Jackson County VAB upholds appraiser—s $712,737 assessment for 119.68-acre parcel; petition denied

The Jackson County Value Adjustment Board on Oct. 27, 2025, denied a petition from Steven and Margaret Tour seeking a lower assessment for a 119.68-acre parcel after finding the Property Appraiser—s office met the statutory presumption of correctness.

Jessica Chaddock, chief deputy chief appraiser for the Jackson County Property Appraiser—s Office, told the board the office had provided its evidence by the required deadline and that "the petitioner did not provide us any evidence to support a change in their valuation by the deadline of October 13." Chaddock presented a packet that included the petitioner—s form, property record cards, aerial photos and sales-comparison analysis.

The office described the parcel as containing two single-family residences (2,542 square feet, built 2001; and 3,026 square feet, built 2023) and multiple outbuildings and accessory structures. Chaddock said the office identified 14 additional extra features and improvements that had not been assessed since a prior field check in 2011. She cited Florida Statute 193.1554 as the legal basis for assessing nonhomestead residential property at just value as of Jan. 1.

Using the sales-comparison approach, the appraiser—s packet listed five comparable sales (two from 2024 and three from 2025). Chaddock summarized the office—s analysis and reported that a sales-based estimate would place the property near $1,080,000, while the Property Appraiser—s office had the parcel assessed at $712,737. She explained staffing shortfalls, Hurricane Michael and COVID interruptions led to inspection gaps—Jackson County had not field-inspected the parcel since 2011 until a 2024 permit for new construction prompted reassessment.

Petitioner Steven Tour testified he believed the increase was excessive, calling it about a "340% increase" from earlier assessments and arguing many structures were built with reused materials and at low cost. Tour also said the property—s access (a 4.5-mile dirt road) and proximity to operations such as a spray field reduced comparability with sales on paved highways.

Board members asked about comparables, acreage differences and whether the parcel received any agricultural classification; Chaddock said some land received agricultural (AG) classification and that the parcel is nonhomestead (the Tours hold homestead on a different property), so the 3% homestead cap does not apply. Chaddock noted that, once fully assessed, nonhomestead property is subject to a 10% annual cap on assessed value increases going forward.

After questioning, board member Mister Grama moved (second by Diane Pate) that the Property Appraiser—s Office had met the presumption of correctness. The board voted in favor. The board then considered whether the petitioner—s evidence overcame that presumption and voted to deny the petition; the denial motion passed with the same mover and seconder.

The board also denied Petition No. 6 (Hearn) after the petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled time. The meeting concluded with routine administrative votes, including authorizing the chairman to sign documents from the Oct. 27 session, and adjournment.

Votes at a glance

- Approve minutes (Oct. 13, 2025) — Motion by Miss Page; second by Miss All Day; outcome: approved (voice/hand vote). - Amend appointees in minutes to Diane Pate and Miss Allday — Motion by Diane Pate; outcome: approved. - Find Property Appraiser met presumption of correctness — Motion by Mister Grama; second by Diane Pate; outcome: approved (board found presumption established). - Deny Petition 1 (Steven and Margaret Tour) — Motion by Mister Grama; second by Diane Pate; outcome: petition denied. - Deny Petition 6 (Hearn) for failure to appear — Motion by Diane Pate; second by Mister Granberry; outcome: petition denied. - Authorize chairman to sign meeting documents — Motion by Mister Grama; second by Mister Alldice; outcome: approved. - Adjourn — motion carried.

What the board decided and why: The board applied the statutory standard described in its packet (preponderance of the evidence and the presumption of correctness). The Property Appraiser—s Office documented its inspection, property record card details, and sales-comparison evidence. The board concluded the office met its burden and that the petitioner—s testimony and materials did not overcome the presumption.

Next steps and practical effect: The assessment at $712,737 will stand for the tax roll. The office said the parcel will be on the roll going forward and will be subject to the annual limits applicable to nonhomestead property (a 10% cap on assessed value increases per year from this point forward).