Tell me why the council’s knickers are in a knot?

If the Crested Butte Town Council is going to get its panties in a knot over something, I am somewhat perplexed that it’s over a contract between the town and one of its fine, long-standing partners. There is a somewhat controversial mine looming over the community, after all. A mine where the owner is parsing words over legal angles to avoid dealing with polluting metals in the town’s watershed instead of voicing a concern over how to come together and address the problem. The council has spent a million more public minutes on banging the company that supplies us natural gas than discussing what seems to be a real problem.

I wouldn’t say it has the same ring as “Remember the Alamo!” or “Stop the Mine!” but the majority of the Crested Butte Town Council is passionately screaming “Additionally Insure Us!” as their rallying cry. Really?
The chant came about as the council rejected a proposed franchise agreement with the utility that supplies natural gas to Crested Butte, Atmos Energy.
Franchise agreements are the types of things councils deal with and the public generally pays no attention to. It’s business that generally goes unnoticed… until it doesn’t. Like now.
The primary reason given to reject the agreement was that without having the town named as “additionally insured” in the company’s liability coverage, the town and its people were exposed to great risk. I agree that having that additionally insured clause would have made for a tighter, better agreement. By every indication, Atmos has been a shining partner with the town and is an honorable, efficient, good gas supplier. They work well in conjunction with the town.
Make no mistake, it would have been better if the company had given the Town Council what it wanted and would have shown a continuation of the good faith relationship that has been built between the utility and the municipality. The proposal should have made clear a minimum amount of insurance provided as Atmos representatives promised at meetings. Indemnification of the town should have covered all costs like attorney’s fees. Moving the redline to release some company liability and put more on the town felt like a kick in the groin to the council. That was unfortunate.
On the council side, the town reps seemed to ignore the past good history of partnership and instead turned it into a conflict between a small mountain village and a faceless, heartless absentee corporation. There was an air of the council wanting to “stick it to the man” at the council meeting last week. It felt like good faith negotiations broke down as a result of some attitude. That was unfortunate.

But, the paradox is confusing.
Protection for the town—the very policy the councilmembers claimed they must have since they were the elected representatives of the people—appeared to vanish all together as a result of council’s vote. According to department heads over in town hall, without any franchise agreement the council gave up not just tens of thousands of dollars a year for the General Fund, but indemnification of the town in a major accident and coverage under the Atmos liability policy. It wasn’t all they wanted, but it was something.
Some of the council members will argue that they have the same amount of protection without a franchise agreement as they would have with the one that was proposed. The town attorney says that is probably true. The town manager is worried it isn’t.
Chances of a major accident where all this would come into play is super slim. Still, accidents do happen and now the town’s liability and protection appears in limbo. My guess is that this being America, any such incident would wind up for years in the judicial system anyway.
Brian Martens of Atmos said the company has three million customers in 12 states and has never had a catastrophic incident. “We pride ourselves that we stay on top of the system and safety is a priority. Assure the citizens that protection for the citizens will be the same with or without the franchise agreement. We’ll cover any instance that happens,” he said.
If the end game by the four council members is to get a better agreement, they acknowledge they are taking a bit of a risk. Comments this week include…
*Councilman John Wirsing. “I think it is better to run the risk we are for three to six months and ultimately get a better 20-year deal. If other towns take the same stand, Atmos might see they are heading down a wrong path by eliminating that protection. Frankly, I don’t think the level of exposure we have now is much worse than what was in the franchise agreement they offered.”
*Councilman Reed Betz? “We are taking a chance but this might have put some pressure on them. I feel we should take a stand and try to get the PUC to take on the insurance issue at the state level for all the towns in Colorado. To push for the changes with the PUC and go ahead and approve the agreement as it was seems contradictory and a bit hypocritical. I think it’s worth taking that chance.”
*Councilman Roland Mason? “Based on what we’ve had for the last 20 years, we lost a lot. [Town attorney John] Belkin brought up to us that the new contract took away some basic layers of protection. The protections are about the same without the franchise agreement as it is with it. It’s the same coverage we get with the Public Utilities Commission protection. We’re at the beginning of the line in terms of Colorado towns renegotiating this franchise and it might be beneficial to see how it pans out and be at the end of that line.”

So this is where the council representatives are planting their flag. I suppose if they take this up as a Colorado cause célèbre and the Public Utilities Commission is forced to get involved and demand “additionally insured” language in every Colorado agreement, they will have pulled off a good thing. “Additionally Insure Us!” is not exactly “Remember the Alamo!” but to each his own.
As it stands, the town doesn’t have a franchise agreement and that is costing the town money. I know the Crested Butte department heads don’t want to take this risk and don’t like being put in the position the council has taken them. But the buck stops at the council. I wish these town representatives had maybe thought outside the box and come up with possible win-win solutions. If the cost of naming the town as “additionally insured” was the problem for Atmos given its 1,000 municipal clients, perhaps the town could find out the definitive price tag and pick up what should be a minimal cost if it is that important to these guys.

I think in the big scheme of things, drawing this line in the sand is a head scratcher. There are bigger fish and more important priorities. It is costing the town money and opening up the town to a bit more risk than it had last week.
On the bright side, if the council can generate this type of ire against what has by all accounts been a good partner with the town that actually generates revenue for Crested Butte, there might be hope. Hope this council might refocus and carry over that passion and energy to a certain multinational mining company that is currently arguing about how heavy metals entering Coal Creek shouldn’t be its responsibility. That’s something to get your knickers in a twist over.