Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Disposition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Redevelopment staff posts city properties for sale; board questions city‑paid appraisals

Daytona Beach Redevelopment Advisory Board · July 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Redevelopment staff said the city will post three properties for sale and has published 30-day notices; board members questioned the practice of the city paying for appraisals and discussed timelines for proposals and negotiations.

Redevelopment staff told the board it plans to post several city-owned properties for sale and has published 30-day notices as required by statute. Angela, the redevelopment staff member, said notices for 146 and 148 South Granby were posted this week and that 34 South Grandview will be posted July 9–10. She said the city has requested appraisals for those parcels and usually receives appraisal reports in three to six weeks.

Chair Tom Caffrey, who described his experience as a real-estate agent, questioned why the city pays for appraisals rather than shifting that cost to buyers or relying on comparative market analyses. "In my experience as a real estate agent, I've done over a $125,000,000 in sales," Tom Caffrey said, arguing the city should avoid unnecessary expense. Angela and other staff responded that municipalities use independent third-party appraisals to set a fair baseline and to protect taxpayers from later disputes over value.

Board members also sought clarification about the proposal timeline. Staff said proposals are being accepted now and noted deadline dates: prospective respondents have to reply by Aug. 3 for 146 Grandview and by Aug. 10 for 34 South Grandview; if no proposals arrive, staff will consult legal counsel and could reissue notices or reengage interested parties later. Members discussed contract language options — for example, specifying in a sale contract that the seller will pay an appraisal gap if a formal appraisal is below contract price — but agreed any change would require a policy-level discussion with the city manager and City Commission.

No formal policy change was made; board members agreed the issue of who pays for routine appraisal costs was a city policy question that could be pursued if the board wanted to recommend it to commission staff. Angela said she will share appraisal reports with the board as they arrive.