BATH

In a long and contentious meeting Wednesday, the City Council reversed itself and decided to release executive session information about the sale of the old Bath Memorial Hospital.

By a 6-2 vote, the Council overrode its Aug. 21 vote to effectively seal information about its deliberations of the sale made in executive session.

Councilor Mari Eosco moved to reopen the decision; she was joined in voting for the motion by councilors Carolyn Lockwood, Meadow Merrill, Tink Mitchell, David Sinclair and Andrew Winglass.

Voting against releasing the information were councilors Sean Paulhus and Steve Brackett.

The vote came against the backdrop of an active recall drive, and as critic and former attorney Michael Wischkaemper sent an open email to the City Council terming the sale “illegal.” Larry Scott, another critic, had threatened a boycott of councilors’ businesses.

Wischkaemper said that without competitive bids, the city’s sale of the building at 9 Park St. was illegal under current city codes.

In a Sept. 3 email to city councilors, Wischkaemper pointed out that the city can dispose of real estate valued at $1,500 or more only by:

— public bids;

— limited bids where the market for the property seems to be attractive only to a few buyers;

— lease where it is in the city’s best interest to hold the property;

— sale to an abutter when the abutter would be the only person to have a reasonable interest;

— gifting the property to an organization or individual when it would benefit the city in some way; and

— “any other disposition of real estate by a method that is deemed by the City Council to be in the best interests of Bath.”

Wischkaemper says the method that seems to have been used was a limited bidding process. However, the city did not solicit bids.

According to Wischkaemper and records available to The Times Record, the sale of the building was made official on April 17, when the order of sale was read.

However, there is no record of the City Council approving the method of sale.

There is also no evidence the City Council voted before April 17 on the issue. An executive session where the issue was discussed allegedly took place Feb. 6, but no vote was taken after coming out of executive session.

Wischkaemper was told the City Council approved an asking price of $799,000 “sometime between April 8 and April 10,” but there is no evidence of a meeting, either in public or in executive session where the City Council voted on the price on either of those dates.

City Manager William Giroux contracted with Don Spann of RE/Max Riverside to sell the property.

Spann’s contract was to begin on April 10, but the contract was drawn up on April 3 — five to seven days before the City Council supposedly approved an asking price.

Among other items, Spann was authorized to list the property on the Multiple Listings Service, place a for sale sign on the property and advertise it.

None of that occurred. On the same day, Spann and Giroux accepted a bid for the property by Robert Smith of Phippsburg, who offered the asking price of $799,000 for the building, which is assessed for tax purposes at $6.5 million.

Bath never received $799,000. After accounting for debt payments and the 7 percent commission to Spann, the city netted about $170,000 for the property.

The deal was contingent on City Council approval; the council met seven days later and read the order of sale. The council approved the sale unanimously.

At least two other interested buyers attempted to obtain information from Spann about the issue.

Spann told at least one of them, Larry Scott, to have a broker contact him but when the broker, Sam Armentrout did so, Spann did not release the information, Scott said.

According to Wischkaemper, Giroux admitted he entered into the agreement with Spann not to list the property on the MLS until City Council acted on the offer by Smith. He said he did it because the City Council could have refused the offer.

However, between the time the offer was accepted by order April 17 and the time the sale closed, there were a number of contingencies that remained, including paperwork that both the buyer and seller had to provide.

Meanwhile, there were at least two individuals who had expressed interest in making an offer.

“We had three different people approach the agent over that time,” Community Development Officer Justin Poirier said in an interview with the Coastal Journal. “I think the city was pleasantly surprised with all the interest in the building.”

It is unknown whether the City Council was presented with other offers.

In his email, Wischkaemper “does not say that city council knew it was illegal at the time you did it.”

“In fact, the appearance is that the city manager … withheld the relevant information from you. But the sale was still illegal, because the city codes govern the city, not just the council or individual officials.”

At the Sept. 4 meeting, the City Council also agreed to have City Solicitor Roger Therriault draft a request for proposals aimed at a number of former judges and retired lawyers recommended by the Maine Municipal Association and the attorney general’s office who do this type of investigation.

Once the proposals are returned, the council will select an investigator and the process will begin. Therriault said he thought the process could be completed during September.

ghamilton@timesrecord.com