Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Hernando County magistrate hears Circle K valuation appeals; one petition withdrawn
Loading...
Summary
At a Nov. 14 special-magistrate hearing, Robert Hicks reviewed seven property-tax petitions filed by Circle K stores represented by Delta Property Tax Advisors. Parties disputed valuation method (sales vs. cost/income); one petition (25-407) was withdrawn and the magistrate will send recommendations to the Value Adjustment Board after review.
Special Magistrate Robert Hicks convened a series of Hernando County property-tax hearings on Nov. 14 to consider multiple assessment petitions filed by or for Circle K stores, and confirmed he would evaluate evidence on the record before recommending adjustments to the Value Adjustment Board.
Daniel Scott, a property-appraiser representative, presented appraisal packets for the parcels and reported sales-comparison reconciliations that yielded high indicated values in several cases. For example, for petition 25-408 (Circle K at Elgin and Barclay) Scott reported a 2025 just market value of $3,396,523 and assessed/taxable value of $2,246,577. For the larger, newer store in petition 25-414 (3380 Commercial Way, a 2022 build with a car wash) Scott said the sales-weighted indicated value was about $10.13 million and after the Department of Revenue recommended 15% cost-of-sale adjustment he defended an adjusted value of $8.61 million.
Petitioner representative Jaden Randall, of Delta Property Tax Advisors, countered with cost and income approaches that in many cases produced substantially lower opinions of value. For petition 25-408 Randall described a Marshall & Swift cost build-up and an income-capitalization analysis (using an averaged lease rate near $40 per square foot and a 6.5% cap rate) and offered a reconciled opinion of $2,000,000 for that parcel. For several older lease locations (petitions 25-410 through 25-413) Randall said combined cost and income approaches supported opinion values around $800,000–$900,000 per store.
The parties repeatedly disputed which approach should carry the most weight. Scott argued the sales approach reflected active market transactions and that he did not receive certain lease or income documentation in time to consider it fully during the appraisal process. He cited case law during the hearing, saying, "If that wasn't provided in a timely manner, it's not something that we can really consider for our valuation" (referencing Higgs v. Goode). Randall apologized for not having all documentary evidence at the hearing and offered to provide leases and rent rolls for future consideration; Magistrate Hicks and the appraiser emphasized the statutory requirement that evidence used to challenge assessments be placed on the record in a timely way.
The magistrate questioned technical points tied to valuation method and highest-and-best-use. Hicks pressed Randall on applying a 10% "stigma" reduction to land value for underground storage tanks while still treating the site as a functioning gas station, noting that highest-and-best-use determinations affect whether land or improvements drive value. Hicks said he would review the materials, evaluate credibility and relevance of the record evidence, and "make a recommendation of my findings to the Value Adjustment Board in the next couple of weeks."
During the hearing the parties resolved one procedural matter: the petitioner confirmed it would withdraw petition 25-407 and administrative staff later confirmed receipt of the completed withdrawal form. The magistrate closed the series of hearings and stopped the record.
The outcome now rests on the magistrate's written recommendations to the Value Adjustment Board and on any additional evidence the petitioner supplies timely for future valuation cycles.
