Order the town council meeting on December 16th, 2025.

All right.

Will you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Which stands under God.

Indivisible and justice.

Okay.

Will the town clerk please take roll?

Here.

Here's an underback.

Present.

Here.

Present.

All right.

Thank you.

We'll see if we have a motion to approve the agenda tonight.

So I move.

All right.

We have a motion second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, say no.

All right.

We have an agenda.

We have three items on the consent agenda tonight.

The first item is 25613, a resolution of the town council, the town of Erie approving a construction contract with facilities contracting LLC for Erie Community Ball Park Ball Fields Maintenance Building Expansion Project.

That's quite the title.

All right.

The next item is 25614, an ordinance of the town council of the town of Erie granting a utility easement to the public services company of Colorado and approving the associated easement agreement.

And the last item tonight is 2563, a resolution of the town council of the town of Erie approving the amendment to extend the community development block grant program, home repair program, uh sub-recipient agreement with Weld County and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office.

We have a motion to approve the consent agenda tonight.

So moved.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion carries.

We'll go into public comment.

And this is uh for anything that is not a public hearing already on the agenda.

So I'll look to our town clerk to see if anybody has signed up.

So I have a couple people who signed up.

Um that they just put your subject was at my home.

Um I don't know whether that means it's Red Tail Ranch or something else.

Let me ask it this way.

Is anybody here to um address this tonight?

Not um involving Red Tail Ranch.

Okay.

Um if you'd like to come up to the podium here and just state your name and address for the record.

My name is Meg Noftsinger.

This is the third time I've come to one of these meetings asking the town of Erie for help because KB Homes built on the Lafferty Ranch, and they have been flooding out my home.

The last time I was here, somebody spoke up and said that it was being addressed, and they would get back to me.

I had one 20-minute meeting in which they pulled out forums and showed me that some sort of rate was the same as it's always been.

However, um, my home was completely flooded.

I have mold I'm dealing with.

There were rivers in my front yard, my back pasture turned into a swamp and made it unusable for my animals, forcing me to board them.

It was quite costly.

Um the town of Erie kept telling me to talk speak with KB Homes directly and work it out.

They had zero interest in any of that.

Um we noticed just recently this week, all the neighbors who are also affected, but I'm first in line that uh something else is going on.

So the tracks are flooded again.

The roadroad tracks between my home and KB subdivision is flooded again.

They're digging, there's dirt being moved, but nobody has reached out to our neighborhood about what the plan is.

Um I'm just again asking for help because I can't go through another spring and have all of my monies in this home for the kids and I, and I can't have it destroyed.

And so I'm asking again for someone to care enough to help intervene because KB Homes is still under your direction right now, and I need that addressed so that ruined.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I'm gonna look to our um town manager to maybe just get us an update on that particular situation.

I will.

All right.

Okay.

Um just double check, make sure there's no one else in the audience that would like to address this on something other than Red Tail Ranch.

All right, seeing none, I'll close the public comment.

We will go to the first item on our general business, which is 2565.

It's a public hearing, a resolution of the town council, the town of Erie approving a settlement agreement with Stratus Red Tail Ranch LLC to settle pending litigation in Weld County District Court.

And with that, um, I will open the public hearing and then we'll uh bring up staff.

Um I'll leave this off, uh, Mr.

Mayor and Council.

This matter before you is a proposed settlement agreement regarding the proposed Stratus Red Tail Ranch development.

Uh, this development has uh history in town going back several years, actually uh more than a decade for the initial annexation of the property.

What you have before you tonight is a proposed settlement agreement in response to litigation that Stratus Redtail has filed against the town.

Uh the terms of the proposed settlement agreement include um approving a preliminary plat for the development that would allow the developer to go forward with the development and bring a final plateled development um details uh for consideration as part of our normal development review process.

So this isn't the final action and approving the development.

If if approved, it would still require going through that final plat process.

Um, some of the key terms in the settlement agreement are that it would include plugging and abandoning the SRC Pratt, otherwise known as the KBK wells on the property.

Uh that would there would still be other wells uh on the property, but closing the KPK wells is something that the applicant has proposed.

Uh, it would provide for a new internal east-west uh street connection, connecting uh County Road 5 and on the east and Vista Parkway on the west.

Uh, they would also contribute 100,000 towards future off-site traffic improvements uh that may be needed uh in the future.

And uh they would provide additional groundwater monitoring wells to uh ensure that there are no uh problems associated with the groundwater adjacent to the site and under the site.

Um staff, town staff uh from the planning department are here if you have detailed questions about the development.

The applicant is here that can talk about all the details of what they're proposing.

Legal questions, I'll turn to our town attorney.

Um with that, I would uh stand for questions that you may have.

Um, all right, why don't we go to public comment first and then we'll bring it back for uh for questions.

All right, I'll uh look to our town clerk to see who's signed up on this uh item tonight.

Um first we have Jeff Bear.

All right, and as well, um the first person is coming up.

I'll just read our public comment script, just as a reminder uh to everyone.

Uh comment is not an interactive uh QA forum, but rather a time for you to state your comments on a particular item or issue.

Public comment provides the opportunity to discuss items that are not um public hearings.

This is the generic one.

It is for the public hearing.

Um if you haven't signed up, you could still sign up in the uh lobby, but I will ask at the end if anybody else would like to speak.

Um called upon, please state your full name and location for the record.

Um public comment is limited to three minutes per person, and you'll be given a 20-second warning when your three minutes are almost up.

At the three minute mark, you'll be asked to wrap up your final sentence.

And last, all opinions are welcome.

Uh, please be respectful of each speaker to ensure everyone feels welcome to share their comments.

Please refrain from sharing, clapping, booing, or otherwise disruptive behavior.

All right.

So, Mr.

Bear is online.

Um, Mr.

Bear, you should be able to unmute and speak.

Hello, I am Jeff Bear and live in Vista Ridge.

I'm here to speak about the proposed Red Tail Ranch development.

This property is encircled by three dumps, five oil and gas facilities, and a piece of land that was used to dump toxic materials, known as the Newhouser Superfund site.

In my opinion, uh, this may be one of the most inappropriate locations submitted to the town of Erie for a proposed neighborhood.

Hence, it's been voted down by multiple uh multiple down voted down multiple times.

Let's start with the five oil and gas facilities that encircle this proposed development.

If you watch the local news with any regularity, you have likely seen stories about hazardous events associated with oil and gas that have occurred right here in Colorado.

They happen and happen with some regularity.

I personally have witnessed unplanned venting events in the last few years from facilities at this very location.

I recorded them and reported it to the town.

Just the number of spills, spill and release emails that I have received from the town is shocking.

The high density of oil and gas facilities in the immediate vicinity increases the risk of an unsafe or toxic event impacting a future neighborhood and its residents.

It's just not worth it.

Newhouser, the superfund site on the property is another reason to be concerned.

With some rough math, there was up to 60,000 gallons of toxic materials leaked onto or into the soils on that property.

After decades of the barrels residing on that hill, it became a superfund site, and the EPA cleanup was underway.

However, there is no certainty that all the toxic waste was identified and cleaned up.

Rainwater and snowmelt, for example, can carry toxic materials.

In this case, the contaminated area is uphill from the proposed neighborhood.

The idea of greater scrapers, backhoes, and other heavy equipment digging on that property is unsettling to me.

The idea of families living there is just wrong, in my opinion.

The UDC provides a path forward and avoids putting families at risk.

Words like health safety and general welfare are used multiple times in the UDC, and they should come first when considering a development.

My question to each of you behind the dais.

If approved, would you move your family to this neighborhood?

Would you recommend it to your adult children?

A place where your grandchildren would grow up?

If you even pause for a second to think about it, you know how you should vote tonight.

Allowing this development to continue would be a great disservice to those that may someday live on that hill.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

Just an FYI, our timer is not working tonight, so I'm keeping track of it up here.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Um, next we have Siobhan Blades.

I'm Javon Blades.

I live here in Erie.

I don't give up my address because of my job.

I have people that like to harass me, so I don't give up my address.

Last week I sat in here and listened to the council very concerned with risk and subsidizing businesses.

I really hope this week you are also concerned with risk of in residential health, um, and also subsidizing a bad business deal.

I'm a business owner, and if I make a bad deal, I don't have a government to bail me out.

So, you know, it's capitalism 101.

I want to be very clear at the start.

There are two separate issues before the council tonight, and they should not be conflated.

One is the environmental conditions report, the other is the decision to build homes in an active oil field.

Even if one were resolved, the other would remain.

This environmental conditions report was commissioned by the developer, not initiated independently.

Its scope is very specific to two questions.

It evaluates whether there's unidentified buried waste within a defined residential area and whether contamination from a closed historic landfill could migrate into that area.

What it does not evaluate is cumulative risk.

It does not assess the combined impacts of oil, active oil and gas operations, multiple landfills, historic contamination, and residential construction occurring together on one site.

When CDPH CDPHE issued a no action determination, that meant no additional remediation was required under existing standards for the limited questions being asked.

It does not mean the site is safe under all future conditions.

Those determinations are based on assumptions about land use, grading, and disturbance that fundamentally change once you begin building an entire neighborhood.

CDPHE evaluates environmental compliance.

Council evaluates whether this is appropriate place to put homes.

There are 29 oil and gas wells associated with land owned by the applicant.

Under the current proposal, 23 remain active.

Only six wells are being plugged because doing so allows more homes to be built, not because it eliminates risk.

Where plugging would benefit residents but not increase density, it's not happening.

No other land use proposal in Erie's history has combined this level of active oil and gas infrastructure with residential development.

This proposal meets the minimum legal requirements, but land use decisions are not about minimums.

They're about whether or a use is appropriate.

What makes this site unique and dangerous is not any single issue.

It's the stacking of risks.

Active oil and gas wells, multiple landfills, known historic contamination, and residential construction all on one site.

Even if every agency has checked its box, this council still has to ask a dip answer a different question.

Is this the kind of place where we should be building homes?

Meeting the letter of the law does not make a decision responsible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um next we have Kim McConnell.

And mayor, I just want to let you know.

Um Councilmember Hoback is running late.

He will be here.

Okay.

Good evening.

My name is Kim McConnell, 1701 Crestview Lane.

I'd like to first thank the town council for the work you do on behalf of our town.

I have lived here in Erie for 27 years and have seen our town change dramatically.

It's crucial that we navigate these changes with great care and foresight.

While the Red Tail Ranch development is fraught with massive problems and is, in my opinion, the worst development proposal to ever come before our council, especially in regard to oil and gas and toxic waste.

I will focus my time here on two areas in particular traffic and water.

As you hopefully know, the massive increase in the number of homes in Erie and the inability now to reach Highway 7 via County Line Road have caused Weld County Road 5, Vista Parkway, and Mountain View to be inundated with traffic.

These roads run through residential areas.

That means that thousands of our town citizens daily deal with large amounts of traffic through our neighborhoods.

Stratus's proposal to build 569 dwellings will radically increase the amount of traffic on these already stressed roads.

Does the town have a comprehensive and workable plan to deal with this?

Given the U.S.

average of 1.8 cars per household, we are now facing an increase of over 1,000 vehicles to this area.

Stratus's offer of 100,000 toward calming traffic is a mere drop in the bucket towards a comprehensive and truly workable plan for dealing with the overload through these residential areas.

I implore you, the leaders of our town, to implement far more rigorous traffic standards prior to allowing any changes in any development.

Regarding water and drainage issues, the engineering model that the town of Erie used resulted and continues to result in Erie's nine-mile corner and Prince Lake developments, causing significant draining and flooding issues to the nearby communities.

Some of the consequences have been backyard, basement, and road flooding, leading to legal claims against the town.

There remain ongoing issues regarding inadequate stormwater infrastructure due to the developments.

Therefore, I implore you to use revised, updated, and greatly improved models for dealing with the acres of concrete and asphalt associated with any development, so that we do not repeat the aforementioned problems.

Thousands of our residents live near the proposed Red Tail Ranch development.

And if you allow it to be built, more unsuspecting citizens will be subjected to all of the potential problems that have been mentioned so far tonight.

What will happen if we have rain near the levels of 2013 in this area?

Vista point, the airpark, and Vista Parkway could be inundated.

It is my understanding that this property was annexed and zoned residential low density.

And I would say that low density is not what is being achieved here, given the way that they are doing the math.

But it is instead an industrial wasteland and should never ever have been zoned residential.

Thus, I would implore you once again to very carefully consider your decision to do what is right rather than what is expedient and to say no to this development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Liz Fisher.

I live in Old Town at 635 Moffitt Street.

And I've written to you all a couple of times about Red Tail Ranch.

I'm here tonight to reaffirm my opposition to the proposed settlement agreement that would approve a preliminary plat.

And I'd like to re reiterate one point that I expressed to you and my correspondence.

The sheer number of conditions of approval and the extensive monitoring protocols are a tip-off.

They warn us how reckless a folly it would be to build any homes there.

Has Erie ever seen a land use application so encumbered by environmental hazards?

I think not.

Residents have been fighting this for years.

So I ask you now to act accordingly.

Bring on the conviction and courage it's called for.

Stand up to the bullies.

Please defend and protect Erie by putting public health and safety first and foremost when you vote on Red Tail Ranch tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Jim Bryers.

Good evening.

My name is Jim Bryars.

I live at 635 Moffat Street in the area.

I'd like to ask the board to deny the settlement agreement due to the potential of the present presence of hazardous materials and the proximity of a number of oil and gas wells in the property.

These solvents that were discovered on the property have a are known for a high mobility in soil and could cause a great liability and a hazard to anyone who was on the property.

Anyone who is who is to reside on the property.

But mainly I think it would be irresponsible to build family homes and expose potential residents to these hazards.

And I think it would be a large liability to the town in the future.

Also, plugging oil and gas wells isn't a long-term solution.

They have a a long-term history of leaking.

Pressures on the order of uh that you get in a gas bottle.

They can get up, they can fracture.

They can work their way through fissures and fractures in the earth.

So I think it's a very risky business, just that alone of building houses that close to oil and gas development and the oil and gas development of the surrounding area.

So I would say would say that I'd be concerned about the town's liability and the town's moral responsibility to any potential residents who might be exposed to uh any materials on a hazardous waste site like that.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Next is Christian van Lutenberg.

Hi, Christian van Wittenberg, um, formal council member Vista Ridge.

First, I want to extend my condolences to Mayor Moore.

Annexing Red Tail Ranch with low res or low density residential zoning in 2007 when you were mayor was a mistake, even with just three existing oil and gas wells at the time.

That mistake paved the way for the debacle we find ourselves in now.

The lawsuit against the town is meritless.

The applicant has done nothing to address the findings of fact issued by the former town council.

Each finding constitutes a legally defensible reason for denying this preliminary plat.

The town has negotiated from a position of weakness, not strength.

During settlement negotiations, I believe the council wasn't properly informed that 29 active wells exist on the site, of which 17 are low producing that should be plugged in abandoned.

The developer dangled, plugging six wells in exchange for 49 additional homes and brought their false promise.

You bought it.

The truth is you have all the cards.

Let me remind you of the first authority granted to the council in the home rule charter.

The town council should have the authority to enact and provide for the enforcement of all ordinances necessary to protect life, health, safety, welfare, and property.

Here's what you should have done, and you can still demand.

First, plug and abandon all 29 active wells on the property before building a single home.

I understand this puts the developer in a quandary because they don't have any leverage.

So it's time to think creatively.

Use your connections, talk to the Weld County Commissioners, get some grants, make some public noise, push pressure on the operators.

And as previous counselors have already expressed, if you can't get the wells plugged, you're not ready to build homes.

Erie residents deserve to live without the risk of leaks, fires, and explosions from active wells, even though plugged wells carry risks too.

Second, the fundamental purpose of the town council is to lead and provide vision.

That includes the transformation of Ken Road 5 into a residential boulevard.

Demand that no homes at Red Tale Ranch are built until the landfill entrance is moved away from County Road 5.

The real risk is future liability.

You don't owe this developer a profit, which they apparently only can get by suing IBM, the Pratt family, and the town of Erie.

When they encounter one contamination, 20 seconds.

When millions in remediation costs can no longer be borne by IBM Pratt, when the Red Tail Ranch Metro District declares bankruptcy and leads the development without infrastructure.

What will you do then?

I'm going to use stronger language than my neighbor Arnold.

If the town approves the settlement is written, it is important for council members, staff, and leaders to fully acknowledge that.

Environmental risks remain unverified.

The town will ultimately be held responsible by future homeowners when problems arise after homes are built.

Today is a good day to stand up for what's right.

Choose wisely.

Thank you.

Next we have Tim Sawnmore.

Tim Shawnmore, Crestview Lane.

Council members, thank you.

I have some remarks from last week, but you have a more detailed email that I've sent to each of you as well.

You can get into more.

As you know, on June 25th, 2024, the Red Tail Ranch preliminary plat was denied.

I've spoken, and there's a settlement now before you tonight.

I've spoken to numerous neighbors who knew nothing of this proposed settlement.

I don't think information was properly disseminated to these uh Vista Ridge to really understand that the settlement is now before you.

Um, and saying that this was public uh a lawsuit from November of 24 last year that is in the public record, that should be sufficient.

I don't think so.

I think a settlement's a pretty big deal, and I think there should have been more to inform residents of what's before the council tonight.

Um I guess Red Tail and Mr.

Dean may get what they want by suing.

Uh, you've heard or may here be hearing comments again tonight of the so-called reasons the Red Tail settlement should be approved, not prioritizing health and safety per the UDC mandate, but simply to avoid a lawsuit.

We have heard the so-called experts over the years that Red Tail has paid, uh, like GeoSyntech to come here for years and tell everyone nothing to see here.

Look away.

Tonight's meeting in the settlement before you is the result of a lawsuit by a millionaire brought to intimidate and force the town of Erie to cave to his demands.

It seems, seems that the town of Erie wants the families they represent to look the other way too, perhaps, but that rests with you.

Council members, think through what your true moral obligations are, as many have stated tonight and as you're well aware.

They are to the families and the children who will not be informed of what their homes are actually built on.

Hundreds of miles of fracking wells and gas lines, producing potential for leaks and explosions.

They will not be informed of the two landfills or dumps that are surrounding them, where the city has piled their garbage for the last 30 years, a decomposing wasteland.

They will not be informed of the current school overcrowding issues being made worse with Redtail, despite the so-called science and traffic studies that refute that.

They will not be informed of the dangerous traffic racing through the community on roads that are not designed for this kind of traffic.

They will not be informed of the miles of abandoned coal mines under their playgrounds.

They will not be informed of hundreds of barrels of toxic waste dumped below their parks and homes.

They will not be informed that the developer knew all of this and still wanted to press on, hoping no one would notice.

He's not going to be here to clean up the red tail fallout.

He will have moved on.

Mr.

Dean didn't pay for deep ground penetrating radar analysis through the whole property by his own admission last year.

But to save money, did radar penetrations only on the very small portion of the site in question that was cleaned up.

What does that tell you?

In a so-called neighborhood meet and greet last year in June of 24, the owner developer, Mr.

Ledean, said, quote, there's anything else there when they scrape off the surface, it will be uncovered.

That's his plan.

Discover as he digs.

Really?

If construction is halted, will he sue the town again?

Is he a red tail going to disclose all of this to prospective families who just want to raise their children in a safe community?

No, he will not.

In that same meet and greet last year, that propaganda exercise that I was at, my wife was at, the owner lamented, quote, spending 10 million dollars on this property so far.

That's what last year is what he said.

He said, just like you have rights, we feel we have rights too.

Clearly, we're going to protect our interests, he said.

End quote.

There it is.

To me, it's about the money.

I uh yield the balance of my time.

Thank you for your time.

I do appreciate y'all.

Thank you.

So next on our list is Julie Daniel.

She's on here, but Julie, you're next.

Julie couldn't make it, so you're up.

Still you look at the room.

I think she gets her own time.

Jenny Saudmore, Crestview Lane Erie.

