Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate to rule after competing appraisals for Brooksville office building
Summary
At a Jan. 22 Hernando County VAB hearing, petitioner Jeff Ewing presented a reconciled valuation of $1,009,763 for a Brooksville office building; the property appraiser defended a higher county value and said mass-appraisal methods and countywide comps informed the office figure. The magistrate closed the record and will issue a written determination.
A special magistrate heard competing valuations for an office building at 242 Howell Avenue in Brooksville during the Jan. 22 Hernando County Value Adjustment Board session.
Jeff Ewing of iText Tax Appeals, representing owners Jody and Carla Damron, presented the petitioner’s evidence packet and described the property as a single-tenant professional office (effective year 1995, leasable 5,852 sq. ft., gross 6,148 sq. ft.). Ewing said he used sales and cost approaches and "after a 15% cost of sale came to a value of $1,009,763," which he said he would "defend today." The petitioner also pointed to nearby land sales that produced a derived land rate of about $2.61 per square foot and noted the recorded sale of the subject parcel in January 2023 for $1,000,000.
Daniel Scott, the property appraiser’s representative, told the board the office used a mass-appraisal framework and countywide professional-building sales to derive base rates. Scott said the office "did not find evidence of disqualification" for certain sales and therefore did not remove them from the model. He argued the subject’s location and certain superior characteristics supported the appraiser’s higher valuation.
The magistrate repeatedly questioned both sides about comparability and data submission. The property appraiser acknowledged some property-record-card measurement differences and that certain internal inspection data had not been given to the petitioner for rebuttal, but defended relying on the official property-record-card entries for the hearing record.
The magistrate closed the hearing record on petition 402 and said he would review the packet and arguments before issuing a written determination.
Why it matters: The hearing centered on methodology (sales vs. cost vs. mass appraisal) and on how the board should weight a recently recorded sale and local comparables. The outcome will affect the owners’ tax liability and could inform how the appraiser applies countywide adjustments for similar professional buildings.
What’s next: The magistrate will issue a written decision after reviewing the evidence submitted at the hearing.
