Special magistrate hears property-assessment protests; data and square-foot discrepancies flagged

Colleen Millet, the Hernando County special magistrate, presided over remote hearings on Dec. 15, 2025, hearing a series of property tax assessment protests (petitions 25-127 through 25-135). Petitioners, represented repeatedly by Edwin Rivera, and staff from the property appraiser’s office debated comparability of sales, square-footage discrepancies in county data, and the treatment of sinkhole-repaired properties.

Rivera said his evidence packets included nearby comparable sales that produced lower median adjusted sale prices than the county’s assessments. For petition 25-127, Rivera told the magistrate, "Our opinion of value will be that median rounded down to 231,000 even," and provided contractor estimates showing hurricane-related roof damage with an estimated repair cost of about $13,300 and a dated PJ Roofing estimate (11/14/2024).

Property appraiser staff repeatedly responded that data-extraction differences appear to be driving much of the disagreement. A PAO representative explained that in several petitions the county’s records show two-story subjects while Rivera’s packet sometimes captured base-floor square footage only, which skews adjustments because many of Rivera’s comparables were one-story. The PAO noted that one automated field in Rivera’s packet showed a system-generated $33 per square foot figure, which the staff said seemed anomalously low and is a product of internal formulas and regression models.

On the question of comparables and defects, the PAO told the magistrate that repaired sinkhole properties carry a market "stigma" and that the office allows specific adjustments for sinkhole repairs. For petition 25-129 the PAO said the subject property was not sinkhole-affected while Rivera’s four comparables were, and cautioned the magistrate that such differences can materially affect adjusted values.

The PAO also acknowledged it had not been notified of the roof damage Rivera raised and said, "Now that we know about it, we will correct it for 2026. I’ll send one of my appraisers out and let them do a complete review." Magistrate Millet granted the parties leave to provide evidence and confirmed that she would take all submitted materials under advisement and issue recommendations within the next couple of weeks for each petition.

Rivera repeatedly requested clarification or additional data; toward the end of the hearings he asked for a county contact to reconcile data irregularities, and the PAO provided the number 352-754-4190, extension 25006 for follow-up. The hearing included a mix of technical valuation discussion—adjustments for pools or features, time adjustments (the parties cited roughly 1.7% annual time adjustments on one packet), and differences in effective age—and procedural steps: each petitioner’s packet was admitted as PET 1 and each PAO packet labeled PAOA.

No final rulings or formal votes were taken at the hearing; the magistrate will issue written recommendations after reviewing the record. The record shows recurring themes for the office to address: inconsistent square-footage extraction that omitted second-floor area in some packets, clarification on when repaired sinkhole sales are suitable comparables, and ensuring damage (such as hurricane-related roof repairs) is reflected in future assessments when timely reported.

Next steps: Magistrate Millet will issue recommendations on each petition within a few weeks; the PAO said it will perform field reviews where warranted and follow up with Rivera to reconcile data issues.