So continue on with what my husband was saying.

At that town meet and greet, Mr.

Dean said over and over that the city has to have a legal reason to deny him a specific violation of some code for an inspection deficiency.

He even said that Rule 106 may need to be used to force the city to name a specific reason for denial.

But not once did he acknowledge the council members' responsibility to its citizens to look out for the health and well-being of the families and the children that will build homes there who won't know the history, which is the first priority of the UDC.

In one glaring and disgusting exchange, and I brought it up last year, and I'm going to bring it up again this year.

Um, at that meet and greet, when asked about the denial of the preliminary plan of uh for April the April 2024 meeting, the owner developer just disregarded the mayor pro temp's concern for the health of the families when she shared her personal struggle with cancer.

The owner said that the council members need to tell him exactly why they denied him, not just say, I had cancer, I can't vote for this project going forward.

Obviously, cancer is an issue on this land.

Despite the obvious health dangers of a toxic landfill and the mayor pro temp's story of her own battle, he was more interested in the minutiae of Rule 106.

The case is a developer that purchased land sandwiched between two landfills and over miles of gas fracking pipeline, toxic land.

The developer then discovered the land was contaminated and now wants to sue the town of Erie to finish his plant and recoup his sunk costs.

So what if he succeeds at using the court, the court to get his way at this point?

What if he doesn't get his way at the next phase or the final plot approval?

He will simply sue again and use the court against the town of Erie and its taxpayers.

This is blackmail, and the town should stand up against this.

Is this who we want to deal with as a town?

I don't think so.

So, council members, what is your responsibility?

What were you voted in to do?

Some of you are new to the responsibilities at this council, but you should not be new to the responsibility of doing the right thing.

Your responsibility is to promote the best interest of Erie and its residents.

When the health and safety of the citizens are at risk, then other financial issues are irrelevant.

Council Bayer said last year at the June 25th meeting that this body's main directive from the UDC is to prioritize the public health and safety of our residents and the moral and ethical gymnastics to keep to a vote to be able to support this application is comical.

Do you care more about the personal interests of a multimillionaire trying to recoup the cost of his bad land deal?

Or do you care more about the interests of young families who will raise their families in overcrowded schools between two landfills, coal mines and sinkholes, gas lines under their feet, and over toxic waste dump.

Think back to the images of the workers who cleaned up the site wearing hazmat suits and radioactive detectors, then think of the young children digging and playing on the playground right next to them.

That's what your conscious should ponder and what you will be known for if this goes through tonight.

Stand up against this.

Please don't settle.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

And last on our list is Casey Hedrick.

Good evening, Council.

Uh Casey Hedrick 727, Starkey Court and Erie.

Um, I'm just here to urge council extreme caution in considering this matter.

Um, it's extremely concerning uh the potential health and environmental risks.

We see that across the state of Colorado when these when incidents happen.

Last May there was an incident in Gayleton that shut down schools and had residents evacuated when CSU came in to do a study on that.

They said that residents up to two miles away from the blowout were inhaling toxic soup in terms of the air quality that they were breathing.

So I would just encourage and urge council to exercise extreme caution if they don't feel 100% confident that this is safe for families and people that would be moving in, then not to move forward with it.

Again, I think it's been echoed or said earlier that what we need uh you all to do as leaders is to make sure that we're creating the healthiest and most safest environments for our communities, our children, our families.

And if it doesn't feel like this is what that is, then I would urge you not to move forward with it.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Is anybody else in the audience tonight that would like to address this coming up?

Good evening.

Monica Korber, 1559 Hickory Drive and Vista Ridge.

Council, I urge you to deny the Red Tail Ranch development.

This area centers on major concerns, the land's history with oil and gas wells, 29 plus wells, EPA superfund site, proximity to the landfills, Denver Regional and Front Range, which is still active, potential sinkholes, school overcrowding, soaring heights, Erie High School, and general health and safety risks, leading to you.

I I implore you to deny the initial plan that you had already denied back in June of 2024 due to these serious safety risks.

Building a neighborhood on such contaminated industrial land as unprecedented and eerie.

I urge the council to prioritize community well-being over development.

Additionally, Draco Well boars will cross through the Red Tail Ranch property, which will risk cross communication with Pratt and waste waste connections, well boars.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right.

I don't see anybody else who would like to speak to us.

So I'll close the public comment uh portion of this and we'll bring it back uh to the board uh for the council for questions.

I'm gonna invite uh at least the attorney uh from the Red Tail Ranch Development up here, and anybody else you'd like, because I suspect questions will uh be to both staff, our attorney and uh to the applicant.

I say the applicant.

I realize this is a settlement agreement, but um just want to have you up here.

All right, I think I'll just start uh on um uh the audiences left with Council Member Pest Formelli, and we'll just work our way down uh for questions that we may have.

So how many active will serve there and how many of you thank you for the question.

And I'm sorry, Mr.

Mayor, we we did have a presentation.

If if you don't want to see that, that that's perfectly true.

Actually, that's uh I did not see it in the agenda set up that way.

If you do have slides, I think anything that we could put on the public record on what you're asking for, what the development is.

I think the more information the better.

After hearing the comments tonight, I I would think that you'd all want to see um you know the the actual graphics of this uh project.

So if you don't mind, we'd like to go through our presentation.

It's on the screen now.

Um and I again want to begin by introducing myself or reintroducing myself.

My name is David Foster.

Uh here on behalf of Red Tail Ranch, I'm land use counsel to Red Tail Ranch.

Uh, and I want to thank uh the mayor and council for um endeavoring into a settlement agreement uh throughout the course of the last uh year uh plus and thank your staff and thank the community for being here as well because these are important issues, they're important issues to hear, and what's even more important is to understand that if all of these things were true, and if all of the stories in the documents that I've read online from yellow scene were true, you probably shouldn't approve the settlement agreement, but they're not accurate.

And we're going to go through that issue and those issues this evening.

So uh without further ado, um, we'll start with uh the slides.

History.

You are you controlling it?

I guess are you able to see that?

Yes.

Okay.

So obviously the history of this site was, and we have all of our um experts here in the room as well to answer some of the more substantive questions that may come up.

Um terms of the history, if you can just scroll to the next.

Is that it?

Okay.

Uh as um the town administrator was mentioning, he was just off by about 10 years because his property was actually annexed in 2007.

And at the time that it was annexed and zoned, um, there were a number of um uh landfills in the area, which was identified uh through that process.

And the town knowingly zoned and annexed this property at that time in 2007.

In 2015, the town went ahead and um revised and approved its comprehensive plan.

And at that time, it reinforced that the red tail property should be rural rural residential, easier said, um, and with a gross density of two units per acre.

In 2019, and this is an important date because in 2018, uh the contamination was identified in what we'll call the IBM uh site, but in 2019, a year after that was identified, you as a town board went ahead and amended its comprehensive plan again, and again you chose to designate this site as rural residential.

In 2021, the applicant came forward with his preliminary plat.

And at that time, there was a 350-foot setback that you, as the town board had identified as being an appropriate setback from existing oil and gas wells for residential development.

And when I say you, I know it wasn't you, but it was your predecessors, and we get to rely on the decisions made by you as a town board as we move forward.

And that's part of the balancing act tonight, is a private property right, and still ensuring that the health safety and welfare of your residents is secure, but also understanding that there's a private property right at stake as well.

So in 2021, when this application was submitted, there was a 350-foot setback for residential development.

In 2024, the Erie Town attorney at the planning commission acknowledged that we had a 350-foot setback when that issue was raised.

And in January of 2024, the Erie Planning Commission recommended unanimously approval of our preliminary plat after going through all of the review criteria.

And that's not just our planners and our experts.

Those are the town's experts who have reviewed all of the documentation that is submitted throughout the course of a process.

And then in 2024 of April, Red Tail voluntarily agreed to set back 500 feet from the oil and gas wells, because that was your standard at the time, even though we were not obligated to do so.

And so we voluntarily increased the setback from existing oil and gas wells to 500 feet.

And in July of 2024, the town uh council denied the preliminary plat.

I'm going to ask Layla to go through over the course of the next several slides the rather significant modifications that you as a town board, town council, again with your council, have helped to modify from the plan that was denied in July of 2024.

And then I'll come back up and deal with some of the the out um the uh other issues that are sitting up.

I will do that.

I hope you don't mind if I sit gotta run the machine.

Uh my name is uh Layla Rosales, I'm with Terracina Design.

I appreciate you uh taking the time for us tonight.

This is a special meeting, so extra time.

We appreciate all of those things.

I know time is valuable to all of us.

Uh so I think where I want to start is what I've got up on the screen is kind of a context map.

And really what that shows is the relationship of Redel Ranch to all of the surrounding communities that are adjacent to us, including Mr.

So I guess the point of this is that this is really contextually, it's it's appropriate.

And you know, this is the right spot for residential housing based on kind of what's happening in and around the neighborhood and the community and this location.

So site plan that we are proposing tonight is as David said, um is definitely different from what was I guess denied back in in January, July 24.

And actually, I'm gonna kind of skip around on slides here a little bit.

They're a little bit out of order from what I was hoping they would be.

So what you're looking at here is I want to kind of kind of walk you through the history of this plan.

So uh back in 2020, which is the one in the upper left uh plan here.

This was kind of what we originally submitted as kind of a sketch plan, part of this uh uh design process.

And you know, a couple things that changed in here that are significant changes is you see that there is this yellow line that kind of runs through uh this site plan.

And what that is is that's Red Tail Ranch Parkway.

So early on, we had Red Tail Ranch Parkway coming down along the south there and tying in at County Road 4 and County Road 5.

Uh, we did get some uh neighbors who were concerned about the traffic at that location as well as the proximity of Alpine Drive, which is just just south of here, and you know, just kind of the conflicts around the traffic from that.

And then also it was suggested that we adjust that road north to provide just even a little bit additional buffer between the environmental area and the residences.

So as you go on to 2024, you'll see that that road runs along the northern portion of the property now, and it ties in a little bit further north onto County Road 5.

Um, and again, this plan uh back in April of 2024 had 587 home sites, 350 foot oil and gas setback.

This is the plan that was approved unanimously by planning commission.

Uh, fast forward to 2024 of June after some feedback from town council, and we changed the plan to the 500-foot setback, as David mentioned just a few minutes ago, um, to the loss of uh 63 homes as part of that.

And that plan was denied.

So, what you're looking at today is substantially different in that we are proposing to remove uh seven of the KPK wells, and we are keeping the 500-foot setback from the wells that are there to answer your question, uh council member.

Uh, we have six active wells in the center of like technically, I guess now there are 12 active walls, but there will be six when this development comes that are in the center here of the development.

And uh there are a couple of additional wells up on the north, north of the environmental site, and then the remaining walls are actually off-site that were referenced.

So, truly, if you're looking at the area where the homes are being built, there will be six wells when the well, if you've approve the settlement agreement because of the way that the KPK uh plugging and abandonment is part of that settlement agreement.

So, you know, this is again previously mentioned uh 573 homes density of 1.97 acres, which again is compliant with the comp plan, which is under two, which is what the rural residential comp plan density is.

Uh, it is also compliant with the annexation agreement, which actually capped out the property at the 587 home sites.

So we are in full compliance with that.

In addition, I want to reiterate that this plan is in full compliance with the UDO.

So lot sizes, setbacks, housing density, uh, diversity requirements, um, staggering of fences.

I mean, there's all sorts of small uh requirements in the UDO that this this plan complies with, as well as open space and trails, which I'll get into here momentarily.

So I just want to reiterate note, nothing in this plan that we are have in front of you is uh requesting any type of variants or anything that is not already expressly permitted in the UDL.

Um so the next thing I want to talk about is this landscape buffer.

So again, we've been working at this for a number of years, and there was special consideration given to the adjacent homeowners, right?

Because the ones that are directly adjacent to our property are to our south, as you can see on this map.

And so we again wanted to make sure that we provided a decent buffer, which we've got a little over 200 feet at the pinch point to the adjacent homes to the south.

In addition to that, we've got multiple trail connections that tie their trails into what will be the spine trail, which I'll show you here in a moment, as well as the parks and trails that are available in Redtail Ranch.

So open space.

We meet and exceed actually all of the open space requirements for the town here.

As far as pocket parks go, we are required 0.83 acres, or we're giving 2.92 acres, so over three times what is required here as far as parks go.

Open space, we're a little bit over on the open space, and you can see down in the bottom left where our open space is.

It has nowhere near the oil and gas, right?

It's a it's a wetland habitat area that the town has requested that we preserve.

In addition to that, you'll see that the that the spine trail kind of runs through that and ties into the spine trail that's further to the west of us.

And then as far as uh neighborhood parks, uh the staff actually requested that we do that in Fianloo.

Our kind of early plans did include a neighborhood park, but the town uh plant parks department requested that we give cash and lo instead.

So we did that.

So again, I think one of the things that we need to want to kind of highlight here is the importance of Red Tail Ranch as it relates to some of the uh master plans of the town, right?

So this one particularly talks to speaks to the spine trail, and this this particular property does, and I know it's a little bit hard to see on this map, but you can kind of see in your master plan how the uh spine trail through Red Tail Ranch kind of connects those loose dots, right?

And then same for transportation, right?

The roadway plans.

Um, you know, again, as was mentioned, uh, Red Tail Ranch does provide a very important east-west connector between Vista Ridge, Vista Parkway, and uh County Road 5.

And that is actually in your transportation plan that that connection.

And in addition to that, I know some questions were asked about traffic and how that you know all works.

And obviously, we did the traffic reports and all of that stuff was vetted through town staff.

But more importantly, the town does have a um, I guess I don't have it on here, a transportation master plan, and it actually designates the the road uh classifications, right?

So it shows Red Tail or this connection to the east to west as a collector.

It shows County Road 5, which is the north-south as a two-lane arterial.

So we are just following what the town has already put in relationship to their to their master plans.

Okay, so that's really what we've done here, and we've proven up that that all works from a you know volume trips per day generation perspective.

A couple um, as far as intersections go, and and we've got a roundabout already existing, as you know, at Vista Parkway over to our um over to our west.

Uh, we are proposing potentially a roundabout in the center of um Red Tail Ranch Parkway.

Uh that we can work, we'll obviously work with staff on what that looks like and how that functions, but we think that this could be a good location for that.

And then as you get to County Road 5, according to all of our traffic studies, really a stop condition for the long term is is what's warranted.

But we have agreed to contribute 100,000 towards a signal at what point you know when it's warranted, and that would be something that the town would help us with, because apparently I've discovered that warrants and putting up signals randomly is not a thing.

So that is um the intersections there.

So the KPK well removal, that's a really an important and probably the most important thing that we've done to this plan to change, to change this plan and make it different from what uh we should have had in 2024.

And what you're looking at here is really the KPK wells, the ones that we're proposing to remove, were drilled between 1982 and 2011.

So they're what what I consider the old technology.

They've got the tanks on site, right?

They've got you've got in you have the big trucks that come and take the material and haul it away, right?

None of it's piped, and so it really has quite a big footprint as far as what you see above ground.

In addition to that, it includes the trucks and kind of the sub some of the traffic that's of concern as far as being able to get the material off the site.

So these six walls are what we're proposing to remove and all of the appartances that go with that.

And so what you're looking at here in the top picture is the existing conditions.

The bottom is we used some Photoshop and kind of showed what this will look like once we remove all of those existing facilities.

Now there are still some walls that are going to remain on this in this location, but all of those were drilled in 2017.

All the product is piped.

There will be no truck trucks coming in and out to to move product as relates to those walls.

And again, I kind of want to show this oil and gas kind of in the center of our area.

Again, this is not considered open space or anything like that as it relates to the requirements of the town.

We've got the 500 foot set back here, which is plenty of room to do some landscape berms and some other things to really try to make this facility go away to the best of our ability from a visual perspective.

So obviously, one of the big issues that you've heard tonight and you've heard over the course of probably most of your time on council are issues related to the environmental concerns.

If it's not the oil and gas, it's about the landfills.

Different from the information that was previously presented, of course, our own engineers have done humongous amount of work.

And you have that was posted online for your constituents, uh, 10,000 pages that was part of an application that went to CDPHE for their review as well.

And what you also have online that's attached to your agenda for this evening is the environmental consultant that you hired as a community, and that's pinion and their review and analysis of the environmental issues.

And we wouldn't be here but for the fact that our engineers, your engineers, and the state engineers say that this is a clean site.

We wouldn't be here.

This would be a very different conversation, and we'd be home watching the Avalanche game.

But that's the reality of the site today.

Again, we have our engineers, we have our uh our land use, we have our uh environmental attorneys to discuss any of this.

You have your environmental experts as well to discuss this, and you have heard from them in the past, I know.

This is a clean site.

What is important to recognize, and I think what wasn't clear back in July of 2024 and in June of 2024 is the way in which we've color-coded that map for everybody to see.

The purple area is the residential area.

So when you've heard tonight, and when you've read online 29 active wells, that's not accurate.

That's not accurate information.

There is one well site within the residential area.

Creststone has its facility and KPK has its facility, and there are six wells each.

That's 12.

We are removing the KPK wells.

We are taking away 50% of the existing oil and gas wells on this site.

By the way, even the piece that I read online said that's a victory for the community, and that's a victory for the developers.

And that's true.

That was one of the true statements that was in that piece that I read.

But there are 12.

And as Layla explained, the six that we are removing are the old wells.

They're the ones with the tanks, and what remains are the tank list facilities that don't have the same servicing needs.

And then on page eight of this summary document that we provided to you all months ago, and again, is online for your community to review as well.

Page eight identifies and is clear in its conclusions that there is no buried waste present in the residential area at Red Tail Ranch.

That's the purple.

The purple is the residential area.

And that the historic landfill associated with Red Tail Ranch property is located on a separate track from the residential area and has been properly closed under CDPHE oversight.

That's the orange on the map.

And that's what has been closed, and that's what's separate.

And that's where that historic landfill was.

And that no COCs associated with the closed historic landfill have migrated to the residential area.

And really, this last paragraph is what I think is almost worth repeating, but I will not.

This last paragraph that the residential area of the Red Tail Ranch property has been investigated more thoroughly than most, if not all undeveloped properties in the area, based on the lack of impacts indicated by these investigations, the potential for environmental impacts due to unknown conditions on the property is likely lower than on any other undeveloped properties that have not been subject to the same level of scrutiny.

This is a clean site.

And this is what the environmental experts and engineers have concluded.

And that's what's important.

And this is what CDPHE has concluded.

And this is what your own engineers have concluded.

The additional safeguards.

And these are these are issues that you've negotiated, that you have forced upon us to consider and that we've adopted.

And those include that A, we will be plugging and abandoning the KPK wells before the final plant, not after.

This isn't an opportunity for us to get a final plan approved and then later come in and have them plug and abandon.

We will have to pay for those wells and plug and abandon them before we have a final plat.

Period.

That's in the agreement.

Second, we are adding four additional groundwater monitoring wells.

And those are identified on this sheet.

Well, they're not identified in the sheet.

They're identified on another exhibit, actually, that is online.

You saw the additional four wells south of the wells that already exist.

You've asked for four additional wells.

We have found four additional wells on that site to monitor groundwater.

A hundred thousand dollars added for off-site traffic improvements.

I did hear uh one of the uh members of the community speak to the fact that 100,000 isn't anything.

I would agree with her, but that's not what this is.

This is 100,000 in addition to all of the public improvements that we're already making.

And it's for an improvement that there is no warrant for.

No warrant.

And so when there is a warrant, if there is ever a warrant, you will have the 100,000 to make that public improvement.

We are adding a split rail fence and public notice around the entire environmental site.

That's what you asked for.

And you will see on this document, every red dot along that fence is where the notice will be.

And you see a picture of what the fence will look like as well.

And it goes around the entire site.

Off all the way to the to the west side.

You'll see that it continues all the way up on to the west side.

And there was a desire for a roundabout.

