Hernando County magistrate hears multiple home-value appeals; recommendations to Value Adjustment Board expected

Colleen Millett, special magistrate, heard five residential property-value appeals for Hernando County on Monday, Jan. 26, 2026, receiving evidence and testimony from Hernando County Property Appraiser’s Office representatives Brandon Jimenez and Doug Mack and from petitioners contesting 2025 assessments.

The magistrate opened the first case, petition 25-430 (1070 Shenandoah Lane, Spring Hill), and admitted the appraiser’s packet as PAOA. Doug Mack summarized the office’s sales-comparison analysis for the subject property and said the office “believe[s] we have demonstrated that we have the preponderance of evidence that the subject’s value represents just value.” Mack reported a 2025 just value of $350,131, an assessed value of $350,131, and a taxable value of $299,409 and said field review on Aug. 12, 2024, led to a seven-year effective-age adjustment for a reroof and AC replacement.

Petitioner Joshua Lee Long presented an independent lender appraisal that concluded a value of $327,000 and flagged a comparable sale at 1171 Lodge Circle that he said sold for about $310,000 — below the appraiser’s listed value. Long told the magistrate he relied most heavily on his lender’s appraisal and that particular comparable. Mack countered that several chosen comparables differed materially (age, pool presence, sinkhole repairs) from the subject: “The home on Lodge…has a pool, which I don’t believe the subject has,” and one comparable used in the petitioner’s appraisal was a repaired sinkhole property while the subject is not. After brief follow-up about whether a reroof was included in the original sale, Millett said she would consider the submissions and make a recommendation to the Value Adjustment Board within the next couple of weeks.

The hearing continued through four additional petitions. For petition 25-217 (10337 Fairchild Road), Mack told the magistrate the subject is a repaired-sinkhole parcel and that the office’s three comparables produced a weighted mean consistent with its methodology. Petitioner Travis Schneider offered five comparables and an opinion value around $317,000 after adjustments; Mack questioned the comparability and condition of some sales, noting at least one resale anomaly that raised questions about interior condition at the earlier sale.

In petition 25-223 (11980 Lavender Loop), the appraiser’s packet initially listed an incorrect adjusted square footage; the office acknowledged the error and provided corrected figures. Schneider told the magistrate the three sale comparables were identical 2024 models that sold near $345,000; after cost-of-sale adjustments he offered an opinion value of about $295,000 and noted roughly $6,000 in deferred maintenance reported by the owner. The appraiser’s office characterized the correction as updated information rather than a substantive rebuttal.

For petition 25-250 (10078 Deer Street), both sides agreed comparables were difficult to find because the subject is larger and has substantial auxiliary area. Schneider said closest comparables were typically 500–600 square feet smaller and offered an adjusted opinion value of about $480,000. Mack emphasized the unusually large garage area (about 1,370 square feet) and that several petitioner comparables were repaired sinkhole properties while the subject was not.

In the final case, petition 25-251 (2151 Cottondale Avenue), the appraiser’s packet described three comparables and related adjustments; Schneider presented six comparables and an opinion of value of $303,000. The appraiser’s office again questioned the quality or construction type of some comparables and pointed to resale patterns that warranted scrutiny.

Across petitions, the central disputes were (1) which comparable sales were sufficiently similar to the subject homes, (2) whether adjustments for pools, effective age, garage/auxiliary area and sinkhole repairs were applied consistently, and (3) how cost-of-sale adjustments should affect the office’s median and weighted-mean calculations. The magistrate repeatedly noted she would review the packets and oral testimony and report recommendations to the Value Adjustment Board within roughly two weeks.

No formal in-hearing rulings or votes were recorded; the magistrate’s next step is a written recommendation to the board. The hearing concluded after the five petitions and participants were released.

Quotes used in this report are taken from the hearing record and attributed to speakers recorded on the transcript.