Banyte Municipality prepared a municipal street for sale without a public tender to a pre-selected investor and at a pre-agreed price, then attempted to complete the sale through an inapplicable procedure under the Spatial Development Act. Regional Governor Georgi Pepelanov returned the decision as unlawful, and the Municipal Council subsequently revoked it unanimously and without debate.
The documents outline a mechanism in which the desired outcome appears to have been determined first, with the administration then looking for a convenient legal route to achieve it.
From municipal street to hotel entrance
The story began in February 2026, when the Banyte Municipal Council changed the status of two properties with a combined area of 686 sq m from public to private municipal ownership.
Both plots were designated in the cadastral records for “secondary road” use.
“Za Istinata” reported at the time that the change had been made so the land could be used as an official entrance and stopping area in front of a planned five-star spa hotel by Golden Investment Ltd.
Even then, it was apparent whose interests the municipality was serving.
Mayor Pavlin Belchev described the company as a “key investor for the strategic development of the municipality”.
The decision was approved unanimously by 10 municipal councillors, without debate.
A deal with a predetermined outcome
On 5 June, Golden Investment submitted an application to the municipality.
Just two weeks later, on 19 June, the Municipal Council approved the conclusion of a preliminary agreement for the transfer of the two properties.
The 620 sq m plot was valued at €18,600 excluding VAT, while the 66 sq m plot was valued at €1,980.
In both cases, the price was exactly €30 per square metre.
The total value of the proposed transaction was €20,580 excluding VAT.
The mayor knew who wanted the land, what it was intended to be used for and at what price it would be transferred.
No public tender was announced in which other potential buyers could compete by offering a higher price.
Instead, the administration proposed that the transaction should be carried out under a procedure in the Spatial Development Act intended to regulate boundaries between neighbouring properties.
The investor wins without competition
Avoiding a public tender was not a minor procedural detail.
In a tender, the investor would have to compete with other potential buyers. The municipality might then have obtained a price higher than the predetermined €30 per square metre.
A tender does not guarantee a higher price, but it creates an opportunity for genuine competition and shows how much the market is actually willing to pay.
In Banyte, that opportunity was effectively eliminated in advance.
The decisive factor appears not to have been the public interest, but the investor’s interest.
The law requires municipal property to be sold through a public tender or competition precisely to prevent public assets from being distributed according to the preferences of those in power.
A legal loophole instead of a tender
Under Decision No. 329, the Municipal Council authorised the two municipal properties to be incorporated in full into the adjoining private plot designated for a “balneological hotel”.
The legal grounds cited provisions of the Spatial Development Act dealing with changes to property boundaries.
Regional Governor Georgi Pepelanov, however, found that this procedure could not be used to sell entire municipal properties.
It applies to changes in boundaries and transfers of parts of properties, rather than as a substitute for a public tender.
According to the regional governor’s order, the approach used by the Municipal Council circumvented the general procedure under the Municipal Property Act, which requires municipal property to be sold through a public tender or competition.
The problems with the decision did not end there.
The decision did not even specify with whom the municipality was supposed to sign the preliminary agreement.
The investor’s name was absent, even though the entire case file pointed to Golden Investment.
Nor had new private municipal property deeds been prepared following the change in the properties’ status.
In cadastral sketches dated 30 May, the plots were still listed as secondary roads for public use.
Unanimously in favour, then unanimously against
The regional governor returned the decision as unlawful in an order dated 30 June.
At the next Municipal Council meeting, held on 15 July, council chair Diana Fidanova proposed that the decision be revoked.
“I am the proposer. I have nothing to add,” she said.
There was no discussion of how such a proposal had passed through the municipal administration, the standing committees and the council chamber.
No one explained why an inapplicable legal procedure had been chosen or why the sale had been prepared without a public tender.
The eight councillors present simply voted unanimously to revoke the decision.
Thus, the same Municipal Council that had approved the deal unanimously in June overturned it just as unanimously in July.
Without identifying responsibility.
And without an explanation to the citizens of Banyte.