Not because your traffic consultants asked for it, not because our traffic consultants thought it was appropriate, but some members of the town board, the town council wanted that.

And so we've included a roundabout because you asked for that.

And so that is another improvement from the plan from July of 2024 that didn't exist.

The preliminary plat.

For us to get to a final plat, those wells we plugged in abandoned.

We'll have to go through an entire final plat process, full engineering process, and a development agreement.

Because those are the next phases along what is a very long development process, appropriately so.

And I think I just wanted in the last few moments to go through on the last few pages.

This is the staff's review and analysis, not ours, because you see staff reports, and this is your staff that went through every single element in a preliminary plat and concluded that every element of the preliminary plat was met.

These are taken from the staff report and placed here for your review.

It's consistent with the comp plan.

It meets the intent of the specific zone district.

It meets all of the standards as well as the environmental corrective measures.

The streets and trail connections are appropriate and will benefit future residents and provide continuity to external developments and trails.

The subdivision complies with all applicable regulation standards and requirements of federal and state governments.

Subdivision is not anticipated to create any significant or unmitigated adverse impacts on the environment.

Pedestrian and vehicular access is adequately provided throughout the subdivision.

No concerns are outstanding.

That's a finding from your own staff.

And so I know that you may have some additional questions that were posed from your constituents.

We want to be respectful of your time and will be available to answer any of those questions.

But we believe that this is a settlement agreement that is fair, and we are hopeful that you will support it tonight.

All right.

Ask our questions left to right from the audience view.

So the solid waste was dumped in the north end of the site in 1960s, and then it was like remediated.

But is there any proof that it's not existing in the south end or any other place?

Did you check other places that if it is there, or do you know for sure that it's only on the north?

How did you come to that?

How did we come to the conclusion that the landfill that you speak of from 1960 did not make its way into the residential area?

Is that your question?

No, no, no.

I'm saying the all the dump was uh from IBM was there in the north side, right?

How do you know for sure it's not on the south side?

Or inside the residential area?

How do we know that it's not in the residential area?

Because there have been years and years of study, boring throughout all of the residential area over and over again.

Uh Luke from uh Luke, can you speak to oh I'm gonna have John Steeler, the um uh environmental attorney who's handled this project for the last 10 years, excuse me, my name is John Steeler.

I was the environmental attorney on this project from 2016 to the beginning of this year.

No longer an attorney, but I've got the knowledge to answer your question.

Um so our environmental consultants when they prepared the the report that you have in your file, they went back and it was also submitted to the state of Colorado, they went back and looked at aerial photos dating back to 1950.

The disturbance activity was in the green and orange area or the orange areas, and it's clear on the uh aerial photographs that that was the case.

There was no disturbance from the IBM that period to the south of there.

That's that's the first thing.

The other thing they've done is they there are a number of wells, and there were also a number of um soil samples done for foundational purposes on the property to the south, and during that operation, there was some minor trash that came up that was blown on, but nothing came up in during that period.

Furthermore, when we capped the landfill area, we borrowed the soil from parts of the southern property and came on and dug there as well, and nothing showed up.

Um in the 10,000 pages that were submitted, those are reports that go all the way back to 1990.

Um, and it really provides a pretty clear history of this site.

Um, and there's no indication that that waste was ever put on that property.

So, how sophisticated is the technology to go into 1960s to now about the aerial footage.

I think the aerial photography is done the same then as it is now.

So you think that's accurate?

Yes.

It's a it's standard, it's a standard thing that you do during um an environmental.

And work was done on the south side also, like how deep did you go to see?

Yeah.

Um I don't know how deep those test pits were for the.

Well, or my other question is like, did you go into the same depth as the north side?

Or how much I'm sorry.

Should I say that again, please?

So, for example, you dug like 20 feet on the north side to see how much waste you have.

Did you do the same thing on the south just to be consistent, or just a sampling of one feet and say nothing is uh this there was sampling done, and then we removed soil.

So, not a concrete sample.

It's just you know, sample of well, we dug, I mean, the the drill, the drill holes were put down for um what if they don't find the barrel or anything in where you dig you you you mean make Swiss cheese at the property and you still don't find it?

Okay.

So uh from your uh analysis or records, so how many barrels were removed?

I believe our we're the reports that we put together, I think there were 1300 barrels that came up that were um this is going back.

So 1350, something like that, but there were a lot of remnants of barrels on the property.

So the IBM report said that there were 1,500 barrels.

Um I think we probably pulled up 1,300 ones that were somewhat intact, and there were numbers of um carcasses, I think we were referring to them as.

So is the IBM report something on paper, or it's uh a verbal thing saying like an approximate 1500 barrels.

How do we know it is 1500?

Where'd that number come from?

That came from IBM back in the 60s.

I mean, like my question is is it like uh properly documented, or it's a word of mouth saying, Oh no, no, IBM was IBM was kind of their own worst enemy in the world.

So they maintained the log of each drum that was put in there?

Yeah.

Yes.

And that is about 1500.

Okay.

Correct.

And there is a probability of 200 ones which are calculated or uh like broken.

It's impossible.

It was impossible to calculate that because they came up in pieces.

And one more question was like on the CDPHC requirements, how many like what do you think?

Is it like an elaborate uh detailed work that was done or minimum was met?

Oh, it was an elaborate.

We we dug um around the outside of those orange areas.

Uh we dug a number of test pits, 10 10 feet um deep to make sure that we were getting we figured out where the end of the trash was and where the trash wasn't.

There were Luke, do you remember how many test pits?

Please please come up to the microphones.

This is Luke.

Let me let Luke introduce himself and do that.

Hi, Luke Fitzgerald with GeoSyntech Consultants.

Um there was a few dozen.

I don't remember the exact number.

Um, but I was on site for a lot of the test pitting myself.

Uh and uh it was uh pretty clear distinction, you know, once you're outside of the edges of the buried waste.

Um the answer your question, Council.

It doesn't, but it's okay.

Um the other question I have is uh so with the uh piped uh wells that are there, do you have any records of maintenance or any spills that happened in the past and probability of spilling or causing air quality damage?

This is these are the oil.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, counsel.

Uh David Frank, director of environmental services for the town of Erie.

Uh so in looking at the oil and gas facilities within that section, um, there are three recorded spills, all of which occurred at the Pratt F Unit 1 facility, which is in the very far, far northwest corner.

Um a long ways away, about half a mile away from anything in Redtail.

Uh as far as complaints, um there were a lot of complaints in 2017 when there was active fracking happening on that on those two uh pads.

Uh since then, there are three recorded complaints, uh, one by uh former uh trustee Christian van Wutenberg and two from me directing the the ECMC to investigate uh observances by uh local residents.

Uh so no recorded spills.

That's not to say that there isn't the the potential for legacy spills to be found should facilities be decommissioned.

Last question.

So how would you explain this like suing the town and working with them together?

investigate uh observances by uh local residents uh so no recorded spills that's not to say that there isn't the the potential for legacy spills to be found should facilities be decommissioned last question so how would you explain this like suing the town and working with them together or expecting a smooth uh transaction smooth this isn't smooth uh if if somebody thinks this has been smooth this isn't smooth sailing um but please respect at least this that there is a private property right and people have the right to seek uh legal protection if they believe that their property right was violated and I think we'd all agree with that and we believe that the private property right was violated with the denial of the preliminary plat.

And we could go into excruciating detail as to why we think it was uh I we we've presented to you and it's online for your constituents to see the amended complaint um but I think that there's an interesting statement that was both online with that uh website as well as a statement or two that's been made tonight by your own constituents that this project meets the minimum legal requirements I actually think it's well in excess of the minimum legal requirements but two people got up here tonight to say how much they didn't like this but that it met the minimum legal requirements I think that is a really important statement for us to contemplate when somebody believes that their private property rights were not um uh honored back in July of 2024 thank you that's only all right council member o'connor thank you um going back to the um comments regarding the meet and greet yeah uh there was a mention of the ground uh deep ground penetrating radar and why was it not used throughout the entire site no you're good okay um the reason that it wasn't used throughout the South site was that there was no evidence that any um disposal took place south of those orange areas and so yes there was deep penetrating and we did a grid that the state required of us to go see where it's very important to the state that you actually put a cover on where there's trash they wanted to find each and every one of those barrels EPA wanted to find each and every one of those barrels and so the deep penetrating great ground radar would have kicked back a signal that there were barrels buried.

Okay so it was it was evidence based based on the on past knowledge in the orange areas are those actual was that the actual location of the barrels or the chemical seepage um the the orange area was where we had a number of work areas in the northeast corner where we removed barrels that was where the majority of the barrels were okay the orange area to the west was mostly was basically trash was landfill um the seepage to the extent that there's groundwater issues um basically flow from that northwest down that there's a draw there there's it's not a very that is a contour map um but the draw comes down through that valley okay and goes to the west side yes of the property yes and then down into the and down in to the out to the west out towards the west okay there's a without getting into the details and I practiced environmental law for so long I became an engineer in my own head um there is a essentially a um divide if you will between that area and the south so while we have agreed and it was actually three wells I think we ultimately agreed to four um on that side uh it very well may be that those are dry because there's no water up there it's considerably higher it's a divide between the two and are those those wells are there now we've agreed to put those in the sent they're essentially called sentinel wells are there any wells there now monitoring uh there are wells along that side but closer to the orange areas and are you observing any yeah we yeah we've we've observed some diminishing amounts of contamination and by the time it gets out to the west we're getting non detects okay

No, we've agreed to put those in the center they're essentially called sentinel wells.

Are there any wells there now monitoring?

Uh there are wells along that side, but closer to the orange areas.

And are you observing any?

Yeah, we yeah, we've we've observed some diminishing amounts of contamination.

And by the time it gets out to the west, we're getting non-detex.

Okay.

The blue dots on the map for the new the four.

I know you kind of look at it.

It's a little bit hard to see.

Sorry.

Yes, I could try and zoom in on this.

Um let's see if I can zoom in for you guys.

Technology.

And that was something that we worked with David Frank as far as determining those locations.

Okay.

Does that help see a little bit better?

It does.

Okay.

It does, definitely.

I think I was looking at I've got location map here too.

So focus on this one.

Um thank you.

Um on a different note.

So of the six remaining uh uh oil gas wells.

What does the servicing truck traffic look like going through the neighborhood?

Well, again, David Frank, uh director of environmental services.

Uh that uh facility is quite modern, 2017.

Uh so you you're looking at three phase takeaway.

You will obviously have occasional maintenance uh crews out there, but there aren't tanks associated with that facility.

Um so you're not gonna have you know, hauling of crude oil from the site.

Uh so very sporadic few trucks a month.

Okay.

Yeah.

And and typically like you're gonna have you know F 150s.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um and got a question regarding um Red Tail Ranch Parkway and how it intersects with or potentially intersects with um just a parkway.

That's right near my house and I the roundabout.

Oh yeah.

Yeah.

So the I I already know the existing struggles with residents there and utilizing those traffic circles.

And are there any anticipated calming measures to slow traffic down into that circle?

No.

Just slow people coming.

No, I mean, I think one of the issues that it's not an answer to that, but I'm gonna leave, I'm gonna give Brett a chance to walk up here.

Um I do know that we've been working with the HOA so that we would uh maintain that roundabout and work with the HOA on the maintenance of that roundabout.

But commissioners, CWC Consulting 9360 Teddy Lane.

The roundabout there is an older generation, if that makes sense.

I think that's probably what you're getting at, right?

Because a lot of them I've done way more than I'd like to in the state now.

Um it should have some left loading to it.

There has been a discussion with town and engineering in the past if we will look at that with them.

But the current configuration does meet the town's code.

Sure.

I I think that's part of what Layla's getting at why she said there's no traffic calming added, because it does meet the code and there hasn't been a request from staff to update that.

Um something it probably may come up in the conversation, but the traffic engineer couldn't be here tonight, but I've worked with Chris quite a bit.

He had he sent me some notes because kind of figured that would be a conversation item.

Sure.

It is meeting the current criteria for the city.

Um it does have the actual capacity, so do all the roads around it, even per your guys' plans, which are up online.

Now the the town is going to be um updating some of the circles along or updating the circles along.

Yes, because when we first came here in 2024, there was a conversation.

I think it was uh Mr.

Hoback had asked about the intersection when we hit County Road 5 from the intersection at the time.

I tried to answer the question because it's a thousand feet.

But at that time I had talked to Dave Passick, and it was about a year and a half ago, two years ago, and the town was looking updating the transportation code for intersection spacing on collector materials, and that stayed the same.

So everything there is in compliance with what town's staff is saying is the requirements for safety and concerns for traffic.

Um I do know though, the roundabouts, because we just did one recently with you guys in a lot of field fitting, a lot of adjustments from the approved plans with staff because they chose to in the field to adjust it.

Okay.

Um they don't have you guys don't have a real defined code yet on roundabouts yet.

Okay.

Um we kind of had to help them.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Okay, Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you.

Um sorry, real quick, I just saw something flash up here.

Um, Adam, I saw uh email that the sound wasn't working online.

So if they're two things.

Okay.

Um we do have functioning equipment back there that's closing choppy um choppy sound on town lake.

Okay, yep.

There you go.

Um before I go to questions for the the applicant, um want to just briefly do an overview on the the settlement agreement.

So um Ms.

Mang, I uh so we had there was a 106 claim, and part of this is the takings claim.

So uh both the applicant and the town agreed to bifurcate the case.

Can you just for the public can you explain what that means?

Sure.

I appreciate the question and opportunity.

There are two claims that the applicant filed.

First is the 106 claim, the second is the takings claim.

This is a global settlement.

Oh, I got a little reverb.

Heard myself.

Um, and so this is a global settlement agreement that has been negotiated by counsel for special counsel for the town as well as counsel for the applicant and would be an all-encompassing settlement.

There would be no continuing litigation if approved by this council.

Thank you.

And then if the settlement agreement does does not uh is not accepted by council tonight.

So can you explain what the 106 is and what happens if we were to lose the 106?

Sure.

Uh rule 106 uh is simply a complaint that alleges that the uh decision was made in an inappropriate manner um and the case would then continue, the town would continue to defend itself and we would go through the the litigation process.

We would still do the 106 claim first and then the takings claim would come second.

Okay.

If the court ruled in the applicant's behalf on the 106, that means the plat that is approved was the one from June of 2024.

Is that correct?

I'll look to Mr.

Foster.

Is that correct, Mr.

Foster?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then also if the if the core were to rule on the town's behalf on the 106, then the taking school that does not mean that we are free and clear on the takings claim.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

The next step would be then consideration and litigation of the takings claim.

All right, thank you.

Um for uh the applicant, um can you just give a brief general explanation of uh what the CDPHE is requiring for uh monitoring of the of the site over time and with respect to that, can you also explain what how that's gonna be paid for?

Um this the town or the CDPHE requires essentially 30 years of long-term monitoring and maintenance of the facility, which means there's a couple things.

It's groundwater monitoring, number one.

Uh number two, it's inspections of the cap to make sure it's still performing, the the landfill cover to make sure it's performing in the in the manner that it was designed that they approved of, um, making sure there are no ground the groundhogs aren't digging through it because the purpose of the cap is to allow enough water to grow the grass on top, but not enough get through and to seep through the chemicals that still remain to the extent there are any in the soil.

Um the monitoring um will go on.

There's a number of wells out there.

We are monitoring right now annually.

We're talking to the state now about how those wells are structured and the monitoring is structured, and we have actually a meeting at the end of the month uh with the city.

I mean, excuse me, with the state on that.

Um how that's paid for um the state requires bonding, and there is a bond currently in place with the state to the tune of a 1.3 million dollars.

That bond is based on an estimate of long-term monitoring costs.

Um that that bond isn't good until next May, and it will have to come up for renewal, and we will have to deal with that that time with how that you know how we secure that, if you will.

With how that, you know, how we secure that, if you will.

Right.

Thank you.

Um for the remediation plan for the environmental uh area.

Um can I know there's a lot of people that have been involved with this, but can you explain is there an engineer of record for the mitigation plan?

Was it was a geosynthetic okay?

And then can you explain how the town's engineering staff, the CDPHE's engineering staff tied into reviewing of um so I know that the state has required that we submit continually submit to Mr.

Frank and the um and the town um over here, yeah, uh all of our records and and kind of plans and those of we've been on an ongoing basis copying town staff with that.

Sure.

Okay.

Um I don't I don't believe that the that uh town staff is you know come to meetings on design and things like that.

Right, okay.

Is that correct?

But suffice it to say there's been nothing from the town or the C DPHE where they have looked at the the mitigation plan to say that's insufficient, that's not uh no, we've uh at every step we we I mean if and and I know that's that some of the your constituents would say, well, this is may meet the minimum requirements.

Uh I will tell you that you should be happy that in this case the state has been on this, and EPA was as well when we pulled the the drums out.

Sure.

Um they were involved and on site on a regular basis.

Thank you.

Um also with respect to the site.

So um for people looking at the at the picture, the the there's kind of those two orange shaped uh areas, the the one to the the southwest uh portion on on the far west side that kind of extends over into an area that's not in the plat area.

Correct.

And but my understanding that's still subject to the C DPHE monitoring that's yeah, there's an order.

So the the just to clarify, there is an order from the state of Colorado, a consent order where the um stratus red tail entered into it and it's committed to performing all of this work pursuant to a legal order binding order with the state of Colorado.

And yes, um we have an easement for for on that property, one for uh stormwater purposes, right?

And two to do whatever it's necessary to finish up the um to complete the uh remediation, the preparation of the cap and things.

Okay, thanks.

Um could you also speak briefly to uh any drainage that may occur that um can you speak to what what where is that generally tending to go to and to the residents on the next seat?

All right, thanks.

Yeah.

Yeah, okay, thanks.

CWC.

That was very specific by CDPHE.

We cannot take any flow on that property.

Anything you see in the green or orange will only be natural rainfall.

Okay.

So the orange is what Jonathan was pointing out, is where they found it.

The green is a buffer for if everyone wasn't aware, but it is very specific.

Our designs working with Layla's team on the planning, specifically reroute the drainage from, and I'd be honest with you, moving Red Tail Parkway helped us.

Um it putting it over there, allows me to put larger pipes in there and move it.

All of it goes around it and goes into the pond that you currently see that that's out in the field now, going to what Jonathan was talking about, where there's the easement for it, because there was cleanup across the property line you asked.

So that pond will then turn around and interact, and we work this out with CDPHE and the town staff when this was being done, because you had asked about the review process.

Right, right.

And David's defense, he wasn't here at the time when the plans were going through, but he came in at the end.

Um so we will not have that that is a requirement that GeoSyntch and Luke could talk about if you needed to.

You're not allowed to take anything over it other than it was historic.

Now we can't have any developed flow, it has to just be natural rain runoff by Mother Nature.

Okay.

Yep, thank you.

Appreciate that.

Um to a couple things that are probably more specific to the the design of the style.

Some of this may involve town staff, so just as people if anyone's needed to come up.

Um so with respect to the spine trail.

So the and I had brought this up at the um at the hearing in April of 2024.

So with respect to the spine trail that is directly adjacent to the environmental area.

Um what uh what are we putting in place to ensure that we don't have people trespassing on in the environmental area?

Chris is bringing up a picture.

Maybe maybe bring up a picture.

No, I mean the oh it should be in uh Chris LaRue, Town of Erie, principal planner.

Um so the question is what do we do with the uh spine trail and what's the protection?

My understanding is that there'll be a fence in place with signage.

Uh I forget how often, but and there's also a detail of the message on the sign about not allowing people in.

So there's a physical barrier or the fence, and then the signage to warn them while and David, the signs are the signage is is part of the the closure plan uh as dictated by the state.

Um and the verbiage on there says uh I believe environmentally sensitive area, no trespassing, keep out.

Um and I'm pretty sure since that's part of the state's requirement that that signage will be required uh regardless of council's action today.

Okay.

Um can I follow up with that?

Go ahead.

Uh huh.

