By Bob Hart
The Archuleta Board of County Commissioners has been soliciting offers to purchase the historic County Courthouse for the past few months, and at their February 15 meeting, according to their approved minutes of the meeting, “Commissioner [Ronnie] Maez moved to put a deadline on the offers received from current and new Bidders until Tuesday of next week at 5:00pm. Commissioner [Warren] Brown seconded the motion and it carried.”
The deadline for offers was therefore February 22.
The BOCC minutes that document the February 15 motion and vote can be downloaded here.
I was one of the parties who submitted an offer in response to that 5pm February 22 deadline.
The agenda for the February 15 meeting included the Courthouse offers received though that day. One offer was from Ronnie Urbanczyk, and at the top of his offer, it stated ‘Updated: January 19, 2022’. Later — on or about February 22 — Mr. Urbanczyk withdrew this bid.
The ‘Analysis and Findings’ of the various offers, ordered at the County Commissioners March 1 meeting, now appearing on the Commissioners’ meeting agenda for today, Tuesday, April 5, are flawed in more ways than one. You can download that ‘Analysis and Findings’ here.
The main flaw is that the report included Urbanczyk, Bid #1. I’m not calling out Northland Public Finance, because I’m sure they were not aware, that as of the February 22, 2022, 5pm deadline for bids, Mr. Urbanczyk had withdrawn his bid.
For the reasons herein stated, Bid #1 by Ronnie Urbanczyk must be rejected and removed from the bid analysis, as it failed to meet the bid deadline. In fact, as of the bid deadline of 5pm on February 22, Mr. Urbanczyk had withdrawn his bid, according to the list of valid bids published by the County on February 23.
On Wednesday, February 23, the day after the 5pm bid submission deadline, the County released the printout dated, “Revised 2/23/22″ of the “FINAL & BEST OFFERS”. The last line, for Ronnie Urbanczyk, states: “Offer Withdrawn on February 22, 2022”
You can download that February 23 “Final Offers” document here, and also view it below:
On February 23, there were only four bidders that can be considered as meeting the 5pm February 22 deadline. Mr. Urbanczyk is not one of them.
Only four bids that should have been sent to Northland Public Finance for analysis. But somehow, five weeks later, a different offer than the one Mr. Urbanczyk had withdrawn, showed up on the Northland Analysis and Findings.
In Mr. Urbanczyk January 19 offer — that was withdrawn on February 22 — there was no mention of “Offer includes 10% ownership interest in 40 acres adjacent to airport( (160k) AND sale of +/- 6-acre tract off Cloman Road for Dutton Creek Ranch access ($180k)”. Mysteriously, this now shows up in the ‘note’ section of Northland Public Finances’ cost analysis spread sheet.
The action of submitting additional bid and offer information to Northland that was received after the deadline for Final & Best Offers raises additional questions. How did this happen? The bids that did meet the bid deadline were printed and distributed on February 23, at which time Mr. Urbanczyk would have had access to them… allowing him to submit a new offer (with the appearance of being better that the others?)… to someone?
To whom was Mr. Urbanczyk’s late offer submitted?
Then, that offer was presented to Northland as a valid offer, to be included in the Analysis?
This is seriously wrong.
Something happened in this bid process that is an injustice to the people of Archuleta County and the bidders that followed the rules as set by the Commissioners during their public meeting on February 15.
I believe it is Board Chair Alvin Schaaf’s duty to ensure that the bid process, as unanimously approved by the County Commissioners, is followed. Bid #1, from Mr. Urbanczyk must be rejected by the County Commissioners. The County should never have submitted the Urbanczyk bid to Northland Public Finance to be included in the Analysis.
There are other inaccuracies and problems in the Analysis.
The Analysis states, “This offer (offer 1 – Urbanczyk) provides the most attractive terms to the County. Primarily, the County may occupy its current building footprint for up to 5 years at no cost (the only offer to provide this flexibility)…”
This statement is not true. Offer #3 clearly provides the most flexible terms. Bid 3, options 1 and 2, both offer 5 years rent free to the County and in addition it is the only offer that allows the County to remain in that space for as long as needed. If the County should need it after year 5, if the new administrative building is not yet ready, the County can remain where they are, but will have to pay rent beginning year 6, after the 5 years of free rent.
Bid #3, option 1 or 2, clearly are the offers that gives the County the most flexibility.
The Analysis made the assumption that the lease-back period will be 3 years. That’s an understandable assumption, but 3 years is very limiting to the County, and I can see where the lease-back could easily be needed for a longer period.
The County has invested both time and money in discussions of the need for workforce housing in Archuleta County. Bid #3 addresses that, by proposing 6 workforce housing units aimed at households earning less than or equal to 100% of Area Mean Income. The Analysis fails to mention that. Bid #3 is the only bid proposing the creation of workforce housing.
The Commissioners have recognized that need, and it should have been included in the Analysis.
I have reached out to Board Chair Alvin Schaaf, asking that the Urbanczyk bid be disallowed, and a new analysis be done without the Urbanczyk bid included.