The invoice <\/a>shifts the public debate from whether the SM Energy deal itself was a good idea to how the consultant\u2019s compensation was calculated. Unlike traditional consulting agreements billed by the hour, Alameda\u2019s fee is entirely contingency-based, meaning the firm\u2019s payout was tied directly to a percentage of the total value of the deal it negotiated rather than the time spent working. While Owens\u2019 original proposal <\/a>sought a flat 7.5% of the deal\u2019s total value, the final signed contract capped Alameda\u2019s payout at $4.5 million unless the Town Council approves a higher amount in writing. To establish the $402 million valuation that would trigger the maximum cap, the invoice reads less like a bill and more like a speculative corporate valuation.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n The most immediate discrepancy in Alameda\u2019s math lies in how it values the 158 acres of County Line Road transferred to the Town as part of the deal. Erie\u2019s own professional appraisals valued this land at approximately $13.6 million. However, Alameda\u2019s invoice prices the exact same acreage at $71.3 million, which translates to $450,000 per acre. Owens defends this five-fold increase by claiming the Town\u2019s February 2026 appraisals only reflected the land\u2019s raw, undeveloped state. He argues the land is far more valuable now that the deal is finalized, citing a pending transaction in nearby Lafayette as a comparable benchmark for its future development potential. Using the Town\u2019s appraisal, the land contributes $13.6 million toward Alameda\u2019s compensation formula. Using Owens\u2019 methodology, it contributes over $71 million, adding nearly $58 million to the paper value of the deal before any other categories are considered.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n Beyond the real estate, the remaining $330 million of Alameda\u2019s valuation relies on future-looking assumptions. The largest component is $285.5 million in projected future tax revenue. Accounting for more than 70% of Alameda\u2019s total valuation, this figure represents the tax revenue Erie might collect over several decades if the County Line Road property is fully developed. Alameda calculated this by taking a Town-commissioned study and extrapolating the data across all its holdings.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n The invoice also includes $25.5 million for negotiated production payments and $1.48 million for reducing a portion of Erie\u2019s future oil well plugging and abandonment liabilities. In the most unusual line item, Owens values the Town\u2019s newly negotiated rights to inspect SM Energy\u2019s Draco drilling site at $12.5 million. Rather than using market data, Owens relies on a catch-all provision in the Professional Services Agreement<\/a> that allows for \u201cother sources of value\u201d to be counted if they are disclosed to and agreed upon by the Town. He argues these inspection rights are uniquely valuable because local officials have repeatedly declared environmental oversight a top public priority, citing supporting public statements by Mayor Andrew Moore, council discussions, and the negotiating history.\n<\/p>\n The invoice concludes with an explicit pitch to bypass the $4.5 million contractual limit. Owens asks the Town to exercise a clause in the agreement allowing for higher written compensation, pointing to what he describes as a last-minute effort to recover approximately $8.5 million in additional value before the agreement reached the Town Council. He argues that this work achieved \u201cextraordinary and unexpected results\u201d that justify a larger payout.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n The invoice concludes with more than a calculation. It makes a second request.\n<\/p>\n After explaining why Alameda believes the agreement generated a theoretical $30.1 million fee, Owens asks the Town to exercise its discretion to compensate the firm above the agreement\u2019s $4.5 million cap. He argues that Alameda achieved \u2018extraordinary and unexpected results\u2019 and points to what he describes as a last-minute effort to recover approximately $8.5 million in additional value before the agreement reached the Town Council.\n<\/p>\n The consulting agreement<\/a> anticipates the possibility of compensation above the cap only if the Town agrees in writing. Whether Erie chooses to do so remains a separate policy question from the calculation presented in the invoice.\n<\/p>\n Ultimately, the invoice is not a demand for 30 million, nor is it a simple receipt for 4.5 million. It is an opening bid. For months, Erie residents have questioned how a single consultant\u2019s fee could reach millions of dollars. This document provides the first line-by-line look at the aggressive assumptions driving that math, leaving town officials to decide whether to accept these valuations and pay Alameda beyond the contractual cap.\n<\/p>\n Matt Owens, Alameda Advisors, Invoice, June 26, 2026<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Town-of-Erie-Invoice-Cover-Letter-vF.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/AMA-Invoice-1043-Town-of-Erie-1-scaled.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/AMA-Invoice-1043-Town-of-Erie_Page_2-e1784250724110.jpg\")
\n<\/p>\n