Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special magistrate hears Hernando County property-value protests; one petition withdrawn
Summary
At a Hernando County special magistrate hearing, Robert Hicks heard four property valuation petitions, took evidence and asked follow-up on appraisal adjustments; one petition was withdrawn. Hicks will forward recommendations to the Value Adjustment Board in the coming weeks.
Robert Hicks, the special magistrate assigned to the case, opened the remote hearing and reminded parties that he is "independent, impartial, and [an] unbiased hearing officer," and that he may consider only evidence presented on the record.
Appraisers representing the property appraiser's office presented valuation packets for four residential parcels in Spring Hill and described their sales-comparison analyses, square-foot rates and adjustments. For one property at 3607 Dothan Avenue, the appraiser stated the just value was $371,231 and the assessed and taxable values were $353,508. For 1224 Finland Drive the appraiser placed just and assessed value at $449,722 with a taxable value of $399,000. For 7028 Coverwood Drive the appraiser listed a just value of $271,355 and assessed/taxable value of $244,626. For 5406 Bayonne Avenue the office indicated that values were adjusted after TRIM, with the current just/assessed/taxable value given as $392,795.
Petitioner Malcolm Lawton, identifying himself as representing Omwell, presented competing comparable-sales packages and criticized several adjustment factors used by the appraiser's office. In one case Lawton said his set of comps produced a median adjusted sales price of $394,000; in another the petitioner's median was $365,000. Lawton also pointed out that one petitioner-submitted packet contained a 2024 property record card rather than the 2025 card.
Magistrate Hicks questioned both sides about methodologies and specific adjustments — notably how per-square-foot improvement values and effective-age adjustments were determined — and asked whether the appraiser's office conducted field inspections or relied on county records. The appraiser's representatives said some condition and grade data were taken from county records and that offices used a sales-comparison approach guided by statutory criteria.
One petition, docketed as 25-158 (key number 689883), was withdrawn by the petitioner and the magistrate confirmed receipt of the withdrawal.
Hicks said he would "take this under advisement and make a recommendation of my findings to the value adjustment board in the next couple of weeks." No formal vote or final decision was made at the hearing; the magistrate will submit written recommendations to the Value Adjustment Board for their consideration.
Authorities and documentary materials referenced at the hearing included the parties' PAOA and PET packets and discussion of Florida Statute 193.011 as the governing statutory standard for determining just value and appraisal procedures.
