Our featured photo, above, shows financial analyst Troy Bernberg explaining his report to the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners.
One might expect that many important decisions would be handed down, during two lengthy public meetings at the Archuleta County Administration building yesterday.
Or even, during one lengthy public meeting, for than matter.
Alas, the Archuleta BOCC met for a three-hour work session on Tuesday morning, and then met again for another marathon three-hour meeting in the afternoon, without coming to a final conclusion about either of the two most controversial issues on their agenda.
I wrote about one of their failures to reach a decision, on the topic of new land use regulations aimed at controlling marijuana cultivation, in a separate editorial this morning, which you can read here.
The other controversial issue, which also resisted a firm decision, concerned the proposed sale of the historic County Courthouse building located in downtown Pagosa.
As we discussed in Part One of this editorial series, a supposed financial expert named Troy Bernberg had been hired to clarify the monetary value of the various — and different — real estate offers that had been presented by the BOCC’s deadline: February 22 at 5pm. The bids were submitted to County Paralegal Mary Helminski.
These offered were officially ‘time-stamped’ as having been received by the 5pm deadline. In red ink.
Here’s the time-stamp for the proposal made by Whitney Van Zant, submitted at 1:39pm.
Here’s the time-stamp for the proposal made by builder Bob Hart, submitted at 2:02pm.
Here’s the time-stamp for the proposal made by Olympus Real Estate Holdings Ltd, submitted at 2:59pm.
Here’s the time-stamp for the proposal made by the investor group of James Scholl, David Loeser, and David Blumhardt, submitted at 4:51pm.
These four bids were then made public on February 23.
At some point in time after February 23 — after all the other bids were made public — the County received another bid? From Ronnie Urbanczyk?
We don’t know when this bid was received, because unlike the other bids, it was not time-stamped. We also don’t know who received this late bid, but we know it wasn’t Mary Helminski. We do know that Mr. Urbanczyk had access to all of the other, previously-submitted bids.
No one, at either Tuesday meeting, admitted to having received the late bid, and then passing it on to financial analyst Troy Bernberg as if it were a valid bid.
In Mr. Bernberg’s report, the Urbanczyk bid was described as the superior bid. From that report:
Evaluating net offers shows the net benefit (i.e., sales price) to the County accounting for all costs related to the real estate transaction as well as the County’s occupancy of its current footprint until a new administration building is available. On this basis, the [Urbanczyk] offer listed amongst consideration stands out. Aside from calculating the cost of the dumping fee waiver, this offeror provides the most attractive terms to the County. Primarily, the County may occupy its current building footprint for up to five years at no cost (the only offer to provide this flexibility).
Although Mr. Bernberg represented himself during the Tuesday morning work session as an expert in public finance, the conclusion quoted in the paragraph above is erroneous. The BOCC had received two offers from Bob Hart that would allow the County to continue using the Courthouse for up to five years ‘rent free’.
But the Urbanczyk bid — as tardy as it was — only allowed the the County to “continue to occupy the space on a ‘rent free’ basis until renovations are commenced.” There is no wording in Mr. Urbanczyk’s offer that mentions “five years at no cost”. You can download Mr. Urbanczyk’s bid document here.
How could Mr. Bernberg present the BOCC with this obviously false information? I can think of two possible explanations.
1. Mr. Bernberg is incompetent and careless, and didn’t read, or didn’t understand, the bid documents he was provided.
2. Mr. Bernberg was told, by someone, to intentionally distort the facts in his analysis, to make Mr. Urbanczyk’s offer appear to be the preferred choice.
Other explanations are possible.
During the morning work session, complaints were verbally expressed by Mr. Hart and by Mr. Scholl (of the investor group) about the inaccuracies in Mr. Bernberg’s report, and about the Urbanczyk bid that mysteriously appeared at some point after the official bid deadline.
A few hours later, the regular BOCC meeting reached following item on its agenda:
OLD BUSINESS
A. Consideration Of Proposals To Purchase 449 San Juan Street Building
The Board of County Commissioners received multiple offers to purchase the 449 San Juan Street Building. At their regular meeting on March 1, 2022, the BoCC directed staff to have a financial analyst run a comparison of the bids and provide an analysis at the April 5th work session, prior to a possible decision at their April 5th regular meeting.
Once again, the three commissioners heard complaints from multiple members of the audience, about the inaccuracies in the Bernberg report, and questioning why the Urbanczyk document — which bore no time-stamp — was included in the analysis.
After hearing valid complaints from several people, Commissioner Warren Brown made the following motion:
“Well, I think, based upon what we have right here — and I don’t know when this came in, but if the numbers were the numbers that are right here, it would be my motion to accept the bid from Ronnie Urbanczyk at $250,000 for the purchase of 449 San Juan Street, and that we enter into negotiations with the same.”
Attorney Todd Weaver corrected Commissioner Brown, noting that the purchase price was $450,000.
Commissioner Brown explained that the $250,000 was the actual ‘cash in advance’. Attorney Weaver could not confirm that dollar amount, but believed the amount was $450,000. (When I look at Mr. Urbanczyk’s mysterious document, the cash payment appears to be $350,000.)
Neither of the other two commissioners would second Commissioner Brown’s motion, and it died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Maez then made a motion that the BOCC decide not sell the Courthouse at this time. That motion also died for lack of a second.
Commission chair Alvin Schaaf then moved to accept updated offers from all current bidders, through 5pm on Friday, March 8, and that a decision be postponed until the BOCC’s March 19 regular meeting. The motion passed.