Hernando County special magistrate hears scores of property valuation appeals; recommendations pending

COLLEEN MILLETT, special magistrate, convened telephone hearings for the Hernando County Value Adjustment Board on Nov. 7, 2025, to consider more than a dozen residential value petitions. The Property Appraiser’s Office (represented on the record by Brandon Jimenez and Doug Mack) presented sales-comparison packets and confirmed the county’s just and assessed values. Petitioner Stephanie Garcia submitted alternate opinions of value for many parcels. The magistrate said she will consider the evidence presented and issue recommendations to the Value Adjustment Board within the next two weeks.

Why this matters: determinations made by the special magistrate can change assessed and taxable values on individual parcels and therefore affect property tax bills for the owners of those parcels.

What the parties said and how hearings proceeded: for each petition the Property Appraiser’s Office read the parcel identification and the 2025 just/assessed/taxable values, described a field review date, and identified three comparables used in a sales-comparison analysis. The PA repeatedly cited the statutory standard for valuation, referencing Florida Statute 193.011, and submitted its packet into evidence as “PAOA.” Petitioner Stephanie Garcia presented smaller indicated values based on her own comparable-sales grids and asked the magistrate to lower the county values. The PA often questioned the petitioner’s adjustments—particularly land‑size and structure‑size adjustments—and pointed out instances where the appraiser’s grid and the petitioner’s grid produced inconsistent size or land adjustments for comparable sales.

Sample petitions and contested issues (summary of recorded exchanges): - Petition 25-285 (2091 Arbuckle Road, Spring Hill): PA packet concluded a total value set consistent with county records; petitioner requested a lower opinion ($273,358). The PA asked why the petitioner made no land adjustment to comp 3; petitioner said the automated calculation produced no adjustment within its threshold. Magistrate: “I will consider all of the evidence … and I will make a recommendation within the next couple of weeks.”

- Petition 25-286 (4012 Saint Ives Boulevard, Spring Hill): PA recorded the parcel as a ‘‘confirmed sinkhole activity’’ that has been repaired and said all three comparables used were repaired sinkholes. The PA’s just value was read as $313,750; the petitioner requested $306,448. The PA questioned why some comparables received land adjustments and others did not; petitioner again attributed differences to automated system calculations.

- Petitions 25-287 through 25-296: Each followed the same pattern—PA field review date, three comparables, a reported square-foot rate median and weighted mean, then the petitioner’s alternate grid with multiple comparables and a lower requested value. The PA repeatedly raised concerns about inconsistent land-size and size adjustments across comps. In several packets the PA used a market-derived cost-of-sale adjustment rather than the Department of Revenue’s 15% county-wide figure and explained that county-wide numbers vary by area.

- Petitions in the Verano development (25-289, 25-290, 25-291, 25-292): The PA noted many comparables were in the same subdivision and in some instances used market-derived cost-of-sale adjustments for that subdivision. Petitioners argued for comparables that were closer in distance and model to the subject; the PA said its selected comps were closer in adjusted square footage.

Recurring technical dispute: across multiple petitions the PA pressed petitioners about why identical or near-identical lot sizes produced different land adjustments in the petitioner’s grids. Petitioners consistently answered that their software’s automated schedules produced the adjustments and that differences could reflect how each system treats land vs. structure adjustments. The parties did not reach agreement on those adjustment rules at hearing.

Administrative and procedural notes: the clerk’s office initially lacked hearing evidence for petitions 25-263 and 25-264; petitioner asked those be deferred because Lyon Law had been expected to handle them. The magistrate initially advised the petitioner to request a reschedule, but VAB administration later clarified the petitions would be administratively rescheduled and re-assigned to an attorney special magistrate.

Next steps: Magistrate Millett repeatedly told the parties she will consider the evidence on the record and provide recommended findings to the Value Adjustment Board within roughly two weeks for each petition.

Quoted on the record: - Colleen Millett (special magistrate): “I will consider all of the evidence that was presented here today for this petition, and I will make a recommendation within the next couple of weeks.” - Heidi Prouse (VAB administration): “The petitioner does not need to reach out for a reschedule. It would not be considered a good cause reschedule by the petitioner. Value Adjustment Board Administration will administratively reschedule those 2 petitions for hearing with an attorney special magistrate.” - Brandon Jimenez (Property Appraiser): Raised questions on the record about inconsistent land adjustments across petitioner comparables (transcript exchange at multiple hearings).

What the record does not show: No final rulings, votes, or changes to assessed values were announced at the hearing; the magistrate expressly deferred to written recommendations and indicated decisions will be recommended to the board later. When petitioner or PA testimony was unclear (spoken numbers that were garbled in the record), the magistrate did not supplement the record with additional numeric findings at the hearing.

Context and legal authority: the Property Appraiser repeatedly referenced compliance with the criteria in Florida Statute 193.011 and performed field reviews cited by date in each packet. The hearings were limited to evidence admitted on the record; the magistrate said she cannot consider extraneous evidence not presented in the hearing record.

Contacts on the record: Property Appraiser office — Brandon Jimenez and Doug Mack; petitioner — Stephanie Garcia; VAB administration — Heidi Prouse. The magistrate closed the session after taking all testimony and evidence and said recommendations will be filed to the Value Adjustment Board.