Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the West Side Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate paying for West Side economic development master plan; majority hesitant to spend now
Summary
Staff proposed using an RFP and about $40,000–$50,000 of budget savings to hire consultants for a 5–10 year economic development master plan focused on West Side redevelopment; several commissioners said the study may not be practical or affordable and signaled reluctance to spend the money immediately.
City staff proposed issuing an RFP for an economic development master plan to target West Side redevelopment in Daytona Beach Shores and asked the commission whether to direct staff to proceed with a consultant-funded study.
The City Manager said the idea is to replace the standing objectives (A1–A8 in the existing plan) with a consultant-led 5– or 10‑year economic development master plan that would analyze demographics, identify target industries and recommend incentives and implementation strategies. The City Manager cited Ormond Beach’s recent economic plan as a comparator, saying that city paid about $25,000 in a 2022 effort and that a similar study for The Shores would likely cost more today — “probably gonna be 40 to 50,000,” the City Manager said.
Commissioners voiced skepticism about the value and timing of the study. The Vice Mayor said the idea was “good faith” but “not practical,” noting Daytona Beach Shores’ limited land, market constraints and the town’s character as a small, quiet community. Commissioner Cardet and Commissioner Economos echoed concerns about limited commercial real estate, low trip counts for potential retail and the difficulty of supporting full‑service restaurants purely from Shores patrons.
Staff said they had identified about $50,000 in current‑budget savings from projects not moving forward and suggested using that amount to fund the RFP and study if the commission agreed; no formal motion or vote took place. Commissioners repeatedly asked whether the RFP would do active business‑recruitment outreach or only site analysis; staff said the scope could be written either way and that vendor pricing would depend on the RFP scope.
Outcome: commissioners expressed reluctance to allocate $50,000 for the study at this time and asked staff to think further rather than proceed immediately with an RFP. No formal appropriation, motion or vote was recorded at the workshop.
