Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Net Lease Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County appraiser and petitioner debate Chick‑fil‑A property's real‑estate value at magistrate hearing
Summary
Hernando County's appraiser used Chick‑fil‑A sales from outside the county to support a higher per‑square‑foot value for the Cortez Boulevard Chick‑fil‑A; the petitioner said the appraisal must reflect fee‑simple real estate without inflating the figure with tenant franchise economics. Magistrate will review both packets and issue recommendations.
Brooksville — The valuation of a Chick‑fil‑A property at 13143 Cortez Boulevard was a focal point of dispute during the Jan. 15 special magistrate hearing.
Daniel Scott, for the Hernando County Property Appraiser's Office, told the hearing that the appraiser used three Chick‑fil‑A sales (from Orange and Seminole counties) as the most directly comparable net‑lease transactions and adjusted them for age, site and market conditions. Scott said those sales, together with an income approach and a cost approach, supported a reconciled value near $3.4 million after a 15% cost‑of‑sale adjustment. "With our adjustments, we came to an average of $815.99 per leasable square foot, which gave us a final value of $3,999,167," he said while explaining the sales‑comparison reconciliation.
Petitioner counsel argued that ad valorem valuation must reflect the fee‑simple real estate and not the tenant's franchise uplift. The petitioner presented a cost approach and multiple sales comparables for quick‑serve restaurants to isolate the land and structure value from any premium a corporate Chick‑fil‑A might command. "When we're doing valuation for ad valorem taxation purposes, we are valuing just the real estate and not necessarily the tenant," the petitioner said during rebuttal.
The parties also debated cap rates, replacement costs for canopies and whether franchise features (drive‑through design and unique on‑site equipment) justify using same‑brand sales as comparables. The magistrate did not rule at the hearing and said he will review the submitted packets and issue a written recommendation.
No formal decision was announced at the hearing.
