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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Over the past several months, residents have raised questions about the town\u2019s selection of Alameda Mineral Advisors<\/a>, the extensive use of executive sessions during negotiations and the role of consultant Matthew Owens<\/a>, who acknowledged during a June 2 study session<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n When asked who provided that instruction, Owens said it came from \u201cthe people that hired me.\u201d\u00a0 Because Owens was hired specifically to evaluate and market the town\u2019s mineral assets, his admission became central to the legal and ethical criticism against the process.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pictured Owens being questioned regarding competitive bidding process<\/p>\n 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<\/a> on an offer for the town\u2019s mineral rights.<\/p>\n Those unanswered questions (and the months-long gap between private discussions and public disclosure) prompted Erie resident Steven Drew to seek outside review.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cThe short answer from the town was we had no rights in this process,\u201d Drew said.<\/p>\n \u201cSo 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.\u201d<\/p>\n On June 11, Drew and more than 100 residents signed a letter<\/a> asking the Colorado Attorney General\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s Office chooses to review the allegations, it could provide the first outside examination of the mineral rights process.\u00a0<\/p>\n The same day, Louisville attorney Darren O\u2019Connor, 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n The issue surfaced publicly again during Tuesday night\u2019s council meeting<\/a> 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<\/a>. 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\u2019 responsibilities.<\/p>\n \u201cWe never went to a straw vote or a poll \u2026 certainly not consensus,\u201d Hoback said. \u201cI\u2019m quite sure [council as a whole] never consented to anything of that nature.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we went behind those doors and modified that contract, well, we broke the law\u201d,Hoback said.<\/p>\n Hoback added that he was unaware of any communication authorizing such a change. \u201cI was not a part of any emails and texts,\u201d he said. \u201cI\u2019m wondering where [Moore] got that.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2019s position. A few supporters of the SM Energy agreement have also argued that the deal secures valuable concessions, protections and financial benefits for Erie.<\/p>\n Whether the Attorney General\u2019s Office takes action before the June 16 vote<\/a> remains unclear. What is clear is that the controversy has expanded beyond the proposed agreement itself. For a growing number of residents<\/a>, the central question is no longer whether the deal is good or bad, but whether the process used to reach it followed the town\u2019s own rules.<\/p>\n Yellow Scene reached out to each town council member for comment and did not receive a response.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/6-9-2026_Erie_Owens-e1781364282245.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/6-9-2026_Erie_Bell.png\")
<\/p>\n