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 12 property tax appeals; appraisers defend assessed values
Summary
At a Dec. 12 hearing, Special Magistrate Shelley Kennedy took verbal testimony on 12 Hernando County property tax petitions. County appraisers presented assessed values and comparable-sales analysis while petitioners challenged assessments verbally; the magistrate will review the record and report recommendations to the Value Adjustment Board.
Special Magistrate Shelley Kennedy presided over a telephone Value Adjustment Board hearing in Hernando County on Dec. 12, 2025, and heard verbal testimony and packet presentations on 12 property tax petitions. County property appraisers presented packets and sales-comparison analyses for each parcel; petitioners — in most cases represented by Edwin Rivera on the record — offered verbal comparable grids and median-based opinion values. The magistrate swore in participants, heard objections about late-submitted documentary evidence, and closed each petition pending her written recommendation to the Value Adjustment Board.
The hearing followed a consistent pattern across petitions: a property appraiser read the parcel’s just/assessed/taxable values and summarized a packet of comparables and adjustments, the petitioner gave a verbal presentation of nearby sales and a median-based opinion of value, and the appraiser sometimes raised rebuttals or comparability concerns (for example, alleging a proposed comparable had been a repaired sinkhole property). Appraiser Doug Mack repeatedly told the magistrate that the office had “the preponderance of evidence that the subject’s value represents just value,” while the appraiser also flagged that some documentary evidence had arrived by email late the previous day and was not part of the timely exchange for documents (the appraiser said, “we received evidence at 04:43 yesterday afternoon via email”).
Examples drawn from the record: for petition 25-202 the appraiser reported a 2025 just value of $425,183 with assessed/taxable values of $359,612; petitioner Edwin Rivera provided a verbal grid and stated an opinion value derived from a median of about $273,187 (rounded by the petitioner to $273,000). In petition 25-203 the appraiser stated a just/assessed/taxable value of $308,611; Rivera testified to a median-based opinion of about $298,000. Several other petitions followed the same format (packets admitted as evidence, verbal testimony allowed, appraiser rebuttals when comparables or timing were questioned). On multiple petitions the appraiser noted field reviews performed earlier in 2024 or 2025 to add new homes to the 2025 tax roll or to remeasure improvements.
The magistrate emphasized the hearing officer’s role in ensuring a fair record (she told participants, “The special magistrate is an independent, impartial, and unbiased hearing officer”) and repeatedly explained that documentary evidence not exchanged in the required timeframe could not be reviewed unless both parties agreed while the record was open; verbal testimony was permitted and rebuttal was allowed. Where petitioners relied on verbal presentations because documents arrived late, the appraisers sometimes stated they had limited time to research the comparable sales to determine qualifications (for example, whether a sale involved a repaired sinkhole or other condition that would affect comparability).
No final determinations were announced at the hearing. At the close of each petition the magistrate said she would review the evidence and make recommendations to the Value Adjustment Board in the coming weeks. The transcript contains the full packet summaries, petitioner grids and stated opinion values for each of the 12 petitions; the timeline attached to this report links each petition to the specific transcript segments for verification.
