Erosion of Public Trust in Pueblo

Audit of PURA: ethical red flags, undisclosed payments, and the erosion of public trust in Pueblo

A recent mayoral review and local reporting have revealed a string of payments and business practices at the Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority (PURA) that raise serious questions about transparency, procurement, and ethics. Most notable: a $60,000 consulting payment recorded as paid to “Simon Tafoya”, a name that appears in PURA meeting minutes as a “lobbyist,” and a pattern of payments that the mayor says were made without written, board-approved contracts. Those findings - reported by KRDO and the Pueblo Chieftain and documented in PURA minutes - point to possible violations of local procurement norms, Colorado open-records and open-meetings expectations, and basic standards for conflict-of-interest disclosure. KRDO+2Chieftain+2

What The Audit Found

Local reporting summarizes the key problems the mayor flagged:

• The mayor’s review identified roughly $124,647.58 in PURA payments that were allegedly made without written contracts. Among those, the largest single series of payments - totaling $60,000 - was listed as paid to “Simon Tafoya” and described by the mayor as a consulting arrangement that lacked a formal, written contract. KRDO reported it could not identify which person named Simon Tafoya was the recipient. Chieftain+1

• PURA’s own board meeting minutes (July 9, 2024) record that then-Executive Director Jerry Pacheco told the board he was “working with lobbyist Simon Tafoya for advice on the PBR Sports Performance Center.” That entry documents direct engagement between Pacheco and a person described as a lobbyist in PURA business. Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority

• In the weeks after the mayor’s public complaint, Pacheco’s employment at PURA ended (his exit became effective Aug. 7, 2025), a development widely covered by the Chieftain and other outlets. Local reporting placed the mayor’s criticisms and questions about contracting practices at the center of the controversy. Chieftain+1

Those are the concrete, documented points: (1) payments recorded in PURA accounting, (2) minutes showing work with a named “lobbyist,” and (3) personnel fallout. The missing piece is the paper trail - the contracts, scopes of work, or invoices that would justify the payments. KRDO and the Chieftain both report that either no written contracts were located or PURA failed to produce them when questioned. KRDO+1

Why this matters: procurement, transparency, and legal duties

Public agencies operate under an accepted set of rules designed to prevent misuse of taxpayer funds. Three central governance problems are implicated here:

1. Procurement and budget rules.
Local authorities must follow procurement norms - written contracts, board approval for significant purchases or consulting agreements, and budgetary authorization for expenditures. Large payments made without contracts or board votes risk violating local government budget law and the authority’s own bylaws or policies. The mayor’s letter and local reporting allege just such a breakdown. Chieftain+1

2. Open-records and meeting transparency.
Colorado’s public-records and open-meetings culture expects that major contracts and the reasoning behind them will be on the record. When an authority pays contractors or consultants - especially for services that might include advocacy, lobbying, or project-shaping work - the public has the right to see documented scopes of work and board deliberations supporting those payments. The absence of written contracts and scant detail in minutes undermine that transparency. Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority+1

3. Lobbying, disclosure, and conflicts of interest.
If the person contracted was acting as a lobbyist, there are additional disclosure expectations. Lobbying to obtain public funding or to influence public decisions while being paid by the public agency or by private parties with interests before the agency creates an acute conflict-of-interest risk unless it’s carefully disclosed and managed. The July 2024 minutes explicitly calling someone a “lobbyist” - combined with a six-figure payment recorded without a public contract - is precisely the scenario that ethics rules are designed to avoid. Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority+1

The Ethical Problems 

Below are the key ethical concerns raised by the reporting and minutes:

A. Lack of documented scope or deliverables.
A consulting payment should be tied to a written scope (what was the work, what deliverables were expected, timelines, hourly rates). Without those, it’s impossible to verify whether public money bought legitimate services or was misallocated. KRDO’s reporting that the payment lacked a written contract is central here. KRDO

B. Possible circumvention of board oversight.
An executive director unilaterally arranging large consulting expenditures without the board’s documented authorization - or without including the terms and vote in the minutes - weakens the checks and balances meant to prevent misuse. PURA’s minutes have a short note about “working with lobbyist Simon Tafoya,” but no board vote on a contract or payment schedule appears in the public record cited by reporters. Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority+1

