erie homeowners?

What can the Council do to provide an update to the public and to provide appropriate commitments?

As noted above, the Town Council has had the power to open up discussions with Erie families since mid-2025. Erie families and homeowners could use some commitments from the Council around timing, processes and transparency:

1. Would the Council commit to ending the Executive Session cycle starting this evening? 
2. Would the Council commit to holding off any potential vote on this issue until after a series of dedicated meetings to provide intent, plans, timelines, studies and the solicitation of feedback from Erie citizens?
3. Would the Council commit to bring in neutral, third-party specialists to assess the impact of this potential decision on Eire property owners?

Is there anything the Council should not do in this process?

The Council should not push to vote prior to appropriate studies, dedicated meetings, solicitation of feedback and more. 

If this rush somehow does occur, Council Members should vote ‘no’ to sell Erie mineral rights to Civitas and/or other oil and gas interests.

What value is there if Erie were to hold onto mineral rights?

It appears that there may be existing Town-owned mineral rights that may impede the current Draco Pad project. Mayor Moore spoke about Civitas providing the Town of Erie with an offer to acquire mineral rights and/or real estate interests in 2025. Around the same time, the State placed limits on the duration of Draco Pad fracking operations through October 2027. The timing of this offer indicates that Erie may hold mineral rights and/or real estate that could impede the Draco Pad footprint, cost and/or timing.

The Town of Erie hired the Consultant to review the location of all Town-owned mineral rights. By now, the Council should have a non-confidential map of all rights and what those would mean from a Town of Erie perspective.

If any of these could potentially block some of the Draco Pad fracking operations, the Town would be able to save some neighborhoods and homes from home value losses. 

• Will the Town Council share the non-confidential location of Town of Erie mineral rights and related real estate interests? 

This should help Erie property owners understand the potential impact to their homes and properties from this potential deal.

• Has the Town Council developed a study from a neutral, third-party to assess the value of Erie mineral rights to block current and future impacts to home values? Specific impacts related to the Draco Pad operations?
• Will the Town Council commit to share these results and value this impact in any potential sale decision?

Additionally, the value of Erie mineral rights will only go up over time. There is no logical reason for the Town of Erie to rush a sale at this moment when overall valuations will be higher in 2027 and beyond. 

• Will the Town Council provide studies and reasons as to why it appears that this potential sale appears to be happening today rather than a future date when values will be higher?

What is your business assessment of the Consultant contract and scope of work?

The Erie Town Council voted 4-3 during the December 16th Town Council Meeting to hire Matthew Owens of Alameda Mineral Advisors. Just 18 months prior, Matthew Owens was the Chief Operating Officer of Civitas, the owner of the Draco Pad project. 

‘Yes’ votes to hire the former Civitas executive and advance the sale of Erie mineral rights: Council Member Brian O’Connell (District 3), Council Member John Mortellaro (District 1), Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell (District 2), and Mayor Andrew Moore

Civitas provided an offer to Erie? And Erie hired the former Civitas COO to represent Erie in valuing Erie assets and negotiations with Civitas 

• Will the Town Council provide assurances that the Consultant did not have financial connections to Civitas, SM Energy and/or any affiliates at the time of signing? Ongoing or future financial or value-based connections?
• Was this Consultant required to keep all confidential information from Civitas during this process that may impact the potential deal?

Two documents were provided during that meeting. A scoping document from Alameda Mineral Advisors that indicates someone from Staff or the Town Council reached out to him first. And a contract to hire him as Consultant. 

Mr. Owens provided the Town Council with an offer to cover the valuation of Town-owned mineral rights and to be paid 7.5% of all value in any potential sale of those rights. This offer stated that he would not be paid unless there was a sale or transaction.

The contract expanded his scope to include running a solicitation process that would result in a binding bid for the Erie mineral rights. In exchange, he would be paid up to $4.5 million and he would be paid irrespective of a sale. 

• Will the Town Council provide an explanation as to how an offer to ‘work for free if no sale’ shifted to several ways in which the Consultant would get paid $4.5 million from the Town of Erie?

This includes payment upon termination of the agreement, payment for transactions in the future where the Consultant may or may not be involved, payment for a range of future real estate deals, and more.

What is going on with the Town Council’s plan to annex the Draco Pad and/or additional hydrocarbon-producing properties into the Town of Erie?

