Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hernando County special magistrate hears multiple property appeals, administratively reschedules four cases after evidence glitch
Summary
At a Nov. 17 Value Adjustment Board hearing, Special Magistrate Shelly Kennedy heard competing appraisals on a string of Spring Hill and Brooksville properties, recorded two withdrawals and—after a transmission error—offered administrative reschedules for four petitions; Kennedy said she will issue recommendations to the board in the coming weeks.
Special Magistrate Shelly Kennedy presided over Hernando County’s Value Adjustment Board hearings on Nov. 17, opening the record and swearing in petitioners and the property appraiser before hearing a sequence of property assessment appeals.
Heidi Price of VAB administration told the panel that a technical issue had prevented the property appraiser’s office from transmitting evidence to petitioners for four scheduled cases (25-081, 25-082, 25-085 and 25-153) and said, “So, we will grant an administrative reschedule of these 4 hearings,” unless the petitioner confirmed receipt and consented to proceed. The petitioner for at least one of those matters, James Talucian of Armwell, confirmed receipt and the hearings proceeded.
Doug Mack, representing the property appraiser’s office, presented appraisal packets for each petition, repeatedly describing the office’s use of the sales-comparison approach, field review dates, square-foot rates and cost-of-sale adjustments. For petition 25-081 he read a just value of $355,877 and assessed/taxable values of $352,000 for the Spring Hill single‑family residence at 2334 Danforth Road. In other petitions the appraiser similarly reported just values and the comparable sales used to reach them.
Petitioners contested those numbers with their own evidence. In his presentation for 25-081, Talucian said he provided an eight-page package of photos, comparable sales and adjustment factors and gave an opinion of value for the subject property of “$301,000.” Across multiple hearings, petitioners repeatedly cited three nearby comparables and median adjusted sale prices to support values that were lower than the property appraiser’s figures (examples noted on the record: petitioner-indicated values roughly in the $290,000–$325,000 range for several parcels).
The hearing included routine evidentiary actions: the magistrate admitted the property appraiser’s packets as the office’s exhibits (entered as PAOA) and admitted petitioner packages as PET 1. Two items were taken off the docket: petition 25-088 was recorded as withdrawn that morning, and for petition 25-089 the petitioner said he lacked authorization and was asked to file a formal withdrawal before the hearing closed or the magistrate would proceed.
The session briefly recessed so staff could reset audio for the live video feed after remote viewers reported low volume. When the record resumed the magistrate continued through the scheduled petitions, heard the competing appraisals and closed each individual hearing after offering parties an opportunity for rebuttal.
Kennedy closed the day’s proceedings noting she would review the record and “make my recommendation to the Value Adjustment Board in the next couple of weeks,” after which the board will consider her recommendations. The hearings did not produce on-the-spot rulings; the magistrate’s review and formal recommendations are the next procedural steps.
Background: Florida’s VAB process allows property owners to challenge assessed values; hearings are conducted by an impartial special magistrate who reviews evidence admitted on the record and forwards recommendations to the board. At this session the parties relied on sales-comparison analyses, structure-area adjustments and cost-of-sale factors cited repeatedly by both the property appraiser’s office and petitioners.