If you don't mind, I've just pulled up a picture on the screen here that shows a uh kind of how that roadway that's county road five that you're looking at there, and if you look at the left, yeah, is is the open rail fence.

Okay, and then as you can see, and then the spine trail outside of that, and then part of part of the road itself.

So in this instance, the spine trail will actually need to be part of the road.

Okay.

Road section.

Yep.

That's how that would work.

Um excellent.

Um and then secondary to that, um, and kind of similarly, uh, for the walking trails that are in the setback area for the oil and gas.

The uh there's I think there's some on the northern side of that, and then around on the southern side.

So again, uh, can you talk about just kind of the protections of the oil and gas site to, you know, again, just thinking about kids, you know, thinking we're gonna shortcut through there or whatnot.

Sure.

Uh I I will point out that there's extensive landscaping, berming, uh, vegetation, etc.

to try to to the degree possible limit the overall visual impact of the oil and gas facility here.

Um I'd love to see that around a lot of the other oil and gas sites around town that are quite the eyesore, but it is not at all uncommon to have uh walking trails uh in proximity to these oil and gas sites.

Um the site is fenced uh with a six, seven foot tall uh steel fence uh to keep people out of there.

Yep.

Thanks.

Um last question.

Hold on, one sorry, well, yeah, sorry, go ahead.

I just wanted to emphasize that thing.

I mean, these plans are not final.

We have a final platter review.

Uh so we're gonna need to take a harder look at uh the designs that they're proposing and what those are gonna look like and what safety um things are in play.

So I just wanted to note that that's something we're we need to look further into.

But yeah, oil and gas uh sites are required to be fenced and yep, thanks.

Um yeah, last question here.

Uh with regard to the 100,000 for to uh go towards traffic mitigation.

Um can you briefly explain in the negotiations how you came to that figure what what is what is the general thought around that intersection and and why we're doing this.

So um it it was a function of our percentage of what a traffic signal would cost at that uh inner intersection.

Again, yep, you know, there isn't a warrant for it, so we're kind of making it up, but that would have been our uh obligation if we had to put one in, and then of course dollars would fund it from the others.

Now the the one issue is is the other side is you know uh um you know not gonna be developed probably anytime soon.

So but that's also probably one of the reasons why the warrant isn't isn't there as well.

So yep.

All right, thank you.

That's all I have.

All right, I'll come over to council member bear.

Thank you so much.

Thanks for the presentation.

Um so my first question will be for the town attorney.

Um the rule 106 claim uh in the amended complaint um kind of draws question about whether council can consider health and safety as in this um uh application.

Can this body consider health safety welfare for our residents and our decisions as directed by the UDC?

If I'm understanding your question correctly, is it where in the 106 is the health safety welfare or I'm sorry, it's in the UDC.

The requirement um are we allowed are we permitted or is it our duty to consider health safety, welfare of our residents in our decision making?

This body has a general duty to provide for the health safety and welfare of the community.

So I think that's uh given that it's part of the UDC, it is something that the council could give the way it finds due.

Thank you.

Um let's see.

Some of my questions have been answered, so I'm gonna go through and try not to repeat.

Um I just wanted to reiterate I asked the question earlier, and thank you for responding about um the bifurcation of the 106 from the um takings claim 106 would be considered separately from the takings claim unless we approve this settlement agreement this evening.

That would settle both, right?

That is correct.

Um in the litigation, the 106 claim is going first, and it is separate from the takings claim.

Okay.

Um I'm kind of I'm curious about given that Stratus has sued IBM and the former landowners over the toxic waste dumping in 2019, the lawsuit was filed.

Um were there any admissions made during those lawsuits that would improve the town's standings in either of these?

That is a an excellent question, and one I don't unfortunately have the background on.

Um if you'd give me a minute, I can see about getting some background, but um I'm I'm not sure I'll be able to.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Foster, what was the outcome of the lawsuit against IBM?

Excuse me, that lawsuit was settled in a global settlement with Pratt the Pratt family and um IBM.

And it was done pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.

So it it was you can't disclose uh what was agreed to or terms or anything like that.

No.

Councilmember Baer, if I may, then I do not think that we will be able to get an answer.

Um if this settlement is confidential, it's probably not available for us to evaluate.

Okay.

Umline, I Googled and from the lawsuit against IBM from during the facts of of what the judge had written in uh 2022, plaintiff excavated 1145 drums from the property, 12 of which were intact.

The remainder of the drums had degraded enough that their contents leaked into the soil.

That's the end quote.

Um so I've seen varying estimates on the volumes of um toxic wastes that were spilled on this site, somewhere between 60,000 and 84,000.

So during the June 25th hearing here in Erie, um, and the rule 106 claim is concerning that hearing, the plaintiff stated that illegally dumped toxic waste remains on site.

Um, and that the it would not or could not be removed entirely, and that instead it would be covered with dirt and erect signage, which we've heard again tonight, um, designate designating the land environmentally sensitive.

That all still sound correct.

There were soils that were contaminated that were left on site only at the restrict.

Basically, state of Colorado and EPA authorized what needed to come off at what levels, what stayed on at what levels?

Those were not decisions made by um stratus or the consultants.

We obviously discussed that with the state, but they were the arbiters of what stayed on and what came off.

Okay.

So we know from environmental reports that the contaminants have moved from and into the southernmost point of the property along that, I think you call it the draw in the report.

So showing that they can have moved and in fact have migrated.

Well, we've now been we've now been so the contamination that we're concerned about didn't really move in the soils.

It moved in the groundwater.

And so we've been monitoring along the draw, if you will, and have been watching on a consistent basis the levels of contamination decline.

Um to the point where on the west end we have excuse me a well that's uh our point of compliance, what it's called.

And that point of compliance is showing non-detect for any of the contaminants that we found mostly in the far northeast part of that.

That's where the work area was, was the northeast corner of that.

Right.

Um and I did want to bring up the aerial photos.

I looked at those in the report.

There were five included between 1969 and 2014.

I think that there were some from before that.

There were but five between the what we suspect is the contamination period.

Well, actually, the contamination period was 65 to 69.

Because I think um Weld County shut the facility down in 69.

Okay.

Um I just can we be certain that those five pictures have captured the history of the that section of the landfill.

Um those five pictures, that's how that's how environmental consultants do their work is they look at those and see what the disturbance is.

I mean, I've been looking at it long enough I can see where the disturbance was.

Okay.

Okay.

Um let's see.

Oh, so do we know how the contaminants will migrate um given new hardscape parks, man, I'm sorry, manicured and managed parks, sidewalks, streets, and irrigated landscape.

We don't have any contaminants in those areas.

The contaminants, the contaminants are in the in the orange area, rolling underneath the green area, out the west side of the orange area.

And they have migrated in the water um, but yes.

I think I think uh councilman Barrell asked that question.

And what we the groundwater moves from northwest, excuse me, northeast to southwest.

And there is a ledge, if you will, a high point between that area and the residential area.

And so you're saying that that barrier will prevent any contaminants or solvents of any kind from ever going into a neighborhood or interacting with new hardscape, irrigated landscape.

Uh we we haven't found any contamination along that line.

And we're putting in the sentinel wells as well, these four sentinel ones.

Okay.

I have questions about those.

Um the CDPHE was quoted in 2018 in an interview saying that um if the soil or the contaminants are not removed, no humans should ever encounter them.

So I I'm curious about um the migration about construction um specifically on the spine trail and how construction could commence to any expansion of the road or road improvements or the construction of the spine trail along that northeast corner that goes directly over the contamination site.

I don't believe any construction will be that spine trail will be.

I think there's a road, it's gonna be outside on the outside of that area.

Outside on the road.

Yeah.

We're gonna it's a road modification or something.

Correct.

That's getting into an area that I'm not.

Okay.

So we'll zoom in on this for you.

So what you're looking at, if you're looking at the screen here, you've got the edge of the barb.

So that that line that's kind of underneath there, that's the orange line that you see on the maps, the fence, and then the spine trail.

With a two and a half foot clear zone from the from the fence itself over to the spine trail.

So it will not be.

So then do we scoot the road over?

Yeah, they'll have we'll have to work with staff on how that road gets modified, but yes.

Okay.

Um this proposal includes an additional 45 homes once the six KPK wells are plugged and abandoned in the center of the neighborhood.

Um the SRC Pratt number 3429D site.

Um plugging those wells recognizes that there is a problem with them.

And there are five oil and gas sites located on this land owned by Stratus.

And um, I recognize that earlier you said they are off site.

Um, but I I have I consulted with Kendra and was instructed that we can consider all of the cumulative impacts um that impact this neighborhood, including the other four sites um scattered around, including waste connections and Pratt on the on the east side, and then the other site that's up north uh closer to the toxic waste spill site.

Um the um prioritized plug and abandon of the six KPK wells illustrates that they are a concern.

Among the the complete five sites, there are an additional 11 wells on the property that are categorized by the ECMC as low producing and are candidates for immediate plug and abandonment.

Um and then there's 13 other wells that are approaching that uh are I guess low producing.

Um, and since we know that plugging and abandoning is a very emissive process, I'd like to hear about what the plan is for um for plugging and abandoning those wells, should there be a neighborhood adjacent to them.

Oh, I'm gonna ask you to come up in just a sec.

Uh well, start coming up.

Yeah, start coming up.

Um, I want to first just um maybe uh answer a question that wasn't really a question.

Um we don't recognize that the KPK wells are a concern.

Um you did, and that was your ask that we um plug and abandon those wells.

And we're okay doing that.

Um, but we had an approval uh through planning commission.

We were 500 feet away from those wells, and this is part of the agreement.

This is part of the settlement that we would plug and abandon it.

But that's not an I just want to be clear, that's not an acknowledgement that we believe that those are um wells that are a concern.

We think it's a better project without them there, but I just want to make sure that the representation you made is not a representation that we've made.

Okay, so to be clear, you don't think that oil and gas wells in the center of the neighborhood are a health concern.

No, and you have identified that oil and gas wells can exist within residential neighborhoods with a 500-foot buffer.

That's what you've done.

And we followed that.

Do you want to talk to what it means to plug and abandon a well?

We're not planning to do it with uh residence there, but we're not gonna do the plugging abandoned in mind.

Uh Joe Pershalo with Wellborne Sol and Mech and Thule on behalf of Stratus.

Um I'm outside council, uh, work in the oil and gas space.

Uh I'm not sure if I understand the question exactly.

I heard that I heard emissive uh with respect to plugging abandonment.

I'm not sure what you're uh what that means.

Can you yes, when there are certain operations when dealing with um oil and gas wells, racking flowback, um, and then again a liquids unloading.

Um, and then when you plug and abandon, it's emissive in that there are materials, gases, fluids that come up and that enter enter the atmosphere, and that um it is documented that people suffer negative health impacts when they're exposed to the emissions.

Okay, I think I understand your question.

It sounds like um certainly there's emissions uh involved with various stages of oil and gas operations, but at the plugging and abandonment stage, there's not.

This is where the well's gonna be closed.

I know I can't speak to every element of the physical process of it, but the way it happens is there's uh a form that is filed with the state.

The state has uh rules and regulations on the process how it's to be done.

Uh the well bore itself, what is underground is all analyzed, determine what is the best way of plugging the well, um, ensuring that there's plugs set in place, cemented in place, so that there are no emissions that are coming up after the the well is plugged and abandoned.

So I'm I I I just there's not really um a stage in this process where you're gonna have emissions like any wooded with flow back.

That helps.

Um kind of um so there is no plan for plugging the 13 other wells or the 11 that are currently uh eligible for plugging and abandoning the plan is to plug the six KPK wells.

Uh whether other wells are eligible for plugging and abandonment, I don't think that's an accurate statement.

Okay.

Um I do have some questions about um the roundabout and the traffic light.

I in our um supplemental budget last week, we approved um an expense for an $856,000 stop light traffic light.

So um I do have concerns that a hundred and a hundred thousand may be woefully inadequate.

Yeah, I I think that's the hard part.

I think what David had presented before you have a current business entity on one side that's not going to participate, unfortunately, unless you guys can force them, right?

If you look at your own transportation plans that is posted online, you guys have the figures here.

And I think this is figure uh figure 25 from your 2050 transportation numbers.

The numbers show roughly in that area, about 30.

This is the town's 2050 plan, and we're below it.

It's 30 pardon, it's 3848 or 3648 on County Road 5.

Ultimately, when it's built out.

Um I don't know how I think David's right.

If you look at the actual master plan that the town has in place, staff put together, you have um westerly, you have callers, the piece Lenar is doing, and I just drove by it again.

I drive up here quite a bit, and everyone goes to that grocery store.

I mean, let's be honest.

They all leave from there and go to the grocery store down County Road 5 or around.

And I think one of the things that probably should have been done on that long range, and David's right, the amount of money is probably three, four applicants is what we were thinking it was.

They're about 400,000.

Technically, if you can do it, you're better off putting a roundabout.

But the traffic signal from a percentage-wise, if you look at our volumes relative to the other ones that are participating in it, and that's based on the town's own numbers.

It is about a quarter of us.

So I don't know where to how to address that for you as far as where the rest of the money comes from.

But a full-blown traffic signal, depending on the type of road classification county road is it'd probably be in the three or four hundred thousand dollar range.

Okay.

Um let's see.

So when we look at the additional groundwater monitoring, um, so the CDPHE is the is the is a required requiring body for that.

Is that correct?

Actually, actually not.

Those additional groundwater monitoring wells were raised by the uh your town staff, and we agreed to put those in.

Those wells are located outside of the facility boundary.

The facility boundary where the monitoring is occurring on behalf of CDPHE is the green inside the green, inside the fence, if you will.

But those four wells were re were asked for, and we agreed to put in.

So um who how long and who will be paying for those four wells and the monitoring and all the associated maintenance and all that stuff.

Um well, the wells remember what the call schedule was, but I think we're doing it.

What's that?

Yep, come up to the microphone.

I'd say um I don't remember the exact details, but I want to say they're they're pretty small monitor wells, they're about two inch, I think.

Yeah, and and once those wells are set, I think we will be monitoring them at the same time that we monitor the other wells that are out there because we will be out there doing it.

And um it it's if they if they have water in them, um it's not a big compared to whatever else we're doing on that property is a low cost.

Okay, so we will be out there monitoring them at Red Tail Ranch or your tail ranch will be Red Tail Ranch.

Okay, for the duration of the neighborhood or 30 years or no, go ahead.

Um I that is a discussion uh if and when we get to a development agreement as to how those wells uh will be monitored and secure and the security that the town will require.

Okay, so that that's an important detail to negotiate uh with the with the community.

Okay, and so another important detail is what happens if it pings in 15 years if if uh there should be contaminant there's contamination will have to be um will it will either have to be addressed or it'll have to be dealt with by who by who by whom stratus red tail the owner of or whoever the owner of that property is there will there be some kind of assurances for the community around that you'll you'll be there to address that or to remediate or to be financially legal legally liable yeah I think that's part of the development agreement uh provisions that'll have to be negotiated with staff in the town.

I think let's see um the the bond that you mentioned earlier about Red Tail Ranch needing to renew next May.

That's I'm I'm sorry, miss the number 1.3 I think it's about 1.3 million million, okay.

Um who will ultimately pay for that?

Is that a bond that is like passed on to residents through the Metro District or Red Tail at this point?

Red tail is obligated under the consent order to provide that bond.

And we'll never um put that onto residence never say never, but I that bond, I mean, under the consent order, the consent order is with this state of Colorado at Stratus Red Tail Ranch.

Stratus Red Tail Ranch, in order to comply with the consent order, we required to provide some sort of bonding.

Okay, thank you.

You're good.

Yeah, Council Member Mortalero.

Okay.

Um Thanks for being here tonight.

Appreciate it.

Um I think it's important.

I know um town manager mentioned it early on.

This is not the approval of a preliminary plat.

This is tonight we just we approve or deny um a settlement agreement between stratus and the town of Erie for denying the preliminary plat.

Uh so the um stratus is suing the town of Erie uh for 23 million dollars plus loss of profit amount to be proven at trial.

So I want that that's important uh that we get that out there.

So um Malcolm uh if the town of Erie loses the lawsuit, um where would the money for the uh to for the repayment of the of this uh come from?

It would have to come from the general fund.

Okay, thank you.

Um so there's been a lot of talk about uh environmental studies uh by uh geo syntec uh by opinion.

Um is any is there any data in any of these reports that show the area of building uh as a contaminated site?

Not according to the conclusions drawn by the CDPHE.

Thanks.

Um one point earlier, I think you said that this would excuse me, would not be approving a preliminary plat.

It would be approving a preliminary preliminary.

If approved, the plat will get approved along with the settlement, but we're but we're here um the vote on approval or denial of the lawsuit, right?

Okay, approval or rejection of the settlement agreement which includes the approving the preliminary plat.

Okay, thanks.

Um and it was mentioned that at the time of the preliminary plat.

Um that the setback was 350 feet.

Um our UDC has now been changed right to 500 feet.

Um stratus isn't obligated to that because of the timing, but have volunteered, correct?

That's correct.

The preliminary plat includes setbacks of 500 feet from the remaining the wells that would remain on the site.

Anything that's operational.

Uh correct.

Right, okay.

Thank you.

And the KPK wells be plugged in abandoned.

And you mentioned that will be done before final plat.

So thanks.

On the uh groundwater, uh there's currently 14 in place.

Is that correct?

Uh groundwell monitoring.

The number of the number of 13 or 14 groundwater wells on site.

And what are the results that you're seeing uh from that?

Uh we're seeing uh we've got uh exceedances of groundwater standards at the work area, which again is up in the northeast section.

Okay, as we move towards southwest, those exceedances disappear and at the at the border at our point of compliance well that I mentioned earlier, which is at the southwest corner of the property, it's non-detect.

Okay, and those are required based on um Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Environment.

And did you say that they're required to monitor them for 30 years?

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, and then the four additional ones were locations that staff provided.

Um, and then you'll continue to monitor those, and and then the final that how long they'll be monitored will be in the development agreement.

Actually, yes, staff and geo syntec met or talked about the locations of those wells and decided on those locations.

Okay.

Um and then yeah, it was mentioned that the um around the orange and green area, it will be a fenced in area with signs every 300 feet.

Yes.

Um identifying it as a sensitive environmental site.

Yes.

Thank you.

So does the preliminary plat comply with our UDC in in town standards?

Based on staff's review, it does.

Thank you.

I think that I think all my other questions have been answered, so appreciate it.

All right, Council Hoback.

Uh, thank you.

Apologies for my late arrival.

I was detained unavoidably.

Um, but I have been through all the materials, watched some of it online, and uh been through this a few times.

Just a couple of quick questions.

Uh, Mr.

Foster, is that right?

Or it's me.

I'm sorry, no.

Um, there was been a lot of discussion about the groundwater.

Um you indicated that the contamination, if it migrates, it tends to migrate down the draw, correct?

Correct.

Um, and to this point, nothing's been found on the property where expected to be building, right?

Um you haven't done any digging massive earth movements like happening in in the link developments, though, have you?

On the right on the residential property, yes.

No.

Okay.

Um, so my concern is that very big deep holes, broad holes get dug and refilled, compacted, and uh any that could impact the the groundwater.

Um yeah.

So mostly just it goes to us.

Do you get up to the oh okay?

It goes to the digging question.

It's a great question.

So do you have a pointer?

Can you point right here?

Dave.

Remember, that's where we had to use the borrow site.

Maybe right in this general area.

We worked with the state on that with CDPHE, so it is directly to the south.

I think this might go to your question too.

About that.

We dug about a 20-foot deep hole borrow area, and there was nothing.

I don't know if people were aware of their constituents.

We dug a massive amount because that site took about 250, 300,000 yards of dirt.

So we're gonna have to rework our state plan to get this to balance, but we dug significantly along that area in spots when it was done because that had to be put in.

This is gonna sound strange, and geocentack and apply to this.