Part of the Town Council’s agreement pays the Consultant based on:

Sum of total any future ad-valorem taxes received by the Town as a result of hydrocarbon production occurring on or from the property in the Draco Plan Area that is annexed into the Town, as part of transactions or agreements negotiated by Consultant 

Per the terms of this contract, the Town Council has directed the Consultant to negotiate on Erie’s behalf the annexation of the Draco Pad and/or additional oil and gas properties. 

These negotiations are underway, and Erie families have yet to hear from the Town Council about this annexation.

• What are the Town Council’s plans and timeline related to the planned annexation of the Draco Pad property into the Town of Erie?
• What studies has the Council conducted related to the financial, reputational, and environmental impacts and/or liabilities to the Town as well as Erie citizens?
• Will the Town Council commit to dedicated meetings with Erie residents to explain the Council’s plans, timeline and to solicit feedback?

Any additional concerns around the Consultant contract and scope of work?

SOLICITATION TRANSPARENCY

I was unable to find any public postings, RFIs, and/or solicitation materials related to this process. 

• Was the solicitation of other offers run as an open and transparent process or was it run at the discretion of the Consultant?
• Will the Town Council report a complete list of companies contacted and companies engaged in this solicitation? 

SOLICITATION CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND TAXPAYER EXPOSURE

The issue here is that any solicitation process should involve the major US oil and gas companies – all competitors to Civitas and SM Energy. There may be legal exposure to Town of Erie taxpayers if Civitas competitors were excluded from this Town Council-sponsored solicitation process. That legal exposure may be greater if the former COO of Civitas selects Civitas or an affiliate as the winning bid. 

• Has the Town Council conducted a review of this solicitation process and potential impacts on the Town of Erie taxpayers?
• Is there an agreement in place where the Consultant will take legal responsibility for how the Consultant runs the valuation, solicitation and award of a binding bid?

Any concluding comments?

Most of these issues could have been resolved through openness and transparency. Through solicitation of guidance from unbiased experts and from Erie constituents. 

My hope is that the Town Council sees this the same way and chooses to ‘hit the reset button’ on this potential sale of Erie mineral rights, the potential annexation of fracking properties, and more. Slow your roll and perform fiduciary duty for all parties involved. This is a game of $ Billions and should be treated as such.

It feels like the Town Council is on a path to make Erie: The Capitol of Colorado Fracking at the expense of what Erie families, business and homeowners love about the town. Both a financial expense to Erie citizens as well as to the future of Erie itself.

APPENDIX – DETAILS AND ASSUMPTIONS

This information was gathered from publicly available documents and Town Council meetings. This review is from a business perspective and is not a legal review.

Links for references:

• VIDEO: December 16 Council Meeting and vote to approve the former Civitas executive to represent Erie (Starts 3:02:45)
• Consulting scope of services document from Matthew Owens, former Civitas COO
• $4.5 million Consulting Agreement on behalf of Erie 

NOTE: Everything in this document is from publicly available information and is meant as an informative, business-level review. This is not legal guidance and makes no legal claims. The use of ‘Civitas’ is per Mayor Moore’s disclosure that the company made an offer to buy Erie mineral rights in 2025. Civitas merged with SM Energy in early 2026 and the company owns the Draco Pad project. 

What is a quick update on the Draco Pad and fracking impact on Erie?

Draco Pad fracking operations are moving ahead and it does not appear as if holding onto Erie mineral rights can stop this process. 

Can holding onto Erie mineral rights potentially help some Erie families?

Yes. The State of Colorado provided approvals for this project, but also provided operational timelines that need to be met by Civitas.

“…pre-production at the site — which includes drilling the wells — will be completed no later than May 13, 2028, with a reasonable attempt to finish by October 2027, to limit the impacts to nearby residents.”

Per Mayor Moore, Civitas provided Erie with an offer to acquire Town-owned mineral rights at some point in 2025. Civitas, the owner of Draco Pad, is both on a deadline and may need additional approvals from the Town of Erie to fully complete the project.

The map below can be found through basic web searches. It shows the Draco Project pad and 26 fracking lines heading west approximately 5 miles across Erie. 

What is the estimated financial impact of fracking on homeowners and families? 

NOTE: Home value losses are personal and any government revenues from the sale of Erie mineral rights should not be considered an offset. 

