Serious Issues with Bidding Process and Courthouse Analytics – Pagosa Daily Post News Events & Video for Pagosa Springs Colorado

By Bob Hart

The Archuleta County Board of Commissioners has been soliciting offers to purchase the historic county courthouse for the past several months, and at their February 15 meeting, according to their approved minutes of the meeting, “the commissioner [Ronnie] Maez proposed putting a deadline for bids received from current and new bidders until Tuesday next week at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner [Warren] Brown seconded the motion and it carried.

The deadline for submissions was therefore February 22.

The BOCC minutes documenting the February 15 motion and vote can be downloaded here.

I was one of the parties who submitted a bid in response to that 5 p.m. deadline on February 22.

The agenda for the February 15 meeting included the courthouse offers received that day. One offer came from Ronnie Urbanczyk, and at the top of his offer it said “Update: January 19, 2022”. Later — on or about February 22 — Mr. Urbanczyk withdrew that offer.

The analysis and conclusions of the various bids, commissioned at the county commissioners’ meeting on March 1, now on the agenda for the commissioners’ meeting today, Tuesday April 5, are flawed at most of a title. You can download this “analysis and conclusions” here.

The main flaw is that the report included Urbanczyk, Bid #1. I’m not calling Northland Public Finance, as I’m sure they were unaware, that by the bid deadline of February 22, 2022, 5pm, Mr. Urbanczyk had withdrawn his bid.

For the reasons stated herein, Bid #1 from Ronnie Urbanczyk must be rejected and removed from the bid analysis as it did not meet the submission deadline. Indeed, by the 5 p.m. bid deadline on Feb. 22, Mr. Urbanczyk had withdrawn his bid, according to the list of valid bids released by the county on Feb. 23.

On Wednesday, February 23, the day after the 5 p.m. bid submission deadline, the county released the “FINALS AND BEST OFFERS” dated “02/23/22” printout. The last line, for Ronnie Urbanczyk, reads: “Offer withdrawn February 22, 2022”

You can download this February 23 “Final Offers” document here, and also view it below:

On February 23, there were only four bidders who could be considered to meet the deadline of 5 p.m. on February 22. Mr. Urbanczyk is not one of them.

Only four offers that should have been sent to Northland Public Finance for analysis. But somehow, five weeks later, a different offer to the one Mr. Urbanczyk had withdrawn appeared in Northland’s analysis and conclusions.

In Mr. Urbanczyk’s offer of January 19 – which was withdrawn on February 22 – there was no mention of “the offer includes a 10% interest in 40 acres adjacent to the airport ((160k) AND the sale of +/- 6 acres of land off Cloman Road for Dutton Creek Ranch access ($180,000). Mysteriously, this now appears in the “note” section of the spreadsheet. cost analysis from Northland Public Finances.

The action of submitting additional information about bids and offers to Northland that were received after the final and best bid deadline raises additional questions. How did it happen? Bids that met the submission deadline were printed and distributed on February 23, by which time Mr. Urbanczyk would have had access to them… allowing him to submit a new bid (apparently better than the others?)… to someone ‘a?

To whom was Mr. Urbanczyk’s late offer submitted?

Then this offer was presented to Northland as a valid offer, to be included in the analysis?

It’s really wrong.

Something happened in this bidding process that is an injustice to the people of Archuleta County and the bidders who followed the rules established by the commissioners at their February 15 public meeting.

I believe it is the duty of the chairman of the board, Alvin Schaaf, to ensure that the application process, as unanimously approved by the county commissioners, is followed. Mr. Urbanczyk’s No. 1 offer must be rejected by the county commissioners. The county should never have submitted Urbanczyk’s bid to Northland Public Finance for inclusion in the analysis.

There are other inaccuracies and problems in the analysis.

The analysis states: “This offer (Offer 1 – Urbanczyk) offers the most attractive conditions for the county. Primarily, County can occupy its current build footprint for up to 5 years at no cost (the only offering to offer this flexibility)…”

This statement is not true. Offer #3 clearly offers the most flexible terms. Offer 3, options 1 and 2, both offer 5 years of free rent to the county and in addition it is the only offer that allows the county to stay in this space as long as necessary. If the Department needs it after year 5, if the new administrative building is not yet ready, the Department can stay on site, but will have to pay rent from year 6, after the 5 years of rent free.

Offer #3, option 1 or 2, are clearly the offers that give the County the most flexibility.

The analysis has assumed that the leaseback period will be 3 years. It’s an understandable assumption, but 3 years is very limiting for the county, and I can see where leaseback could easily be needed for a longer period.

The county invested time and money in discussions about the need for workforce housing in Archuleta County. Offer #3 responds to this, by offering 6 housing units for the workforce intended for households earning less than or equal to 100% of the average income of the area. The Analysis fails to mention it. Offer #3 is the only offer proposing the creation of housing for the workforce.

The Commissioners recognized this need, and it should have been included in the analysis.

I contacted the chairman of the board, Alvin Schaaf, requesting that Urbanczyk’s offer be rejected and that a new analysis be carried out without including Urbanczyk’s offer.

Publish a contributor

Publish a contributor

The Pagosa Daily Post welcomes submissions, photos, letters and videos from people who love Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Call 970-903-2673 or email [email protected]

Comments are closed.