We had to take extra dirt, but it had to be placed in loosely because of an aspect that's done with this called evapotransportation thing there, right?

Um thank you.

So we took a lot of dirt out, and we did dig down 20 plus feet well below a basement elevation, and nothing was found, no contamination, nothing anything in in that area.

Uh and C DPHE and Luke was out there.

I think David saw that.

CDPHE had an inspector on site the whole time this was going on for the most part.

So they they would have pointed out something if they saw it.

Okay, thank you.

Um Dr.

Frank, if you don't mind.

Um this property was evaluated as part of the Drake Draco approval.

Um, was it not?

Uh as an alternative yeah, this is uh alternative location number four and and four A as proposed.

Right.

Um and the C D HP, what what's their terminology for this the green and orange area?

Uh the exclusion zone.

I'm sorry, I think it's the exclusion.

Exclusion zone exclusive.

It's actually yeah, you know the technical term.

It's actually called the restricted area here.

There's a covenant on that property that's not a loud term.

I thought I heard uh during the Draco hearing, yes.

And uh there are prohibit uh there are concerns or restrictions on the amount of water that can go over that uh outside of the normal normal rainfall.

Is that correct?

Yeah, you basically can't have off site uh water run runoff uh enter that area, right?

Um whatever falls from the sky, okay, nothing else.

Okay.

If that were to occur, um, weather planned or some strange event, um, what would the consequences be?

Would there potentially be any additional remediation necessary?

I mean you you can speak to that a bit, but it if if what were to uh excessive runoff on property so the site is set up, you're you're correct.

Yeah, you're correct.

Everything in there, and I I think I mentioned this earlier for time ago.

The site is set up because that's that natural draw ravine.

Um it is set up, and the way we've developed this with Layla's team on the planning is everything's gonna be off that site.

We have to pipe it, we have to take it off.

The only way technically that that could happen, and I use the term that's used in the state as the hundred-year event act of God, and there isn't much you can do about that.

I mean, I think the engineers probably justify that too.

You can't.

I mean, the criteria is designed.

The pipe and setup we're going to do with inside the road will convey a majority of that.

So the chance of it happening is slim.

Not saying it couldn't, because you I mean, someone had brought up, I think you did 2013.

We all know how bad that event was across the state for everybody.

That can happen.

It's one in a hundred year chance, though.

I mean, that that was more like a 200-year event, actually, when you look at the flow data, but there should not happen.

That is actually, I think that's in the requirement, the consent and the plans that were approved.

We can't take anything across that at all.

It's just Mother Nature.

But but the other thing I would point out is the um the uh order would require the stratus to remediate to kind of rebuild everything if that were to occur.

So the the order is the order locks the uh stratus, who's the current person under the order, to do whatever it takes.

And I guess my concern is that it would happen at all because that requires moving that dirt and there's contamination.

We know there's contamination on that property, and that would uh be disruptive.

So that's exactly my concern.

So thank you.

Okay, oh, I'm sorry.

Nope.

Yeah, um so yes, it's it's it's we've been referring to it as a sensitive environmental site.

That sounds like protected wildlife, and it's not, it's a restricted area.

Um for very good reason.

Um I'm sorry, Dr.

Director Frank, one more question.

With respect to the uh property as a whole, um if I'm help me out if I'm not saying this correctly, but I believe uh it was quoted that the environment screen score on air toxins as this property exists.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Okay.

You're you're approximately several oil and gas operations as well as uh two former and one active landfill.

Right.

So that's all I need.

Thank you.

No more questions.

Okay, thank you.

It's back to me.

Um I think this is always a dilemma when um we've got the unknown about what the future may hold.

And it's easy to go to the worst case scenario, or maybe not even the worst case, but a bad scenario.

Um, weighing that against all the laws and regulations that we must follow.

Um when I say we must follow, although we're not in a cute uh quasi-judicial discussion right now, in essence we are in the sense that um we're being asked to approve the preliminary plat as part of the settlement agreement, which was a QJ, which means we have to look at objective criteria and we have to judge our judge the um the development against that.

So my first question is uh for town staff and um uh Dr.

Franks, we may uh um involve you, but I'm gonna go to our town manager first and just ask the question.

No, Doctor.

Just director.

Why why did you recommend uh to the planning commission who approved this 7-0 and to the council who rejected it for one?

Why did you recommend approval?

Because it satisfied all the criteria applicable applicable criteria in the town code or proposed developments.

So um from a legal and a operational perspective.

Um then um Dr.

Frank, I want to I wanna um follow up on the question that uh Councilmember Hobeck asked.

This 967%, I've never internalized that.

What is that exactly?

Uh so yeah, that's part of the environescreen tool uh that the state put together as part of their environmental justice initiative, essentially looking at uh proximity to uh overall emission sources be those uh I-25, uh Suncore refinery, these oil and gas operations, uh, and then uh making some quantification of um uh compare to compare your dislocation to a hundred others, um, you're gonna have about five worse.

All right.

And legally, can we reject this based upon that score?

I I'm not a lawyer.

But we have one in the room.

Actually, we have about 10 in the room.

So I'll look to our town attorney, uh, this thing.

The challenge for this is that you are considering a settlement agreement and not considering it through the normal preliminary plat process.

So at this point, um, I I would concur with the town manager, according to staff, this meets our UDC code.

And so it is appropriate for you to approve if you deem it if you accept the settlement, excuse me, if you accept the staff recommendation.

And if this were a quasi-judicial hearing on the preliminary plat, could should uh we use the score that Dr.

Frank just shared with us as a criteria to reject this development legally.

I don't believe that's part of the UDC Chris hot seat.

Sorry about that.

Could you help me out with the UDC criteria?

I I don't believe it's part of the UDC criteria.

Yes, I I believe I believe that's correct.

It's not part of the findings of fact that we review.

Um a little unfamiliar with the science behind exactly what he was describing, but I was giving it a quick look just to make sure.

I mean, there's some subjective sort of items in there that you can consider, but most of them are talk about compliance comp plan and zoning.

Um federal state regulations.

But there's nothing specific to that that I could point to.

So what I'm getting at here is although we have a number, and that number doesn't sound good.

Can we use that in our decision making process?

And if I'm understanding you for the criteria where we're acting as judges, we cannot use that.

Is that a true statement?

I don't know a hundred percent on that.

Um let me just look through these really quick and how about we do this?

We're uh how about I let you go back and look through them and then I'll call you back up because I have a number of other things.

Sounds good.

It'll just take me a few minutes to zip through them and sort of think about it.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you.

Um is for the uh the developer.

Um this property, when you bought the land, um, like all of us, we had no idea this was there.

Is um is that a correct statement?

Uh we knew the landfills were there, we knew oil and gas operations were there.

This site that was uh discovered in 2018, we did not.

And with that, uh, would have you have built on that land had this never been found?

Would it would have the footprint of your development have gone into that particular piece of land?

Go ahead, come up, yeah.

Otherwise, what they're gonna hear on the tape is in the exhibit.

I don't recall us being up in that area on the original one.

2020?

Yeah.

Yeah.

In the 2020 one, we did not.

And I actually going back prior to that, because I've been on it since the beginning in 10 years, we didn't actually what the town did have over there was a request for open space.

At that time, the regional trail was there, i.e.

why it's now next to attached to the roadway.

Yeah, because your guys' master plan trying to stay within conformance of it.

That that whole area was to be, and I'm probably dating myself, some of you may know this, but I think the trash facility of the north was looked at as having trails on top of it now that's capped, and it was part of that comp design at the time, 10, 11 years ago.

But no, at the time it did not.

We did not have homes over there.

We did not have the road over there, though.

We had homes backing up to it.

Okay, got it.

So this was never planned to be built on um through the the history of this project.

So this creates another dilemma for those of us that have to make this very difficult decision.

If there is a risk of health, where does that risk really start?

Because could I say that risk is in Vista Ridge, where we've had homes for 20 some years.

Does it go up three houses into Red Tail Ranch, 10 houses, 20, 30, 40, 50?

And I don't think any of us can answer that question other than to say that the state and the EPA, if I'm understanding correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, they have said that the mitigation has happened.

There are no restrictions to building homes on this particular piece of land.

Mr.

Mary, that's exactly correct.

And actually, the one point that I've kind of ended up focusing so much attention on is from page eight, the conclusion that was reached by the consultants and the scientists was that this particular residential property has been studied more than any other property, and it's clean.

And um, and you're right.

I mean, I look, uh, we all hope that the property that everybody lives on is clean.

I lived in Lowry, by the way, and it was after people were already in there that they found asbestos, tribal asbestos, and that created a certain you know issue.

And those are some realities.

But from everything that we know about the site today, because of what happened in 2018, this is the most reviewed um uh site that our consultants have seen in in this community and actually from their report anywhere.

All right, thank you.

Um my other concern is that who actually owns this and takes care of it for 30 years?

And I think we've been dancing around that issue a little bit.

I think Councilmember Barrett ans the question.

Um I don't want the Metro District owning this.

And so if it comes to the final plat, and there is language that takes this from the owner of the property today and puts it on the housing development.

I mean, I don't know how I could ever approve the final plat when we get to that.

And I'm looking to our town uh manager.

I'm assuming it will be in the final plat that we would have the language that actually spells out who does the monitoring, who's responsible for the mitigation and all that.

Is that a true statement?

I think it would be the development agreement and the final plat.

Okay, so we have another bite at the apple.

Um the council approves the development agreement, yes.

Yep.

Metro Dis districts um are uh a sore point throughout this town um for many different reasons.

And I could just see 10 years from now, the houses are all in there.

There is some detection, and now all of a sudden we have homeowners that are um trying to contend with this.

And that's that's just not cool.

Um I could segment out this land, um, the land that uh the IBM uh site, uh the toxic site was on.

I could segment that out in my brain, but somebody's got to own it and control it.

And so I don't know if you have a thought about that one way or the other.

Your your point is a good one.

Um, you know, we we um will need to give some thought to that.

Um and as it relates to the bond, you know, there are other mechanisms for security that you know would exist beyond, you know, an annual um, you know, and I'm talking about a letter of credit or or cash even um to to satisfy the the length of time.

Um I really appreciate your um sharing with us what your concerns are so that we can if if in fact this is uh approved tonight, we can begin to think about that and then work with um your staff to come up with uh this isn't the first time um for this kind of scenario, so we'll we'll find a solution that will meet your approval.

And so okay, and and I think the dilemma that I'm faced with, and I think uh all of us are faced with is we're facing a 23 million plus dollar lawsuit.

And some can say that's bullying, that you know you're you're pushing us into a corner, you know, right?

All that stuff.

I'm a business person, right?

There's an investment, and I get the taking claim.

Whether you'll prevail or not if we don't approve of this, I don't know.

But I do know that we'll spend a lot of money litigating it one way or the other.

So that's gotta be a factor that is considered in in this as well.

Um hence why I'm asking these other questions on can we deny on certain things um legally, um, because that's probably where these cases are going if we don't approve this uh tonight.

Um other things that I'll want to see if it does the settlement does get pro approved tonight.

Um transportation is a problem in this town.

It's the number one item on our surveys with traffic flows and keeping things move.

And so when council member O'Connor brought up uh the roundabout on the west side, uh I think I have an expectation that um you'll work with staff to upgrade that so that we we have the right flows and we don't have uh a dated roundabout that can't handle um what's needed.

And then on the um road five side, same thing.

Um I mean, I'm a proponent of roundabouts, I'm not shy about saying that.

They're expensive, just like street lights are expensive, and I understand the warrants, I'll definitely want to work with transportation to say what can we do there.

And um understanding the landfill to the east probably won't participate, not at least normally.

Uh, but we have work to do with the landfill too, to talk about uh other road um um realignments.

So we may have uh some way to to figure that out in the in the future if this does go forward.

Um so the wells to the west.

Um first off, I appreciate you you plugging the wells that are old, right?

If um Dr.

Frank says helped us um understand, right?

The different no, they're not plugging the old ones.

No, no, no, doctor.

Oh no doctor, I'm picking up one.

You keep giving a field promotion.

That's like from now on, you're just gonna be known as doctor.

Okay.

My my initials are DR Frank.

So kind of.

There's no no official.

Frank's so um the wells that there are uh they are plugging and abandoning that are the older ones.

There's two uh older pads out there that are operated by KP Kaufman.

Um there's this one, and then there's also the southern of the two western pads are also these older legacy wells uh that produce very little, have on-site uh tanks that store the crude oil, et cetera.

And those are the ones that are not um being removed at this point in time, correct?

Correct.

So this is another item in the the final plat that um along the lines of council member bear, if this goes forward.

I want to get the tanks out of there.

All these things that we hear about that are are bad, right?

It's close enough that if we're plugging them in the middle of the property, then I'd want to look at getting that into the the uh final plant to plug the ones on the edge of the property, even though you don't own that property.

Um I'll see if we have an answer yet on uh whether we can take into consideration uh the the score of 90, whatever it was, 798.

So I mean, to say to use it specifically, no, it's not cited in the findings effect.

There are a couple of sort of broad things that are listed in there.

Um sorry, I was looking up something else.

Now I have to go back.

And I can just highlight those briefly for you, but I I think they're pretty broad.

Um and then you also have to look at the sum of all of the findings for preliminary plat.

I don't know that they necessarily always have to meet all of them.

Um so there was one in particular.

This is in 107 regarding findings of fact for preliminary plates.

Uh they're under there um there letter I it talks about adequate and sufficient public safety, transportation, utility facilities, services, recreation, etc.

Um I I guess it could potentially fall under public safety.

Um then F talks about uh the subdivision will not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including air water, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, etc.

That has to do with the subdivision itself causing these things.

I'm having difficulty like specifically taking an empirical number and plugging it in.

It doesn't fit neatly.

I think I think I have enough, right?

I I think about this in terms of the lawsuit, right?

And if we're trying to litigate it, um, and there isn't something concrete, obviously that'll be part of the debate and discussion.

Um you would have come back and said, Oh, yeah, item XYZ says you have to do this, then it becomes more concrete, but I'm I'm not hearing that.

Yeah, I'm struggling with that.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um let me uh bring it back and uh officially close the public comment and then we'll uh bring it back to um board deliberation, any comments anybody would like to make uh council member O'Connor.

I got a few more questions.

Oh, okay.

Well, let's do it through the deli since I closed the public hearing.

Let's just do it through the deliberation.

Sounds good.

So you have the floor.

Oh pardon me.

Um so regarding uh county road five and the and the spine trail.

Um how much of that road is gonna need to be realigned and who's going to pay for that.

So the roadway improvements on County Road Five are part of the obligations for this development.

So we would work with staff on on figuring out exactly how that alignment works, and then we we pay our portion of share or we pay for our half of getting that road built.

Like to the center line of the road.

Who pays for the other side?

That is the obligation of the adjacent property owner of that piece of property.

Does the is the adjacent property owner the landfill?

The landfill the way the code is written.

You you're half up to your property.

Sure.

And and um Mr.

Fleming, did is the landfill going to be participating in this um upgrade to the road?

I'll refer to Chris on that, how they typically involve the other adjacent landowners or benefiting properties.

I'm not aware of their involvement as it relates to the Red Tail Ranch project.

Uh we are working with them for other matters.

Uh, there is an application in for zoning.

Um, so I don't know how much of that we can discuss being a quasi-judicial matter, but uh perhaps there's opportunities to explore.

I guess I could leave it at that.

We'll take note too and make sure we look into that some more.

It goes on my list of another uh final plat, develop an agreement um item.

And and maybe that's where this thought of how will the new homeowners be notified of what has happened on the land.

And will the um those who purchase the homes after also be notified the same way.

Come back up, Chris.

Well, typically uh that has been handled privately through closings that um owners when they sell are required to disclose any of those things as part of I mean it's a lot of papers, right?

When you closed, but it would be one of those disclosure statements.

There's no requirement from town uh for it at this point.

So I'm looking to our town manager.

I think that's another thing in the development agreement and the final plates just like the airport, right?

I think the town does have a requirement that you have to disclose that you're moving in by the airport.

Is that a true statement?

We sorry uh we require plat notes to give notice of proximity to airport.

Uh again, if there's a signed statement, we don't require that in their closing documents.

That comes through.

But can we require it?

So that's a good question.

We had in the past required those.

Sometimes their exhibits and DAs, those have been eliminated a while ago as something that the town shouldn't be doing.

I don't know currently where we might stand with that.

It seems like we could talk about it some more.

So that'll at least with me, that would be a discussion item.

Uh in the future.

Keep going.

Um the wells on the west side west of the property.

Who owns that land that those wells are sitting on?

That's on a separately owned parcel by um the same owner, but it's a different parcel.

It's a different parcel.

So they're in theory, if if um we know the owner.

Yeah, yeah.

Your client is the owner.

Yes.

So there wouldn't be landowner issues if there was um desire to look to plug and abandon those wells.

You've you've made you you've made that uh a point uh for our consideration.

Um we hear you.

Um we know the owner, and we'll see if that's something we can do.

I don't feel comfortable as you can imagine, a negotiating something beyond what the settlement is.

Sure.

Um and but we have been taking notes.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other deliberations uh within the council here?

Councilmember Hoback.

Um yeah, so um a lot has been made of the the UDC and what we can and can't do.

Um we absolutely can use the UDC.

The uh general purpose of UDC is the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare of the town of Erie.

It also has a specific per purpose, number three, to ensure greater public safety and accessibility through quality, physical design and location of land use activities.

The UDC never addresses every potential uh aspects of the criteria.

I don't think that's specifically states you know, every chemical um concentration uh in the in the water or in the dirt.

Um so absolutely we can use the fact that the air quality on this land is the 96th percentile of air quality tech toxins.

I hear you, council member hoback, but I'm not seeing our town manager, our town attorney, um our planning staff, anybody concur.

And so this is the delay.

Our job, it's our role to make difficult decisions, and sometimes that means overriding and disagreeing with town staff.

And I am making that stand.

I am disagreeing with the application of the criteria made by town staff.

And that's our job, that's our role.

Council Mr.

Bear.

Thank you.

I have some thoughts on that.

Um, so the approval criteria in Title 10, Chapter 7.7.d.2 is um a preliminary plat may be approved only if the town council finds that all of the following criteria have been met, and then it goes on to list um A through J.

Um and so 10.7.7.d.2.c says the general layout of lots, streets, driveways, utilities, drainage, facilities, and other services within the proposed subdivision is designed to meet the town standards related to health and safety in a way dot dot dot that otherwise accomplishes the purpose and intent of this UDC, which directs us back to chapter one of Title 10 of the UDC.

And that's the purpose um of the title, which is 10.1.3.a.

This UDC has as its general purpose the promotion of health safety and general well welfare of the town of Erie.

Um so to council member Hoback's point, it is it rests solely on the council.

It is our responsibility to um look at a development beyond just the um you know the legal requirements and look at the moral and ethical uh requirements as well.

That is actually called out in the in the title 10 as well, the moral responsibility.

So um with that in mind, um, if we look at the approval criteria, F calls out the subdivision will not result in negatively impacting the air quality, air, water quality, et cetera, concerns that there will be significant negative impacts.

Um and so I don't think that we can guarantee there would not be significant negative impacts from this development should the soil be disturbed.

I do have concerns about the spine trail construction, road construction that abuts that um space right there.

Um and I I have to admit it was very alarming to hear from the applicant or the plaintiff um that you don't believe that oil and gas um sites are concerning for the development or for the residents that live there when these two sites um are the most uh complained about negative health impact sites in the state.

Um, and it's documented, and we have seen in our adjacent neighboring neighborhoods, our residents, um, our families have suffered negative health impacts.

And so um it is so important that this council keep that friend of mine from the emails that we've received and um conversations that we've had and the relationships that we have and we know of the people um who have suffered um living next to the site and have been told that their conditions are likely due to environmental exposure.

Um the another um of the approval criteria is G, the subdivision shall be integrated and connected.

That comes back to my concerns about the spine trail and construction to can to make that connection through the toxic waste area.

