The Truth, The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth: POST UPDATED BELOW

Where to begin on the sale of the old Firehouse, everything about it stinks. Granted, Palmer Gillis did follow the procedures set forth by the city of Salisbury to purchase the building however, the city did not follow it’s own procedures.

The building and property it sits on was surplussed April 2007 before the new council was seated. One of Mike Dunn’s last votes while in office. The surplus was announced at the council legislative meeting, an offer of $250,000 cash was put on the table to start the bidding for the property.

August and November 2009 the property listed as 115 S Division St is advertised in the Daily Times. The property described is the building and the lot it sits on ONLY. The city of Salisbury did not follow the law in the sale of this property. Advertisement of the property, August and November of 2009, lists ONLY the building and the parcel of land it sits on, NOT the two parcels along the river. The city threw the river properties in as an option, in an addendum but failed to advertise them publicly. While the property known as the Old Firehouse was surplussed by the council the two parcels on the river were not, therefore, they could not be sold with the advertised parcel. Why? Because the charter says any property designated as surplus or unused must be done so by council.

Copies of the addendum were sent only to interested parties they wanted to bid and then posted on the city website. This, according to the city municipal code is not proper advertisement of property for sale. Municipal code states the following; “A notice inviting proposals or an auction advertisement shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation not less than three times within thirty (30) days prior to the date that proposals shall be made or auction held, and such notice or auction advertisement shall identify the specific property to be sold, the site, side and location.”
It should also be noted.

Only what is surplussed and advertised can be sold. Why wouldn’t Palmer Gillis or anyone else want property that has 2 parcels with river frontage as an option? The city tossed it in an addendum so the public would be none the wiser. They begged the bidders to take the property saying they can have a portion, half or both lots and they would close off the existing street if the bidder wanted them to. This city is being run by either complete imbeciles or the most corrupt people to breathe air since Spiro Agnew. This whole deal is illegal and should be subject to injunctive relief.

The municipal code says; “To assure that all who may be interested in developing real property owned by the city of Salisbury which is surplus or unused are given an equitable opportunity to participate”
One could argue that an offer of $250,000 cash at the podium of a city council meeting is not an offer to purchase and that a RFP should have been submitted. However, the RFP states it was sent to all who showed an interest in the property. This is simply not true, ALL did not receive an RFP. ALL that the city wanted to submit an RFP may have received notice, ALL that showed interest did not.

The code also states; “The director of procurement shall determine whether city-owned land is surplus or unused in accordance with the City Charter and make recommendations to the city council as to the sale or disposition of such real property.”

Of course, Paul Wilber will come back and say it’s ok because it was put into the addendum. This is NOT OKAY! The same municipal code Paul Wilber writes to protect landlords states specifically how surplussed property must be handled. An addendum, sent to only those interested in purchasing the property, posted on a website is not considered public notification

The RFP also states bids will be sealed bids. How were they sealed bids if the council was always making reference to who bid and their intended use for the property PUBLICLY?

The RFP and Addenda also state the proposed use of the property must meet the approval of council. Well, all along the Gillises stated UMES and Perdue was partnering in this venture until the last council meeting when they realized people called and asked questions. After the council gave the firehouse away Gillis admits in the newspaper UMES was not going to partner with him. Representatives from UMES stated they were always more out of this deal than in. I don’t know of any individual that has partnered with Perdue. All this talk about partnering with UMES and the Hospitality program came from Brad Gillis, Palmer Gillis and Karl Binns, who teaches in the hospitality program at UMES. It should also be known that Mr. Binns is a very close friend of Lore Chambers, assistant city administrator.

Now that the cat is out of the bag regarding Palmer and Brad Gillis’s partnerships, or lack thereof, what is the real intended use for this property? Condos in the old firehouse? Bar and restaurant along the river?

UPDATE: Let me take this to yet ANOTHER level, or two. #1, BOTH parcels near the river were purchased with "OPEN SPACE" money. The City CANNOT surplus that property! Idiots! #2, based on the "SCORING" they did for the RFP's, according to their own rules, because UMES backed out, Brushmiller's proposal would actually have been a HANDS DOWN better offer, BY A LONG SHOT! We will be investigating this scoring system this week before all final documents are turned over to our attorneys. AGAIN, I want to reflect on the FACT that your local MSM never picked up on ANY of this. They are simply there, (any more) as a Press Release for most of the stories handed to them. Most of them are way too green to the Shore to have ANY clue what's really going on politically.

HOWEVER, you can continue to depend on Salisbury News to deliver you the FACTS and ORIGINAL stories while the rest produce OUR local news on television hours later, right WBOC. Let everyone else do the work while you take the credit.