Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables sale of Block 70 Lot 4 after questions about buyer-paid appraisal and county valuations
Summary
Freeport council withdrew a motion and tabled a proposed sale of Block 70 Lot 4 after council members questioned an appraisal submitted by the buyer and cited differing Brazoria County appraisal district records; council directed staff to order a city appraisal.
The Freeport City Council on Feb. 3 withdrew a motion to approve the sale of Block 70, Lot 4 in the Velasco townsite and tabled the item after several council members raised concerns about the appraisal used to set the sale price.
The parcel, located at the end of the South Avenue H right-of-way adjacent to property owned by the prospective buyer, was included in the meeting packet with an appraisal the staff said the buyer had paid for. City staff said the buyer, identified in the packet as David Ellis, currently owns adjacent lots and had purchased Lot 2 in May 2024.
Council members questioned the propriety and accuracy of a buyer-paid appraisal and pointed to Brazoria County Appraisal District records that the council said showed different valuations. “I don’t feel comfortable selling it for $1,237 when Brazoria County Appraisal District says it’s worth $58.60,” Councilman Matamoros said during the discussion, noting the wide discrepancies in values reflected in packet materials and county records.
Council members also noted uncertainty about whether the packet’s appraisal was a bona fide licensed-appraiser report or a broker opinion. A council member pointed out the packet-listed appraisal appeared prepared by a broker, not a licensed appraiser, and called it a BPO (broker price opinion), not a formal appraisal.
Given the concerns, the maker of the motion withdrew it and the council voted to table the matter. The council directed staff to order an independent city appraisal before the sale is returned to the council for consideration.
The action matters because disagreements over the valuation process determine whether the city receives a fair return on surplus property and because previous small-lot sales were referenced by council members when comparing pricing approaches.
Staff notes in the meeting packet said the buyer had been informed that there were no city utilities or road access to the parcel and that the parcel is at the end of a jungle road; that lack of access was discussed as a factor in marketability.
Next steps: city staff will obtain a city-commissioned appraisal and provide the results to council prior to re-agendizing the sale.