Um and then the statement on page eight of the conclusions in the environmental report um by GeoSyntect.

It's it doesn't hold them financially liable or legally liable should anything other than their claims um prove true if the contaminants migrate um through the groundwater or through development, um, or if negative health impacts are experienced.

And so there would have to be some kind of certainty for residents um through the notification process and uh ongoing some kind of certainty that um these things won't come up.

Um they include installation of radon fans.

Um are we sure that the um VOCs are at a density that radon fans are adequate?

Um I'm I'm not I did not see anything that addressed that.

Um let's see, and then the monitoring of groundwater and soil vapors.

Um I do have concerns about that because monitoring is one thing, and then actively correcting anything that comes up is another concern I have.

Um so we may know that the contaminants have seeped or moved um eventually, and then who is responsible.

So I see all that has been done on this site, and I I do feel that there is still more to do.

Um and I think that that is borne out by the fact that the six KPK wells in the middle of the neighborhood, they're offering to plug and abandon those.

Um and there's um directly adjacent that are also have the same number of tanks.

Um, I believe it's the same number of wells, as the same infrastructure.

Um, and so the only difference is that it would not facilitate the inclusion of more housing on this site.

And so I I believe that's likely why it wasn't included, but I think there's more that can be done to ensure um the safety of residents, um, whether they lived in Red Tail or in the surrounding neighborhoods.

And um, I do I I do believe there's you know potential, but there is more to be done.

Um, and and I'm just not seeing that this has um met the criteria for me.

Um, and it does bring me back to you know what Tolstoy was talking about, and he said that you would have to stifle the voice of conscience um in order to in order to um approve things like this.

Tolstoy wasn't talking about Red Tail Range, but um but I but that keeps coming to mind for me.

Um and I don't want to stifle the voice of conscience.

Okay.

Other deliberations, Mayor Brotin.

Thank you.

Um I'm gonna address the elephant in the room here because uh the mayor was correct.

This is this is not a public hearing, this is a a settlement agreement.

The elephant in the room is that there is as council member Mortalero mentioned earlier, this there's a uh 23 million dollar potential taking claim.

And the reason that this settlement agreement was brought before us is because the town is at risk here.

This is a non-insurable claim.

I want to be clear about this.

So I mentioned before about the bifurcation of the case.

So we have the 106 claim and we have the takings claim.

If we don't accept this agreement, and this goes forward, if we lose the 106, the we get none of this, or at least none of the plug-in abandonment is guaranteed.

They will the court will approve the June 2024 plat.

I think what the applicant has presented us to us now is a better plat than we had in 2024.

Does it have everything that we'd like it to have?

Probably not.

But I think there is significant improvements in this, and these agreements did not come out of thin air.

These agreements were brought to us by staff, including our environmental staff.

They signed off on this, they agreed to it, they brought it to us because they thought this was a good deal, and it mitigated the potential damage to the town through having to pay a 23 million dollar takings claim plus loss of interest.

At the heart of this, this is a rights issue, and whether you want to say it or not, the applicant has property rights, and essentially what is happening by us um denying the plat based on objective criteria that our staff said was sufficient for approval, in addition to a 7-0 planning commission vote.

These the the last council that denied this, those standards are arbitrary and capricious, and I'm gonna go through this one at a time.

So let's let's talk about the environmental concerns.

First off, uh in the in the restricted area or the environmental area or whatever you want to call it.

Um in addition to the setbacks.

Now, one of the things you saw was a picture of four different site drawings.

One of them came to us in 2020.

Had this applicant come back with the original drawing that was in 2020, I would not feel comfortable approving that because it had those northernmost houses adjacent to uh that site.

So one of the things that that was an improvement right from the the 2024 drawings was putting that road there creates a natural barrier uh to uh the environmental hazard site.

We did request you know that staff work with the applicant to to make sure that there is appropriate signage in that area to ensure that people do not go in there.

We were talking about the spine trail road.

Uh you saw in the presentation there is uh a fence barrier that they were gonna have to to cord that area off because I do worry about kids, you know, trying to cut through to get to the spine trail or whatnot.

So it's important that that area is protected.

It was also pointed out that, and I think this was a misnomer that I heard both from prior members of council and uh just in the general public that that they were building houses on a toxic wave stump where the houses are built, clearly you saw from the presentation.

Uh the houses are not built on the environmentally hazardous area.

Uh one thing that was remarkable through this is that is that there was um considering when that dumping site happened back back in the 60s, um I'm amazed there was very well good documentation for where those areas were, and I think it helped with the mitigation of the site.

Um we're gonna get to the finding of fact that the town set out in a minute, but despite what was said in the finding of fact and what was brought up by council member bear about covering the area with dirt.

Uh this are professional engineers that go and design the site.

So uh and if you're an engineer, you're probably offended that the word dirt was used because it's soil, but the um and it's it's a certified landfill covering that was the appropriate application for for what was done to the area.

It was reviewed by the CDPHE, it was reviewed by our staff.

You clearly heard that.

Um the ONG on the site.

So as was said before, uh stratus from the the 2020 uh site plan, they they met the original set by requirements.

They did not have to do the increase setback, uh, but they adhered to the 2021 chapter six uh standards of their own accord.

So now I want to go through the finding of fact from 2024.

And I believe that, and I remember at the time that I saw the finding of fact sent out by the town, and I asked in that very meeting that it'd be amended because uh I thought it was fundamentally flawed.

And I heard this again tonight with the use of the UDC.

Um I hear section 1013 brought up uh general purpose.

The UDC has a its general person purpose to promote the health safety and general welfare of the town of Erie.

In and of itself, that particular item cannot be used for reason of design.

That's a preamble.

Uh that simply states that the town's code and the items contained in the UDC are are generally met to protect health safety and general welfare.

That's correct.

But you have to go to the applicable standard within the UDC to find the code to see if it's meeting the standard.

We write the code to ensure the health and safety.

You can't put the cart before the horse.

Um the CDPHE and the professional engineers report carry scientific objective criteria to address the cleanup on the site.

No one on the 2024 council, and no one up here tonight carries the credentials or background to dispute the recommendations that come from professionals in the field, which were viewed and approved by town staff, confirm with the 7-0 recommendation by the planning commission.

The protections for oil and gas are specifically contained within chapter six, which defines safety setbacks for developers.

The applicant met the standard, again, as I said, prior to the 2021 and uh the the newer standard post-2021 and amended their plat to reflect that.

Uh well, some have claimed that we either have to deem land as either an oil and gas site or a development site.

That is not what the law states.

So the other thing you heard tonight was cumulative impact.

So let's let's talk about that a little bit, because the fact is there is nothing in state statutes or in the UDC that addresses commun uh cumulative impacts.

First off, the state standards that were were were uh put forth.

Uh they talked about one of their uh criteria being dispro disproportionately impacted communities.

Those criteria have to do with low-income communities, um census block groups where more than 40% of the households are below 200% of the federal poverty line, uh communities of of color, um uh census block groups where over 40% of the residents is something other than non-Hispanic white language barriers, uh areas with high percentages of non-English speakers, making it harder for them to access information, participate in public process, um, and communities are already experienced a higher higher population exposure uh compared to other areas.

There, there's a number of uh areas that that none of those meet the identified area in in this in this particular area.

Um the second thing, the state standards are put in there first, don't apply to housing developers.

They apply to oil and gas companies.

So to say that you're gonna apply a cumulative impact standard, which we don't have, and the state standards don't apply to home developers, it it's it's not something that we can rule upon.

Now finally, getting back to the major points of liability for the town.

And we were all informed of this.

And to be clear, the prior council was notified about this time last year.

I don't remember exactly when, that the lawsuit was pending.

And the decision was made at that time because we already had an election and we had a changeover of council.

That this particular council was going to be informed of or have an executive session to talk about the lawsuit, which was that that first uh meeting in January where we were sworn in.

So both councils were notified of this and understood where we were at.

Um the biggest point of liability is the fact that our comp plan and our current zoning identify this land as low density residential.

You cannot apply an arbitrary standard to something we've already deemed that we've we've already said you can build housing here.

And yet what you're hearing up here tonight from a few is that no, you can't build housing there.

You can't build it ever.

And the the there's no clear delineation, you know, 90% error impaction.

That's the first I've ever heard of that.

Um is that is the air different in this area than it is a block over in Vista Ridge.

Is the area here all that different than the area where I live on the other side of the Denver regional landfill?

That that's the question before us.

Uh denial of this proposal represents an arbitrary and capricious standard.

Again, staff recommended the plat and recommends the settlement agreement.

There was a 7-0 planning commission vote in 2024 in January of 24.

And it complies with the land zoning and the comprehensive plan.

There is no basis for the council, nor was there a basis for the prior council denying the findings made by the CDPHE, professional engineers, all of which was reviewed by our own town staff.

Um, so I'll just say overall that in my opinion, the risks of facing a 23 million dollar non-insurable loss is too high not to accept this settlement agreement.

The this risk was made clear to all of council members from our prior town attorney based on the fact that the primary zoning for the site is LDR.

And it appears the opponents of this project will provide no acceptable conditions for which this property owner could build on the site, essentially condemning the land without compensation, and that's where the number comes from.

This takings claim would have an impact on basic operations of the town, including the ability to make payments on the COPs we just approved uh to build the police station expanding uh expansion and uh the undermining mitigation we have going on.

Uh additional impacts could uh could lead to other things up to and including staffing reductions.

We don't have 23 million dollars sitting around to pay this.

There's a high degree of probability we would either lose the 106, the takings claim, or possibly both.

I'm not sure if the 106, the taking claim may go away.

I was unclear that, but um, council was fully appraised by the prior town attorney.

Bottom line, you cannot tell an app applicant that is developing a site that is in compliance with zoning comp plan and our UDC that they can't build on their site with no compensation.

Uh and any council member that can deny any of these things, but this is exactly how we are advised by council.

Um the acceptance of this agreement is not the end of the process.

I mean, I believe we should hold any applicant to a high set of standards.

There was a number of things mentioned tonight that I think going forward, uh, I would be in support of, uh, including traffic mitigation things, um, possibly redesigns of the trails, depending on you know, to again to protect public safety, but those are things that we can decide at a future date.

So with that, I'll uh yield back my time.

All right.

Um I'm gonna see uh if there's a motion uh to approve resolution 25216.

If we get a motion and second, then we'll have one more um last chance to um put anything on the record that we would like.

So moved.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and second.

So now this is the further discussion.

Would anybody like to share anything else before I call the vote?

I would just like to highlight that I mentioned that I don't think that's there's nothing that can be done, that there's just more to do.

I see all that's been done.

There's more to do to ensure the safety of this um plan.

So I agree with that statement, and it was the foundation for some of my comments about the wells to the the west, uh, the roundabout uh to the west, uh, potentially aroundabout to the east.

Um if anybody doesn't think these jobs are stressful, I wear an aura ring and I just uh looked at my stress level since 6 p.m.

Holy cow.

I want everybody to know that I'm taking this seriously, and I hope that uh everybody here and in the public understands that uh you know these are not easy things that we do.

All right, with that, I will um have the town clerk uh do a roll call vote.

Okay.

Will you um sorry, will you specify if we vote yes, we are approving the settlement and a no vote is continuing the litigation process for the 106.

Correct.

Okay.

Uh Mayor Pro Tempell.

Yes.

Uh Councilmember O'Connor.

Yes.

Uh Councilmember Mortalero.

Yes.

Uh Councilmember Passamarelli.

No.

Councilmember Bear.

No, thank you.

Uh Councilmember Hallbeck.

No.

Mayor Moore.

Yes.

Motion carries the settlement agreement, is approved, and we'll have another bite at the apple when the the development agreement and the final plat uh come back to us.

All right.

We have uh three more items on the agenda.

The last two we're gonna switch to a study session format.

So I'm looking at the council.

Are you okay doing one more item?

And then when we do the switch, we'll take a break.

Okay, that's what we're gonna do.

So the next item.

The next item is item 25659.

A resolution of the town council of the town of Erie approving a professional service agreement with Alameda Mineral Advisors.

I'll turn it over to Mr.

Franks.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh, and council.

Uh I know this has 30 minutes.

Uh, we're quite behind.

I'll be very brief.

Uh the town is approached uh from uh several actors in the oil and gas uh field uh exploring potential lease uh of some mineral rights owned by the town.

Uh and so staff finds it prudent to uh solicit the services of a professional mineral broker, in this case uh Alameda Minerals, um, who knows the space much better uh in order to see what the value on the open market of the minerals is rather than trying to negotiate these individuals.

Um a couple of important points.

Uh uh Alameda minerals works on a pure contingency basis.

So if there is no agreement to to sell uh convey or lease uh some or all of the town's minerals, then the town would pay absolutely nothing.

Um it would be 7% of the aggregate value of any deal negotiated on behalf of the town.

Uh and I also want to point out this is very critical, that um the process being proposed here through this professional service agreement is that uh offers and bids would be solicited uh and uh staff and aluminum minerals would then in a subsequent hearing bring the best uh of those offers to this council.

Uh and then it would require further action uh in in a public meeting or public hearing uh to accept uh that that deal.

So that's that's kind of the the long and the short of it.

Um I'm happy to entertain any and all questions.

All right, I'll bring you back to council for any questions.

Councilmember Bear.

Thank you so much.

Um so this seems like a departure from uh our stance as a town before, where suddenly we're entertaining um lease offers.

Uh I guess could you I I think in every previous occurrence where production has occurred from town minerals, the town has either it typically leased but or sold its minerals to um to whoever was to an oil and gas operator, whether that was the one doing the production or not.

Okay, so I guess it means that it's a departure since I've been aware of council proceedings.

Um so my questions are about Senate Bill 24185.

Um in 2023, I was on council and I testified in in support of a bill that was protection for mineral rights owners, and that bill was uh it died um and was not passed, but in the 24 legislative session, um there was a Senate bill that passed protections or mineral interest owners forced pooling is the title.

Terrible title.

Um so I don't know if you know about it.

Can you speak to it?

Sure.

Um the the main bulk of this is that uh mineral estates owned by a local government within the municipal boundary or or county boundary of that local government within their jurisdiction, um cannot be uh force pooled in a drilling and spacing unit uh by uh created by the state.

Um this uh marketing these minerals uh seeing what uh may or may not be available monetarily would not preclude um the the town from um enacting or from uh invoking the protections of this legislation uh in uh future pooling matters, um, unless of course this council would would act to accept uh some bid.

Okay.

Um so are there pooling matters that are expected or or ongoing right now?

Uh yeah, back to Eri.

Of course.

Uh yes, uh obviously uh was that uh November that the Draco hearing was uh was held to approve the oil and gas development plan um for that production.

Um of course uh drilling and spacing will be forthcoming sometime this spring.

Okay, thanks.

Um so do you know of any municipalities that have utilized um this new law that supports governments um and their rights to not be force pooled?

Yeah, I did a deep dive.

Um no municipality uh or county, no local government in the state of Colorado has um attempted in any fashion to utilize uh the state statute.

Uh there was a condition in Aurora where they requested a delay in uh in a spacing hearing because uh a lease had not been signed, and they said, well, then we can't be force pooled.

Uh the state granted that delay, and then they subsequently leased their minerals uh and the spacing went on ahead.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so I just wanted to read a part of this bill or it's a law, it was signed into law.

Um, and so this Senate bill 24185 changes current law by prohibiting the commission, which is the ECMC, who um it is the governing body um for oil and gas prohibiting the commission from entering a pooling order that pools the mineral interests of an unleashed owner if the unleashed owner is a local government that has rejected an offered a lease.

It also um goes on to say if a pooling order application proposes to pool a local government unleashed interest, and the local government has rejected an offer to lease, requiring the commission to deny the application unless the applicant amends the application to no longer pool the local government unleashed interest.

So I just wanted to read that on the record.

So thank you.

All right.

Other questions, comments?

Uh Councilmember Mortalero.

So looking this over, it it seems like all risk is being taken by you know Lameda uh to do the study, provide us with what the mineral rights are worth.

Um and there's nothing we you know, there's no further action required from us.

We we can decide to or not to um pursue marketing those mineral rights that's correct.

Thank you.

And oh sorry, and if we do decide to, they get seven and a half uh percent commission on whatever whatever aggregate value was able to market them for.

But if yeah, if the if the council elects to reject all offers, um then we would pay Alameda uh nothing.

decide to or not to um pursue marketing those mineral rights absolutely that's correct thank you and it oh sorry and if we do decide to they get seven and a half uh percent commission on whatever whatever aggregate value market them for but if yeah if the if the council elects to reject all offers um then we would pay alameda uh nothing um and and move forward from there thanks okay thing council member hope um just like to point out i guess in form of a question um whatever they come up with it's uh current day market value of oil correct oil and gas yeah i i'm sure that um well you know i have no idea uh i'm not i'm not an oil and gas company um i'm sure that they have some pretty advan advanced metrics where they predict the crisis price of dj basin crude to go uh and that'll probably factor into whatever offers they choose to make all right thank you okay mayor pro tem yeah uh thanks um so i i guess my question is a little philosophical but i if i'm trying to imagine how this works in reality i understand in theory what what uh the newly enacted laws do but if the town decides not to lease her mineral rights um and uh if if it's civitas if they're uh you know doing an oil uh drilling and spacing unit what does that look like uh where do our minerals uh line with uh minerals that will be leased that they they've already obtained private lease yeah that's uh i i can't even begin to speculate uh okay this is this is uncharted territory is as uh council member bear asked uh no one hasn't invoked this particular statute uh to date um and so we don't know what what may occur um the town's mineral rights are are typically uh in subdivisions where we were we were given uh the area under the road uh under the open space and so they are sort of intertwined with private minerals uh presumably that would strand uh those private minerals uh because i don't know how you could draw a drilling and spacing unit to include the lots under homes but not the road in front of them i i guess that was my question is that uh is that what they're considering because like yeah when you're when you're talking about something that could go through a fissure or something yeah no it yeah it would be it would be blocks of land yeah they would either be within the the spacing unit or not um whether that means a decreased spacing unit or a spacing unit drawn uh to include other lands um I I can't begin to speculate okay all right thanks all right council petstromelli um so the four million five hundred thousand or seven point five is only when we pay for our right yeah if we if we decline offers we say hey nothing nothing was all nothing was good enough um we just then then we'd pay alamida nothing um yeah if we got a deal for may go just way outside of reality you know a hundred million dollars we'd pay him seven and a half so um how will the sale or lease of the minerals affect the reco product uh again I I I can't say uh what will what would happen um obviously uh if we were to to accept a lease then um then the spacing unit as uh as proposed uh would be presented to ECMC and it would be their um decision whether to accept that um as uh council member bear read the the current law uh if we refuse all lease offers presumably ECMC would be compelled to request an alternate spacing unit that does not include those parcels think again presump presumption we're in uncharted territory do we do we know where all of our mineral rights are or will those help to verify the process that's that's part of this is is uh sort of an independent title review um especially when it comes to mineral estates uh you don't you don't get a uh what you end up with is a title opinion and it is just that an opinion uh and then all of the various interests who who claim differing opinions would would have to in some way resolve their differences uh and come to an understanding of who owns what it's it's the case with with surface real estate you're typically gonna have an owner um if if farmer joe dies and he decides his five kids each get 20% of the farm it's usually geographically 20% with mineral estates you often get a 20% interest in the whole estate and you can imagine after a few generations how messy this really gets especially because um counties are pretty diligent about who owns the land and who's paying taxes and they don't pay a whole lot of attention on who owns the land or who's paying those taxes

If if farmer Joe dies and he decides his five kids each get 20% of the farm, it's usually geographically 20%.

With mineral estates, you often get a 20% interest in the whole estate.

And you can imagine after a few generations how messy this really gets, especially because counties are pretty diligent about who owns the land and who's paying taxes.

Sounds good.

All right.

Let's see if there's a motion to approve resolution 25218.

So moved.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

For me, this is about finding out information.