C. Potential double role: consultant and lobbyist.
If the consultant functioned as a lobbyist, that raises questions about whether taxpayer funds were used to lobby the City, state officials, or others on behalf of PURA projects - and whether that activity required the lobbyist to be registered and the nature of the engagement to be publicly disclosed. This risk is heightened when the reporting shows both the word “lobbyist” in the minutes and the large consulting payment in accounting. Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority+1

D. Public trust and reputational harms.
Even if no statutory violation is ultimately proven, the pattern - undocumented payments, a labeled “lobbyist” on agency time, and the subsequent executive departure - degrades public trust. That loss of trust can be as damaging as a legal violation because redevelopment authorities depend on community and investor confidence to attract private partners and secure grants. Chieftain+1

What the Report Does Not Prove

• Which “Simon Tafoya” received the payment. Local outlets reported they could not determine which individual named Simon Tafoya was paid - and publicly available bios show there is at least one Colorado policy professional by that name with a broader state profile. The identity matters for assessing prior relationships, other clients, and potential conflicts. KRDO+1

• Whether the services were lawful or beneficial. Without contracts or invoices, we cannot tell whether the $60,000 and other payments produced deliverables, or whether they were exaggerated, unnecessary, or inappropriate.

• Whether state lobbying laws or local rules were violated. That requires a records review (contracts, invoices, communications) and, if necessary, an auditor’s legal analysis.

Sources and Documented Evidence

• Pueblo Chieftain reporting summarizing the mayor’s letter and identifying $60,000 paid to “Simon Tafoya” while flagging a larger set of payments lacking written contracts. Chieftain

• PURA Board Minutes, July 9, 2024 - explicit line: “Jerry let the board know he is working with lobbyist Simon Tafoya for advice on the PBR Sports Performance Center.” (PURA official PDF minutes). Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority

• KRDO reporting that the mayor raised concerns about payments and that KRDO was unable to identify which Simon Tafoya was paid; KRDO’s piece also notes a lack of response from PURA when asked. KRDO

• Chieftain coverage of Jerry Pacheco’s exit (effective Aug. 7, 2025) following public criticism from the mayor - useful context for timing and personnel changes. Chieftain+1

• PURA’s own website and prior press material showing the authority’s public role and some of its project work (for context about what PURA ordinarily does and why public trust matters). Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority

(These are the principal load-bearing sources for the claims in this article. Additional local social posts and aggregated wires noted the story but did not add primary documentation beyond the items above.) Yahoo+1

Recommended next steps for accountability 

1. Public disclosure of the underlying records. The board or mayor should direct PURA to post (or make available under CORA) the consulting contract, invoices, payment approvals, and any communications related to the $60,000 payment and the other flagged payments. That will allow independent verification of scope and deliverables. KRDO+1

2. Independent audit or legal review. If an internal review has not already produced the necessary documentation or explanations, a neutral auditor or counsel should evaluate whether procurement rules, budget laws, or lobbying disclosures were violated. The mayor’s letter suggests the mayor’s office has already begun questioning the practice; an external audit would be the logical next step. Chieftain

3. Clarify PURA policy on lobbying and contracting. The board should adopt or reinforce policies requiring board approval for contracts above a de minimis threshold, mandatory written scopes and deliverables, and a prohibition (or strict disclosure regime) for any consultant acting in a lobbying capacity. Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority+1

4. Public briefing and restoration of trust. Because redevelopment authorities rely on public and private partners, PURA should publicly brief the community on reforms and provide a timeline for corrective actions.

Why Pueblo Should Care

Urban renewal authorities play a big role in shaping neighborhoods, allocating TIF dollars, and shepherding public-private investments. When governance around those responsibilities is lax - undocumented contracts, large payments without board votes, consulting roles that blur into lobbying - taxpayers and communities suffer. The documents and reporting so far do not prove criminality, but they do paint a clear picture of weak internal controls and questionable judgment that deserve full, transparent correction. Pueblo’s residents and officials should demand the records, the answers, and reforms so this kind of opacity cannot recur. Chieftain+2Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority+2

Share on Facebook!