According to independent studies from Duke University and James and James, homeowners impacted by fracking operations lose 2% to over 25% of property value. The range depends on how close the home is to fracking operations, visual impacts and whether home buyers have other home choices nearby that are not impacted by fracking.

We can assume an average drop in homeowner value of 10% from these studies. The average Erie home value as of early 2026 is $800,000.

Erie families lose from  $16,000 to $200,000 per home from fracking impacts. On average, this is a loss of $80,000 per homeowner. 

Erie has 15,000 homes as of early 2026. If the sale of Erie mineral rights would create a fracking impact to every Erie homeowner that would be a total $1.4 Billion in lost home value. 

Is this estimate correct?

No.  It is the best we have available given publicly available information and it shows that the impact on Erie homeowners can be huge. It would be best if the Town Council hired a non-biased consultant who could provide an expert analysis and if the Town Council shared that information with Erie families.

Has the Town Council provided any studies or information on the impact that a ‘yes’ decision would have on Erie homeowners?

No. The Town Council may have conducted studies that show the impact to Erie homeowners, but has yet to share this information.

What has the Town Council shared about financial impacts?

It appears that the Town Council deal is focused on revenues for the Town of Erie. These would be government revenues rather than the personal financial impact on Erie families.

The Town Council has yet to share any information or consideration about the financial impact on Erie homeowners. 

• Will the Town Council share information from third-party studies that show the impact to Erie homeowners from a ‘yes’ vote? 
• Why is this the Town Council holding this non-confidential information from Erie families? 
• Why has the Town Council not held meetings dedicated to non-confidential information such as the Town Council’s plans, timelines, studies, results and related? 
• What are the Town Council’s plans for reimbursing homeowner losses due to this potential sale?
• Will there be enough revenues from this sale to cover those home value losses?

Would the Town of Erie, Boulder County and/or Weld County need to raise taxes if this decision causes a wide drop in Erie home values?

Unknown.  This depends on the full impact if Council Members chose to vote ‘yes’ in this potential sale. The Town of Erie plus Boulder and Weld counties, would need to evaluate the tax base impact of a potential $1.4 billion loss to Erie home values.

Once again, the Town Council should share any studies the Council has conducted related to homeowner values related to a ‘yes’ decision. This should be compared to current budget estimates and whether this might cause potential tax increases for Erie residents. 

Could the Town Council help Erie homeowners impacted by Draco Pad? 

Yes. But only if the Town Council does not sell Erie mineral rights to Civitas and/or other oil and gas companies.

In this map, the ‘green star area’ of the Draco Pad project is sheltered from the impact of the Draco Pad project. Fracking lines in this section end short of five-mile goals. On the scale of 2% losses to 25%, these Erie home values will be impacted much less than average. 

It is also an example of how the Town of Erie could use mineral rights to block some fracking lines. But only if Erie continues to hold these rights and the Town Council chooses to not sell them to Civitas and/or other oil and gas companies. 

The following is an example of how keeping Erie mineral rights could help two different neighborhoods – using Mayor Moore’s neighborhood (green star) and Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell’s neighborhood (blue star):

• Mayor Moore’s house is in the green star area. This Arapahoe Ridge region is shielded from the Draco Pad fracking impact and homeowners there may see only a small financial impact. Estimated at 2% or $16,000 loss per homeowner.
• Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell’s house is in the blue star area where the impact from fracking may be much higher. Potentially up to 20% loss to home values to this neighborhood or $160,000 loss in value per homeowner. 
• If the Town of Erie holds mineral rights that could shelter Mayor Pro Tem Bell’s neighborhood from fracking impacts, the Town could use this to reduce fracking impacts – similar to Mayor Moore’s neighborhood. A drop from 20% to 2% would result in a $144,000 difference for these families.
• This goes away if the Town of Erie mineral rights could help this neighborhood but the Town Council sells these mineral rights.

Are these estimates correct? No. This is an estimate from publicly available information and it illustrates how the Town Council could help Erie homeowners. Bring in an expert instead.

Does the Town Council have the ability to bring in experts who can provide better estimates? Whether the Town-owned mineral rights can help Erie families? Absolutely. The Town Council may have this information already but has yet to share these findings.

What could happen in a Town Council ‘yes’ vote to sell these Erie mineral rights? The Town of Erie would no longer have these rights and could not help these Erie families.