I think the town had a philosophy they followed to say no to Draco and fought what we could in hopes that Draco would never get uh developed.

Um that's not the way those cards fell.

And so we're at this dilemma point that if you assume that Draco is gonna get drilled, then I want to get something out of it for the town.

And part of what uh is value that we own is mineral rights.

And so this will just give us information on what those are are worth.

Um Civitas uh I believe has given us uh an offer.

We're not sure that offer is uh is um market competitive, and if nothing else, this will give us that information.

This does not approve anything, it doesn't spend any money, it simply gives us information that then we can go back and uh and ask the question is there enough here?

Is this worth it?

Um and I'm hopeful we'll get public input and comment on um on this particular topic as it uh as it moves forward.

Right, other comments.

Council Bear.

Yep, thank you.

Um I um uh I guess I'll start with I'm a force-pooled mineral rights owner, um, and it sucks.

And um it stinks to say no to something and not be able to stop it.

And the answer is uh we'll take it anyway.

Um and so as has been discussed at this table this evening, if the town has the ability to scuttle Draco.

We've heard from constituents that that's that's a priority.

Um we we know like we don't even have to do another survey.

We didn't include oil and gas questions on our survey because we pretty much got that um direction from all from the hundreds of comments and folks who came out to comment about Draco.

Um and so this is a uh a no-brainer, this is a slippery slope.

Um, and I have I have shared that with my counterparts up here.

Um I recognize that some feel it's a it's a business deal.

Um but I for one uh my principles are not up for purchase, and so this is uh an absolutely not for me.

Yeah, for Tim.

Yeah, um I'm a little put off by that remark.

My my um my integrity is worth more than a business deal.

This is not a business deal, this is fiduciary responsibility, which we owe the residents.

Again, I think it's important for the residents to understand we're not making any decisions, but I think um when we've talked about this before, it's the lose-lose proposition, and that is it, and again, we don't know what we don't know.

We're an uncharted territory, but if say for instance, we were to exclude our mineral rights, and uh Civitas produces some drilling and spacing unit that's uh hodgepodge of stuff, and and the ECC ECMC approves it.

I I don't know that we're I I mean basically uh what what have we done at that point?

And I I I point to Broomfield as kind of a prime example of this, uh, because they fought Coyote Trails tooth and nail and they did it and it got approved and they got nothing back.

Um and uh this goes back um our our friend, our late friend Tom Van Lone.

Um, if you want to know why the landfills in Erie, um it's it's largely because of Tom, because he said if you're gonna dump stuff in my backyard, you're gonna pay me for it.

Um and I don't know, there's stuff that is outside of the sports control, and um, you know, again, we may find down the road the uh you know the the uh the facts may change and and we'll look at that.

But I think we're not doing anything, we're trying to find out the value of what we have, and I I think that's important.

Um, council member uh Morchlero, and then I'll go to Hubak.

Um yeah, again, I I'll reiterate we're only this is a data search right now.

This is information gathering, um, so that we can make the best decision possible for the town.

Uh we are very clear as how the the town feels around about oil and gas, and uh but if Draco is gonna happen, uh to not get paid uh for our minerals, um, is is like uh council member Bell said, a lose-lose situation.

Uh so if Draco is still gonna drill 26 wells and we don't negotiate anything with our mineral rights, we get nothing.

Um again, we're not at that stage yet.

We're just collecting information prior to that stage.

So I'm I'm all for gathering information so that we can make the best decision possible.

All right, Councilman Robin.

Um thank you.

Um learning the value of something for me, uh only mean tells me what I can do for it with it, what I can get for it.

And uh we've now heard um a couple of council members um talk about not getting out anything for from Draco.

If we retain our mineral rights and do not sell them or lease them, they are not entitled to those mineral rights.

And if we do sell or lease them, it makes Draco's operations much smoother, much easier, because that make it easier to horse pool many as eight adjacent properties and that they can get to.

And so we're doing our our residents a great disservice, um, which takes us well beyond fiscal or fiduciary responsibility and into a whole a whole other realm of of making choices for some some residents that we ought not be making.

Um I guess I wasn't where we're gonna be not talking about some of this.

Um but uh yeah, you know, if if if we can uh use our power to to stop Draco, and this is part of it, then uh that is absolutely what our residents want, and they've made that very well known.

Yeah, so I feel like uh we are not in a dire need to sell our minerals to a company which is uh you know planning to drill more and more and occupy more minerals in Erie.

So the comment about we won't get anything if Draco is uh going ahead, is probably not true because minerals always have value, and then even if you go into an open market, you'll get some amount for it, which is much more than you have the leverage.

There is no need to go and stand before civitas and sell them for whatever.

And I know this is about just getting how much it um is value off, but I feel like we don't have a need to sell our resources as of now.

And the second thing is I see this as an opportunity to see if Draco can be stopped.

If there is even one percent chance, I want to go with that and see because we have heard from our uh town loud and clear.

And if we didn't do this or use this at least one or 10% or 5% opportunity, I think we ignored all of those voices.

So thank you.

All right, um, I want to address Councilmember Bear's comment that uh we know what the public wants because they showed up at the um sorry, did I jump?

It's okay.

Finished with your thought.

I missed you.

I'll come back to you.

All right.

Um that we know how the uh public feels because they came out and forced to say no to Draco, so we know that they don't want us to um sell our mineral rights if Draco is gonna go forward.

And I think they're two different things.

If we feel that Draco is gonna go forward, then the question isn't about Draco, it is about should the town get anything from our mineral rights that we own that Draco will access.

Um Councilmember Pest Romelli's point, mineral rights will not always have value, they will only have value if you can access them.

And um, our mineral rights to my knowledge are not accessible with all of our own oil and gas restrictions, the state oil and gas restrictions.

You gotta basically have a way to get to them, and and that's the the Draco pad.

So I I don't see it as a um as the same thing with the fight was on.

This is now about is there something in the town?

Councilman O'Connor.

Thank you.

Um couple questions.

Um has the town, to your knowledge, has the town sold or leased the mineral rights before?

Are we doing questions?

Sure.

Yeah, uh, yeah, many times in the past.

Not in the past.

Not in not in a long time.

But yeah.

So they just um in the past the the choice was uh negotiate a lease or a sale or or be force pooled.

And so it was always in your interest to find a deal.

Okay.

Um, and um so just so the residents understand, um, can you um what is the process for um leasing or selling mineral rights?

It's like any sort of real estate deal, um, but it's more complex because there's concept of overriding royalties.

So there's you you you you there's cash at at the sale, but then there's also um percentages of the gross or the yeah, gross revenue or net revenue uh generated from those minerals that also has to be negotiated.

Um so it's a little more complex than the standard real estate deal, but it's a very similar process.

But the um it has to go through um a public hearing.

Well, for the for the town itself to dispose of its minerals or to sign a lease.

I believe a lease could be signed, and I'll I'll look to the town attorney for if I make a mistake in my statements.

Um I believe a lease can be signed via resolution uh in a normal public meeting.

Um I believe that a sale, whether it was uh mineral estate or or uh proper real estate, any any town uh asset would require uh a proper public hearing uh and an ordinance.

So that so the residents would absolutely have a chance to come out and voice if it even made it that far.

Sure.

And even in the case of a resolution, um I wouldn't be comfortable putting something like that on a consent agenda.

I think that that's uh normally something that should should invite uh public discourse personally as staff.

And um this item before us, how what's the time frame for did you get a sense?

It's I mean it's it's dependent on when the spacing order will come up.

Um if the town delays too long, uh then decisions get made for us.

Um I think we have time now.

Uh, but you're probably looking I I'd like to I'd like to bring whatever is discovered through this process back to this council mid-delay January.

It'll be pretty quick.

Thank you.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Uh last comment from Councilmember Hoback one more comment.

Um just like to point out that uh if we were to value these and go ahead with a broker agreement and sell or lease these, we would likely be selling or leasing this oil, these mineral rights when oil prices are at a five-year low, if not longer.

Um so this might not be the right time to make that decision.

Yeah, there's there's a few things that affect uh the the value of a mineral estate.

One is obviously current oil prices, uh, but the other is um the eminence of production, right?

Um if you have if you have a silver company that says I would like to build a silver mine on your property tomorrow, even if silver prices are low, that's probably their peak value.

Understood.

Okay, I'll ask our uh town clerk to take a roll call vote.

Absolutely.

Councilmember Hobat.

No mayor more.

Actually, um I always go last for our rules.

Rotate with each vote taken.

Councilmember Pass Marelli.

And Mayor Moore.

An ordinance of the town council, the town of Erie adding a new section 61120 to the Erie Municipal Code to regulate the operation of electric assisted bicycles.

Um this is gonna be steady session format.

We're not planning to adopt this tonight.

This is for conversation, maybe adjustments, changes and so forth.

So with that, I think I'm turned over to the police chief.

Mayor and Council Lee Mathis uh chief of police.

You're exactly right, Mayor.

We had uh both of these ordinances scheduled for uh approval on an agenda, and then we started to get feedback from from some of the council members on gosh, why not this?

Can we do something different?

Those kinds of things.

So we decided to bring it to the council and see if we can get some consensus on what you would like to see.

So up on hopefully you have the drafts pulled up, and I think we're starting out with the electrically assisted bicycle ordinance that is in draft form.

And that has all the definitions there at the beginning.

The biggest thing with this is it allows class one and two electrical, electrically assisted bicycles to be operated on anywhere bicycle would be would be operated.

Paths, trails, sidewalks, roadways, anywhere you can legally operate a bicycle, you can operate a class one or a class two electrically assisted bicycle.

It does give the town the ability to restrict them in certain areas, but that will be determined by the town, mostly the parks and recivation on where those would not be allowed.

Okay.

Can you just define class one, class two passengers?

So a class one, uh, and it is in the ordinance there.

The class one electrically assisted bicycle is a bicycle that has electric assistance uh while pedaling.

I think it's while pedaling, when operators pedaling, and it ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches 20 miles an hour.

So so that electrical assistance goes away when they hit 20 miles an hour.

Doesn't mean the bike won't go faster than 20.

If they're going downhill and they're still pedaling, it's just not getting that electrical assistance.

And they're bicyclists that can reach well over 20 miles an hour on their on their road bikes.

So and then a class two electrically assisted bicycle is one that will provide assistance regardless of whether they're pedaling up to 20 miles an hour.

So neither one of those bikes provide electrical assistance over 20 miles an hour, but they do help them get to or stay at 20 miles an hour and they cease doing that once they hit that.

Uh class three electrical assisted electrically assisted bicycle will provide the assistance regardless of pedaling up to 28 miles an hour.

So it's a little faster.

And and for those, for the purposes of this ordinance, we have proposed that those be on the roadway only where bicycles can also safely be operated, not on our trails, not on our paths, not on our sidewalks.

28 miles an hour is a little too fast.

We have pedestrians that use our trails, we have people that walk our dogs.

We don't want folks going close to 30 miles an hour uh with electrical assistance on a bike on our trails.

Um we did try to draft this with consistency in mind with our surrounding jurisdictions.

Uh I I believe Louisville and Lafayette are very close to what this is.

They may not be exactly, but that's important too because our trail system connects with other communities and we want to we don't want things to change at the Lafayette border.

We want to try and remain as consistent as we can.

One thing this does not address is any of the other things that don't fall under the definition of a class one, two, or three electrically assisted bicycle.

So we're seeing bikes out there, we're seeing vehicles out there that do not fall under those.

They are illegal on a roadways and illegal on our paths.

So if you have a if you give your child a bike for Christmas and it's an electrical bike that goes over 20 miles an hour, that is illegal to operate anywhere on the roadway unless you have a license.

You're 16 years old, motorcycle endorsement, those kinds of things.

So I'm looking at the town attorney because she's gonna help me if I mess up.

But uh well, that's addressed in a separate portion of our ordinance.

Uh we actually have a uh toy vehicles prohibited ordinance that we do still need to tweak, and you guys will see that probably later.

Uh but but those are technically illegal on programming.

Can uh your officers tell what a class three, class two, class one bike is yes.

So they are labeled, they are labeled if it if if it isn't a uh legal class one, two, or three, they are labeled as exactly that.

They have a sticker on there that says what they are.

Oh and the other thing I did not mention is this does establish a 15 mile an hour speed limit on our paths, trails, and sidewalks for class one and two vehicles.

On the roadway, they gotta follow the speed limit on the roadway if on class three.

So if they're in a 20 mile an hour zone, they can't be going 28.

If they're on the roadway for a class three, class one and two bikes cannot be operated faster than 15 miles an hour.

Enforcement will be a challenge, but we can do it.

And we do patrol our trails.

And we'd have to do some operations and some things, but we could we couldn't enforce that speed.

So if someone is going over 15 and they're not on an e-bike, likely don't have the speedometer.

No idea how fast they're going.

And part of that is the weight of the bike.

Um road bikes, mountain bikes, yes, they're heavy, but the e-bikes are are motorized and they're very heavy.

So if they hit someone going at 15 or 20 miles an hour, um that's that's gonna be more of an issue than it's never gonna be good, right?

But but an e-bike presents a kind of a specific danger there with its weight and and that at that speed.

So with that we are open to any suggestions, um input, brainstorming, whatever on what else you would like to see in the ordinance or what you would not like to see in the ordinance.

Um are you familiar with excuse me, HB 25-117?

Are you going to ask me to recite it word for word?

Please.

No.

No, it's just the labeling requirements.

Um it brought up a point that it might be worth adding to this.

And it it basically it's if you have a class three bike that's switchable, right?

It doesn't matter if you switch it to one according to this, it's still classified as a three.

Right.

Gotcha.

So that might be something we're gonna add just so that right residents understand that if they buy a three, that's switchable.

It's a three regards.

Class five is the highest it can go.

Yeah, and that's how it's written.

So that might be a clarification in the ordinance where we just say switchable.

You can go on a bike plane.

It's always a good one.

We could we can look at some of the language.

Okay, counselor Pastor Millie, I think you had a question.

Yeah, I was saying the can the three go at uh on a label.

No, they cannot.

Not according to you, not as the ordinance is written now.

Not as that's gonna be written.

Um and they actually have to, if they switch their bike, they're supposed to relabel it, like if they override.

I thought I saw it somewhere in there.

Yeah, if they actually override the class one or class two, right?

I think they have to change the labeling on that.

And that would be more difficult for our officers to, you know, if you're gonna modify people, that's part of the challenges we're facing right now.

Is that there's not a lot of regulation around these types of vehicles, and people are making them and they're selling them and they're getting them from even outside of the United States sometimes.

And so there's not a lot of, and that would have to come from the state level, obviously, not from us or even even the national level.

Um, so we're we're running into officers or running into bikes out there, they don't know what they are.

They're not labeled.

They're they've seen the kid going down the street at they estimate 30 miles an hour and they stop them and they give them a ticket for careless driving currently.

Um, but but that's some of the challenges we face is sometimes when we get out there, we're not sure what it is.

And if that's the case, you can't ride it on our trails.

You can't ride it on our sidewalk.

You probably can't ride it on our streets.

So the 15 mile an hour is a good way because regardless of what you're on, at least you have something that you can write.

You can do.

Or if it doesn't have labels, I don't know.

I mean, if it doesn't have if it's not labeled, then maybe that's a good point to put in the ordinance that if it's not labeled then as a class one, two, or three, then it's not legal to be operated on our trails and paths or on roadways.

Yeah, that the label has to be prominently displayed or something.

Right.

So I was just doing some uh just questions through AI on this, but I was I was just checking if there was anything with lighting requirements in there, and it said it didn't mention anything in there, but there may be applicable state law or other parts of the municipal code that cover that.

Yeah, they I mean they there are requirements for a bicycle to have lights if you're operating it at night on the roadway.

So those would those would apply.

Um the trails are not the trails and sidewalks are not not addressed, I don't believe in the state code that I guess my my concern is that from from and I would I wouldn't know a class one revering just by looking at it from a class two, but um uh the the ones that I've seen out uh and I've seen several at dust or something, and um and I see them fly past, but it's like I I hear the sound before I ever see like a headlight or anything.

in there but there may be applicable state law or other parts of the municipal code that cover that is a yeah there i mean they they there are requirements for a bicycle to have lights if you're operating it at night on the roadway so those would those would apply um the trails are not the trails and sidewalks are not not addressed i don't believe in the state code that i guess my my concern is that from from uh and i would i wouldn't know a class one revering just by looking at it from a class two but um uh the the ones that i've seen out uh and uh some several at dust or something and um and i see them fly past but it's like i i hear the sound before i ever see like a headlight or anything so uh right right that's one of my concerns is visibility assure awareness uh for so would you like to see some lighting requirements there i does that i don't know what's wrong with that but i i would want it in alignment with yeah whatever you normally do yeah right right right right it's like the bikeways are covered it's the question on on trails and sidewalks yeah yeah because bicycles we don't require lights not on not on the trails and i've been pulled over twice on a bicycle though yeah once for not the leading and once for speeding really you're on the road on the road yeah you're a racer so I guess so it's possible it is so is it true or not uh some of the ones or twos can be modified fairly easily I I'm sure it's true.

Do we can we have something that says if your bike has been modified to be a higher class you have to sell it.

So we could make a donated repo system.

So the problem along those lines or at least they'll be treated as the higher class right the problem alongside and we run into this all the time right but the enforceability of that it's gonna be difficult unless we catch them speeding like you know oh we know that's not a class one because you're going 40 miles an hour even though you got a label on it you know we could we might be able to do something there but it's gonna be difficult for us to determine whether the bike's been modified I'll be honest.

That's probably a quarter well I don't know if it's corner case it probably is a cloud case I didn't know I mean if there were a mishap an accident of some sort right and we could show that it was modified.

Right right it's all right yeah well and one thing I would say is if if there's an accident there are statutes that might be or or even ordinances that might be more applicable than just citing them for an e-bike violation.

I mean we'd have careless and reckless especially if it resulted in an injury or something along those lines um but I would I would we could certainly enforce it but it would be difficult for us to enforce if we're going to start to get into labeling and modifications and those kinds of things for for the police department it's I think it's actually at the state level yeah that is it's any modification to an electric bicycle that changes the speed capability or motor waters requires an updated label.

Right right right but again the determination is is is difficult for us if that's going to be speed unless we catch them speeding or or we catch them in their garage I guess with a screwdriver I don't know I think the identification silhouette pictures that exactly different models exactly so thinking back to my ride along that I had this summer and we were talking about e-bikes and one of the concerns was um are you gonna do you want me to write a 12 year old a ticket to I write the 12 year old's parent a ticket do I take his bike what does that look like I know there's I was reading this handy dandy um insert my water bill um from EPD and caretaker risk is the adult who owns the vehicle or permit the child to drive can also face serious penalties.

I think this is the state law is that right yeah yeah you can there we even have provisions I think in our in our municipal code where we can write the parent if it's if especially for the toy motor vehicles in fact we just tried that in the municipal court but then the prosecutor's like yeah we're we're gonna just do the do the kids um but there are provisions where we can write the guardian if they're allowing their kid like if you go out and you buy your kid a bike that's not legal to be operated on the roadway we can we can cite the parent for that.

So I guess the other thing that comes to mind then is the education piece.

That's two sided in that the education for the kid or the the bicycle rider that um they need some they don't have experience on the road yet to know like whose turn is it to turn left when and when do you need to stop and wait your turn or how do you signal to let the driver know that you're gonna enter the lane to turn left or you know that kind of thing.

I think there should be some requirements around if we're gonna put kids in the road and I know that that is if they're 16 and and whatever but I think there we need some opportunity before that.

I don't know what that looks like in town if we could do that through the rec center or the PD or yeah I mean we have a plan next year to do a big e-bike push on what what's legal what's not legal where you can operate and once we decide what's going in the ordinance where it's going to go so we're gonna be at the high school and do all of those things.

But one thing to keep in mind is that you know you're you're believe it or not your six year old kid can operate a bicycle on the roadway right now.

