Owners and county dispute valuation of Hernando County senior-living campus

Hernando County special magistrate Steven Ester on Jan. 30 heard petitions 292 and 293 from Matthew Bradley, representing Grand Senior Living LLC, contesting the property appraiser's assessment of two adjacent parcels that together operate as a 162-bed senior-living campus.

The dispute centers on competing valuation methods. The property appraiser used a sales-comparison approach and reconciled to a total pre-adjustment value of $13,284,000, then applied a 15% cost-of-sale adjustment to reach a recommended final value of $11,291,400 for the combined parcels. The petitioner presented an income-based analysis that produced a higher valuation (about $15,834,832 after a 15% cost-of-sale adjustment). The magistrate admitted the rebuttal evidence and said he would issue a written determination at a later date.

Why it matters: the assessment will determine the property tax bill for the operating facility and any reassessment will affect the owner's operating economics and future refinancing plans.

At the hearing Bradley said the two key numbers under appeal correspond to parcel keys 00143927 and 01692387 and that the owner treats the site as one economic unit. The campus has 162 licensed beds split between the keys (83 and 79). Reported size figures in the filing include 105,554 leasable square feet and 115,582 gross square feet for the combined facility; the parcels' heated square footage was recorded as 53,922 and 49,724 respectively.

Bradley said his client purchased the facility June 30, 2023, for a total price of $7.8 million (including goodwill and FF&E). He said occupancy at purchase and at the time of the hearing was 72% and that the operation ran at a net income loss of about $300,000 for the year. Bradley described limited capital work since acquisition: an exterior waterproofing project and some room renovations, but not a large-scale renovation, and said, "we're gonna hold and keep and, hopefully, refinance at some point." Bradley identified an appraisal prepared for the lender (HealthTrust; appraiser Allen Plush) that placed real property value at $7,540,000 as of April 21, 2023.

The property appraiser's written packet reported use of the sales-comparison approach, using comparables from Hillsborough, Pinellas and Orange counties and a per-bed analysis. The appraiser's packet showed comparable sale prices that, after adjustments, produced an implied per-bed range from about $36,252 to $151,180 and led to the appraiser's reconciled price-per-bed conclusion (resulting in the $13.284 million figure before the 15% sale-cost adjustment).

The petitioner submitted a rebuttal income approach prepared shortly before the hearing. That analysis used an estimated market rent/contribution per licensed bed of $3,379 per month, applied a 5% vacancy allowance (95% occupancy assumption), estimated effective gross income, and applied expense and cap-rate assumptions (petitioner used an 8% cap rate) to arrive at a net operating income estimate of about $1,490,000 and a value by income capitalization of roughly $18.63 million, then reduced 15% for cost of sale to arrive at approximately $15.83 million.

The magistrate addressed admissibility questions before and during testimony. He explained the criteria for what constitutes rebuttal evidence and observed that the petitioner's submission amounted to an additional full approach to value rather than a narrow rebuttal to a specific fact; because the petitioner did not object to the submission, the magistrate admitted it for consideration. During the hearing the magistrate repeatedly noted the main factual divergence between the parties was the income/vacancy assumption (petitioner's 5% vacancy vs. the owner's actual 72% occupancy) and said he would weigh the differing approaches in his written ruling.

No formal vote or final decision was made at the hearing; the magistrate closed the record for petitions 292 and 293 and reserved decision in the matter.