There seem to be a lot of ‘maybe’ and estimates – why is that?

The Town Council has kept non-confidential information from Erie families through a process called Executive Session. This is a choice by the Town Council that shields all discussions and information from Erie families. Irrespective of whether this information is confidential or something that should be shared. 

The Town Council has also not set any dedicated public discussions around selling Erie mineral rights. No information provided around the Council’s plans, impacts to Erie families, timeline or other. This is non-confidential information.

Why is the Town Council negotiating to annex the Draco Pad project into the Town of Erie? What is the impact on homeowners and families?

Unknown. This decision is separate from the sale of Erie mineral rights, but came to light through the December 16th consulting agreement.  The Town Council should hold a dedicated meeting to answer questions from Erie families about the plan and potential impacts to homeowners. 

Is there value to Erie homeowners if the Town were hold onto mineral rights? 

Yes. Erie mineral rights are a barrier to fracking and oil and gas if these companies need an agreement with the Town to utilize or cross these properties. A 2025 Colorado State law gives municipalities the right to deny forced pooling – the process where oil and gas companies can force a mineral rights owner into deals for hydrocarbon production. 

Erie’s mineral rights also appreciate over time as oil and gas prices rise and there are fewer options for oil and gas companies. Selling Erie mineral rights today would deny this appreciation in value.

What is the situation with the Consultant approved by the Town Council on December 16th? 

The Consultant hired by the Town Council to represent Erie interests was, until ~18 months prior, the Chief Operating Officer of Civitas. It appears that this former Civitas executive presided over the Draco project during his time there. 

The Consultant was hired for $4.5 million by the Town Council during the December 16th Town Council meeting through a 4-3 vote. ‘Yes’ votes were:

• Council Member Brian O’Connell (District 3)
• Council Member John Mortellaro (District 1)
• Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell (District 2)
• Mayor Andrew Moore

Was the former COO of Civtas vetted to be sure that there are no conflicts of interest? No financial interest in Civitas or affiliates?

The contract has this Consultant conduct a bid solicitation process, but nothing has been posted on the Town of Erie public solicitation site. Has the Consultant reached out to all potential bidders from the large pool of US oil and gas companies?

What are the potential impacts to Erie taxpayers if the Consultant chooses Civitas or an affiliate as the winning bid? Is this an open and fair process that protect Erie taxpayers from potential litigation from Civitas competitors?

If there is litigation from this conflict of interest, would these costs be borne by the Town of Erie or the Consultant?

The Town Council is paying this Consultant to negotiate the annexation of the Draco Pad project and/or other hydrocarbon production facilities: 

Sum of total any future ad-valorem taxes received by the Town as a result of hydrocarbon production occurring on or from the property in the Draco Plan Area that is annexed into the Town, as part of transactions or agreements negotiated by Consultant

• Is the Town of Erie able to pay Consultants based on tax revenues?
• What are the implications to Erie families beyond ‘additional revenues’ if the Town Council were to annex the Draco Pad? When will the Town Council hold a public meeting to address concerns?

Do comments similar to “We have leased mineral rights in the past so we should lease mineral rights now” reflect Erie today?

No. The decision to potentially transfer Town-owned mineral rights should reflect the reality of today rather than reference past behavior. For example the Town of Erie has a proud past of coal mining, but this does not fit with the Erie of today.

This is 2026 and the Town of Erie has changed into one of the fastest growing residential communities in the US. Our home values are well above US and Colorado averages. Our school system is the envy of Colorado and the nation. Erie’s income per resident is exceptional.

The Town of Erie is an exceptional place to live. The potential to open up Erie to additional fracking is a threat to what Erie represents today and in the future. There are direct, negative financial impacts to Erie families who have chosen Erie as a community and there would be additional negative impacts to the Town in the future.

Do comments similar to “Draco Pad is moving ahead and Erie should make money off of this situation” accurately summarize the situation?

No. This is an oversimplification that focuses on Town of Erie government revenues. It does not assess the financial impact on Erie families and homeowners.

The post Letter to the Editor: Erie Families Deserve Transparency After 4–3 Council Vote to Negotiate Sale of Erie’s Mineral Rights 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.

The post Letter to the Editor: Erie Residents Deserve Transparency on Mineral Rights Deal appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.