They can go out, they can ride a bicycle down the path or down the sidewalk.

They can do those things.

So, you know, yes, we try and educate, and we should be pushing that education.

The e-bike ordinance itself doesn't necessarily change that.

Um we're putting the speed limit on.

We're we're we're allowing them to operate in class one and two on trails, class three on the roadway, but they can take their mountain bike out today and ride it down there parkway.

Yeah.

So that's a good point on the education.

We'll have to do that, especially with the e-bike ordinance.

But that's something we always want to be out there telling kids, hey, if you're you're riding that bike on the roadway, you got to follow all the rules of the road.

Oh, go ahead.

No, go ahead.

One thing that we've talked about in the in the in the engagement part is utilizing our ear youth for change group because they're plugged in with their peers on yes, is it a is it a class?

Is it some materials?

Is it going you know going to assemblies or something like that?

But plugging into what speaks to that group because they're better, they're they're better at communicating to other teenagers than cheaper by myself.

I would still never something like that.

You can sign up for I don't know.

Um, but that side of the education, but then also the education piece for parents with teenagers who would love to see one of these under the tree.

Right.

Um, and have maybe been putting it off because we knew this was coming, but maybe some of us haven't.

And we've done a piece of it, like you said.

We've sent out the mailers, we've done some social media posts, we've even asked our SROs to do some education at the high school.

Uh, but I think once an ordinance is solidified, we'll definitely do that push of hey, here's what's allowed in Erie on the trails, on the sidewalks, on the roadway.

These other things are not.

Don't buy your kid this unless you've got a big open ranch with private property where you can you can let them ride because if we catch them out there, we're gonna probably cite you and them.

Okay.

Okay.

But you're gonna have what?

Do it.

Right.

Yes.

So a comment not about the ordinance itself, but about um two effective things that I've seen, Winter Park and Lafayette.

They both had signs out along the trails that just said these speed limits 15 miles an hour, you know, it's for safety.

That it caught my attention for sure.

And so I'm looking to the town manager, you know, maybe we can do something.

Gabby can do something, I don't know, something that we get um something actually out there where these are beans uh written, right?

And that actually falls under under parks and recreation purview in terms of uh signing the trails, and that's part of our trail wayfinding plan.

That's why that's why I'm here tonight is the is to make sure that I understand the ordinance and the desires of the council so that we can effectively implement those types of signs in our in our wayfinding system because we do have standard uh trail signs.

There's certain requirements that you have to follow, you know, in terms of Ashto and you know, all those kind of different things to make sure they're safe and visible.

But yes, we'll definitely work that in with our trailway finding.

I think you're talking permanent signs, which cool.

In both the other municipalities, I'm talking temporary signs.

Um, because they were bright and they were just kind of out there.

You didn't hadn't seen them before.

And then you know, maybe they're out there for two or three weeks, then you pull them up and you put them in another place or something like that.

Um, I think that's a great idea, especially if we first passed the ordinance for education of hey, guess what?

15 mile hour, you know, you can ride your e-bike 15 miles an hour, but then we will have to have some permanent signage.

Yeah, just for the enforceability, you know, because we'll have someone from Denver come up here and say, I didn't know your speed limit was 50 miles an hour.

So just like on the roadway, we'll have to have something that shows a this is how fast you can ride on an e-bike on a trail.

Yeah, and kind of all on the lines is signage um right away.

I I think that's one of the things that I hear most is that you know, people walking and get, you know, somebody on a bike goes flying by the person on the bike doesn't realize a pedestrian has the right of way.

I know most of us think that's common knowledge, but I I don't think it is.

And so definitely in the signage piece, but could that also be appropriate for the ordinance or to kind of highlight right away so that it's it's in another place.

Not sure how we would put that in there.

I I'm not sure.

I mean, the trails are shared, it's a shared trail, share shared sidewalk.

Um, you know, you're there's always the careless stuff and get on the roadway.

You couldn't do that.

Um, I'm not sure how we would enforce that as far as right-away.

You know, usually you pass on the left, and you know, I've had bicyclists come up and you'd be on your left.

I'm like, okay, great.

Sometimes they go on those grass on the right side.

Um, yeah, and I'm not so concerned about enforcement is um people that people understand that and they're educated on on that because I think the biggest problem is a lot of kids don't understand that you know, when when you have an older couple walking on on the pad that they have the right of way, you have to give them space, right?

Um and it like see that's that's what I'm hearing.

They shouldn't float to the pedestrian.

Well, what you're kind of referring to is the uh in bed rules, the International Mountain Bike Association, they have those triangle signs, right?

That bikes yield to hikers, everyone yields to horses, right?

So maybe it's something along that line, and those are often out on mountain bike trails.

Yeah, actually, there was a picture of that on the Lafayette uh website with you know, be courteous and reconsiderate when passing, and and it had the universal you know, horseback hiker, um whatnot.

And it it shows the uh the biker actually, you know, acknowledging the pedestrian and and you know, um and maybe we can just partner with Lafayette to see what they've done, not necessarily reinvent right, especially if we're all connected trail systems, right?

If maybe there's consistency or I don't believe that is in their ordinance.

I think that's just one of their own education campaign where hey, be courteous on the trails.

I don't think they have anything in their ordinance that says, hey, the bicep post has to yield to the pedestrian because honestly, I don't even know what yield would look like.

Like, is that passing on the right?

Is that mean I stop?

Does that mean I pass on the left?

Does that mean I slowed down?

I think part of that is the speed limit we're trying to put on there of 15 miles an hour.

It's a lot different being passed at 15 than it is at 30 or 28.

And and I think that's a piece of it, but I like the idea of of maybe an education campaign of eight bicyclists.

All right, I'm gonna try to wrap this up so we can get on to the next one.

We have a couple suggestions.

Um, let me just do one quick pass around.

Any other ordinance changes?

You good?

Okay.

All right, then let's uh so it was okay if I summarized really quick.

Sure.

Mayor labeling requirements.

We want we want our bikes labeled and add that to the ordinance.

And and are we wanting to do lights on the trails?

Like, do we want them to require lights after dark on the trails and the sidewalk?

There's no, as far as I know, there is no requirement for bicycles to have that.

That's where it gets kind of dicey for me because I think most big both I I think most e-bikes come with lights.

I think they do too.

Yeah, I think they do too.

Okay.

Right.

So e-bikes must have no lighting, is what I'm hearing.

Lighting for e-bikes only, at least on the trails.

I mean, the the roadways already there, yeah.

Yeah, but they come on that.

Check with the you don't need cities.

We've built you enforced light here and some next yeah.

They don't as far Lafayette Louisville do not have any lighting requirements.

So it's better to keep it consistent than our enforce something in the area.

Oh, I need to turn on light when I'm yeah, yeah.

I'm okay, keeping it simple.

Okay.

That's fun.

Okay, okay, great.

Let's talk about burning things.

So burning things pretty simple, same thing too.

We already have the means to announce it for the order.

Sorry, um, item 25465 ordinance of the town, council town area restricted, open burning in the town.

Thank you, Mayor.

Sorry to interrupt you there.

Um, so we already have a fire setting ordinance.

What this does is add some requirements for when you are able to burn.

Uh it basically makes you we didn't used to have the part about covering the fire.

Like had to be contained, but there was no requirement for a screen or or anything over it.

And then it also added um added that it's got to be 15 feet from your residence.

Didn't used to have that requirement.

And then it also added that you can't burn garbage, uh, yard waste and those things because those were not prohibited.

So we added those.

And this is a conglomeration of those, Thornton and Lafayette, what they allow in their open board open burning ordinances.

Um, and adds those basically three, I think four, make that four.

Yeah, because we we we restricted the size, we restrict it.

We made you get a wire mesh over it, and then the distance from your from your residence and no garbage or yard waste.

And does this include gas fire pits as well?

It does it.

This is open burning of flames.

Yes, it does.

I believe it does.

Chimney uh outdoor fireplace, fire pit or similar container.

Yep, I think it does include gas fire.

So I asked that because um you know, gas fires don't really spark and create embers.

And so that's why I was saying are we putting a restriction on something that by its nature doesn't uh yeah, because I went so when I had my uh you know, we did a patio slab in the backyard, and I initially wanted to put um uh like a gas line to a fire pit until I found out by code that that you have to have, I think it's 20 feet or something from the thing, and I'm so uh that was gonna drastically increase the cost of that.

And then the guy just told me, I just buy one of those propane things and put it out there.

So I I don't know if I'm what did you say that's 10 feet away or 15?

Uh I might be that from there, but um yeah, I was thinking the same thing that uh I could understand it, like if you know I see a lot of people get those uh uh you go to home depot and get those log burning things and creating embers that could get sucked up like in a soffit vent or something that yeah um uh but yeah, just uh uh a gas one probably isn't as yeah.

I don't want a bunch of people having to run out and buy screens for right.

I don't I don't think it's considered open burning well is it this says open burning or open flame conducted outside in a chimney?

Maybe it doesn't, maybe it doesn't.

I'll ask our town attorney do you think it covers gas or that's just put it explicitly in there?

What's an outdoor fireplace?

I mean yeah, I was gonna gas fireplace it says open flames.

So I think to the extent if there is a flame, whether it's propane or gas, I do think it would be covered.

That's kind of what I think.

So I'm what I'm suggesting is that you pull the screen requirement out for natural gas propane.

Because it doesn't put off it doesn't put off yeah, ember would yeah, that would that be council be interested in?

Sure.

I'm saying that you must have a screen if there are embers.

I would probably apply this whole thing only to ember creating.

I mean, you have a lot of people, myself included, has a uh small I know what you're saying.

Gas within 15 feet of the house.

And I I struggle with the 15 foot because some of these manufacturers they say as close as six.

So I and I and when I go into different people's homes and take observation of what they have, their yards aren't big enough to be able to do this, and there's existing ones out there that are bigger than three feet that are nowhere near structure.

I'm gonna ask to hold that just for a second.

We'll go back to the gas ember and then we'll come back to the distance.

Um to um hobak and my point, and you know, gas doesn't that the issue is not created with gas, so let's not put the restriction on it.

However, you you work that makes and you could probably do it a bunch of different ways, but I mean a charcoal grill doesn't have barbecues are there's a different exception, yeah.

Yeah, if you're doing it express for the express purposes of food preparation, this doesn't apply.

Exactly.

You think that was the ear covered on the stake, right?

Yeah, where does it say food prepers uh preparation is excluded from this?

It's in the original ordinance.

Yeah, I'm looking at the original right now.

All right, so you'd have to section, I'm not sure what section it is.

You'd have to go back and put it in there.

It says this is just all this this document has is the new uh because we're just amending this ordinance.

Got it.

This isn't a brand new ordinance.

We we've had this ordinance on the books for a long time.

Um used to be very general.

So if you can go back and where it says food prep or um gas propane are prohibited, it can be another exception, yeah, or exemption.

Exactly.

Right.

Yeah, so I think this addresses an issue that we were hearing a lot about, which is burning trash in the backyard.

Um I'm curious about I I have the same concerns because I have a fireplace on my front porch that is not three feet away from my house.

I wouldn't know 15 feet is attached to my house.

So and that started the train of thought of what if I mean, are are your officers gonna be going around in the neighborhoods looking?

Yep, exactly.

Like, are we going to put these requirements in, or somebody's is is council member Hovex uh fire pit suddenly illegal?

Right, yeah, we're gonna do fire pit patrols.

We're not these are this is a type of ordinance that we would usually enforce on a complaint basis.

So if somebody calls and complains and says, Hey, my neighbors got a huge bonfire going on in the back, they're burning yard waste.

We're gonna show up and then and then we're gonna apply these, you know.

Unless it I don't want to say anything goes unless it comes to our attention, but but this is one of those where someone probably has to complain for us to get in your backyard and see what you're doing with your fire pit.

And we had a lot of ordinances like that where we're not actively out there looking and policing and coming out with a measuring tape and making sure your gas stove is 15 feet from your house.

But if someone complains, we're gonna say, hey, here's the ordinance, here's what you gotta do to comply, and then and then we go from there.

So I as far as enforcement goes, it would very much be that.

All right, and then go ahead.

What about the idea of removing putting it like under a pergola or other covered or semi-covered area?

Because you're gonna be such a distance from the house or whatever, those embers are gonna go straight up.

Um if the council wants to do that, we can we could throw it in there.

I I had I had a that thought also, and then I keep going back to what problem are we trying to solve?

It's the someone burning trash, someone burning yard waste.

Well, and then you if you're gonna do a pergolo, like yeah, but if I have a 10-foot park versus uh I I mean yeah, I had the same sorry, right?

I know I didn't mean to totally good.

Um I was thinking along those lines too, and then going back to what are we trying to solve and trying to give the police some teeth if someone burning yourself burning.

Basically, you're exactly right.

Some of those Domineas put up a lot of heat going straight up.

I've had one, and you they don't come with screens typically, yeah.

Right, they don't come with a front screen and ceramic ones.

So, how do you well that would be in violation, right?

You can buy things that aren't legal time, and so that would say that's that's the violation.

As far as the distance, could we leave it at 15 feet or what the commercial what the actual product says is safe?

So that way if you've got the homemade drum out there, then it's 15 feet.

But if you have one of those what are those ones called, those little you can put wood in it, they're small, yeah.

Yeah, that's what solos, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, and if it's and they're really, I mean, you can touch them.

Um if that says five feet, okay, great, because it's been designed for that.

Rita makes a great point.

That would be difficult for us enforcement once because if they don't have the instruction there, if it's not on there, we're gonna be like, well, what's the distance?

And I guess we wouldn't use the well then in that case, then it then defaults to the 15 feet, right?

Right, right.

I don't know.

I think you're making it more complicated.

So you would just make it 15 feet.

I wouldn't have it.

Oh, you wouldn't have it.

I would eliminate that.

So I just say it's a lot of yards.

We did because old now do fire, we looked at Thornton's ordinances, we looked at the international fire code, Thornton, I believe, had the 15 feet in there, and we thought, okay, you know, well, we'll throw it in there and and uh going to back to council member O'Connor's point.

Aren't we just saying don't burn carbon to your yard waste?

Don't we just say that?

But we'll say the uh the couple of the complaints we've had on open burnings were worried about the screening, we're worried about there being no screening on on an open fire pit because it's gonna come on my house and and burn my so I do think the screening isn't a bad thing to have on there to reduce embers.

Uh easy to enforce yeah, but the distance you could just do yard weight where yard waste trash and screen it, we'd probably be okay.

I like the 15 foot in general, but I'm okay with an exception for those manufacturers.

But if you can't figure it out, then it falls back.

But and and as as the density gets closer and as the yards get smaller, right?

Yeah, and you try to go 50 feet, 50 feet's either a cedar fence or a PVC.

Well, yeah, and but you probably shouldn't have one at that point if the yards are getting that small.

I mean, I'd be concerned if somebody had a player, you know, five to 10 feet from my fence.

Yeah, I know a lot of people.

I mean, they have a patio, yeah, yeah, deck.

Maybe you shouldn't have a chimney out on deck, but that's beside the one.

But um with and it's within so that's within 15 feet because now not everybody's patio is bigger than 15 feet, right?

So that's what I was saying.

I thought I thought there's already a code for that, because I like I was saying when I did my patio, I originally wanted that gas extension uh run a gas line out to a fire pit, and then yeah, like I was gonna have to extend the the concrete forward, it was gonna drastically increase the cost.

So I was like, Oh, forget it.

Um so I I think that might already be addressed.

I'd think that's in the building code or the international fire code, you know.

If you're gonna have a gas line with an open flame, it's gotta be certain distance.

Yeah, so I'm sure that is, but this is more for open burning.

I want to I want to have a fire pit in my backyard, and and it is kind of some some communities have it, some don't have a distance requirement.

Yeah, it really boils down to what two existence would like to do.

Zero technically your house on fire.

But it's not like the homes are burning down around us.

Yeah, yeah, good point.

Eric.

This is precisely why we did this.

So yeah, whatever distance you guys decide will be great.

Or if you want no distance, that's fine too.

Right.

And greening, burning garbage, burning, whatever those are the main things.

I mean, I'm okay with taking the distance out.

Yeah, are we generally okay with taking the distance out?

Are you I kind of like the distance?

That's a good idea to take the distance out.

I think that's we should consult the experts, but oh Mountain View Fire said take the distance out.

No, I'm saying ask them what they think about it.

I'm I'm in Kendra draft the other the ordinance, so don't don't hold me to it, but I'm 90% positive they didn't say anything about the distance.

They did weigh in on the screen, the distance came from Thornton's ordinance.

I think yeah, we don't have to call authority.

I mean, I I'd still be concerned if somebody had an open fire five feet from my fence.

I think you'd be right.

I mean, I would not be happy if if they have a screen.

Is it really controls the embers?

The one the commercial ones usually are three sixteenths of an inch.

Yeah, I'm still not feeling comfortable.

I mean, but I have I I'd be okay with seven feet, but you know, it's 15 feet's too far.

But if somebody's like safe, I don't care if they got a screen or or not.

I mean, there's a fire within five feet of my fence.

That's a problem.

Like there should be some distance, but if the fire department doesn't have it, so maybe I'm maybe I'm okay with um what council Ibera was saying.

Go ask the fire department again.

Or see if Kendra did.

Yes.

And if there's no requirement, then I'm okay with that.

But if they're saying date, it should be whatever, then I think that should be what we consider.

Or you have a fire extinguisher.

How many complaints do we get like an IE?

I wouldn't say they're common, but I would say probably between five and ten a year.

Not much.

Every once in a while.

Yeah.

So I think we're overcomplicating with number of feet manufacture recommendation and all that.

Keep it simple and say don't burn trash or leaves.

And keep it simple.

And you're only doing it when you're getting a complaint, right?

So then that this is the ordinance.

I mean, I suppose if we were driving by and we saw the flames coming up out of the backyard, we might stop and see what's going on.

But for the most part, yeah, it's it's definitely complaint-based.

Same plank based for the Texas Texas IM game and or just so is most of the cases.

Is the consensus check with Mountain View Fire?

See if they want a distance in there.

Thumbs up if you're okay with checking with Mountain View Fire for the guidance.

Sure.

Okay.

No, but I think you got four.

Okay.

I'll check and I'll let you know.

Yeah.

Um you better do a drive-by.

Um other thought.

Um, what about reg red flag warning days?

Yeah.

So then on red flag warning days, believe it or not, the ordinance says I, as the chief of police can put in a uh a burn ban.

Okay.

And a red flag, it comes with its own burn ban, but it's usually issued by the by the sheriffs.

So we follow the sheriffs.

There's been a couple occasions where I said, okay, we're we're gonna we're gonna follow Boulder County because we get inconsistent direction.

Boulder County, I'll have one and weld won't.

So if one of them does it, I usually do it for both sides so that at least we're consistent throughout town for the officers.

And then there's no open burning.

And then it and then that's pretty consistent with high wind days.

Yep, yep.

High wind days cover like tomorrow.

Yeah, there's no burning tomorrow.

We are class two burn restrictions tomorrow because of the high wind warning and the and the severe wildfire risk.

Okay, I think you got it.

Yep, thank you guys.

All right, thank you very much.

I'll uh look to Ermir Pro Tem to take SIP sex session.

All right, thank you.

Um I moved to go into executive session to consider personnel matters for CRS 2464024F and none of involving any specific employees who have a request discussion of the matter in open session, any member of this body or any elected the appointment of any person to fill an office of this body or any elected official or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to the particular employees and to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, develop a strategy for negotiations and or instruct negotiators pursuant to CRS 2464024E concerning the town manager's evaluation contract.

Develop a strategy for negotiations and or instruct negotiators pursuant to CRS twenty four six four four four four four zero two four E concerning the town manager's evaluation contract.

All right.

All in favor say aye.

Oh that's all we asked to the second was.

Yeah, got it.

All right.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All of those say no.

All right.

No, we're fine.

Um okay.

Uh but Greena, you're in the phone.