Brandon Wells asked a Hernando County special magistrate on Oct. 17 to reduce the county's just value for his newly built single-family home at 16075 Dusty Sparrow Road in Weeki Wachee, saying the assessor overstated the property's market value. The hearing record shows the magistrate reviewed sales-comparison analysis and other evidence and said he would re-run the data before issuing a recommendation.

The petitioner, Brandon Wells, testified the county's just value of $334,527 and assessed/taxable figures (assessed: $307,411; taxable: $256,689) are incorrect. He told the magistrate, "I believe it's inaccurate because we disagree with the prior cap of the $334,527," and disputed the county's land and feature valuations, including what he described as the builder's permit value for improvements.

The property appraiser's representative (Doug Mack) explained the office used a sales-comparison approach and described the materials in its hearing packet: the property record card, a sales report that included four comparable sales (one being the subject), adjusted-square-foot calculations and a weighted-mean ratio. Mack said the office performed a field review on Feb. 26, 2025, and concluded the adjusted square footage is 2,412 and the assessment is supported under Florida Statute 193.011.

The petitioner contested several elements of the appraiser's analysis. Wells said his home measures roughly 2,072 heated square feet (built 02/2024) and argued that the appraiser's adjusted-square-foot methodology and feature adjustments were not applied uniformly across the comparables. He noted differences in bedroom counts, garage size and interior finishes among comparables, and pointed to multiple 2024 sales in the ZIP code with a median sale price of $359,900 for new construction similar to his home.

Magistrate commentary emphasized the practical difference between builder cost/permitted value and market value. The magistrate said, "The cap is based upon the property appraiser's estimated just value, and then the caps are applied to it," and explained that builder permit values often do not reflect market considerations (profit, overhead, finished interior items). The magistrate also warned older sales (for example, from 2019) would have limited weight compared with 2024 market data.

Both sides provided exhibits. The property appraiser noted a weighted-mean ratio and cost-of-sale adjustments in the packet; the petitioner provided multiple 2024 sales from the local MLS and argued the appraiser's land and feature values understate impediments and do not reflect usable acreage and interior finish differences. Wells also raised the possibility that the county relied on adjusted square footage rather than heated square footage reported in real estate listings and plans.

The magistrate said he would not render a decision during the hearing: "I'm gonna go over the information in greater detail, make my determination at that time." He instructed both parties that he would re-run the numbers, review the rebuttal materials, and that they could contact the clerk's office for timing of his recommendation.

The hearing record shows no formal vote or final order at the session; instead the magistrate held the matter for further analysis and indicated a written recommendation would follow after review of the submitted sales and adjustments.

Wells and the property appraiser each had the opportunity for rebuttal during the hearing; the magistrate asked both parties to supply any additional documentation promptly if they wished further consideration.

The magistrate closed the petition hearing at about 9:31 a.m. and recorded that he would issue a recommendation after re-running the valuation analysis.