Hernando County value-adjustment hearings conclude after multiple property appeals; one recommended denial for no-show

Richard Steeves, the special magistrate appointed by the Hernando County Value Adjustment Board, conducted telephonic hearings Oct. 23 on a slate of property tax appeals from Spring Hill addresses and concluded multiple hearings while announcing a recommended denial for one petitioner who did not appear.

The matters are administrative appeals of the property appraiser's certified values; the outcomes determine whether the board will recommend adjustments to assessed values that affect local property tax bills. Steeves said a petitioner, identified in the record as Yahia Kiwan for petition 2025-254, "did not appear for the hearing scheduled for 9AM ... did not state good cause, and did not request that their petition be heard and evidence considered in their absence." The magistrate said the property appraiser's office confirmed the parcel values and that "the recommended decision denying relief will be issued in order that any legal rights the petitioner may have for potential action in circuit court are not" curtailed.

Why it matters: decisions by the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) determine whether assessed values — and therefore tax bills — are lowered for individual property owners or remain as certified by the property appraiser. Several petitioners presented alternative valuations and comparable sales; the appraiser's office repeatedly cited its use of a sales-comparison approach and said it had considered criteria required by Florida Statute 193.011.

During the hearings, petitioners represented by Ravi Sarolia and others presented comparable sales and argued for lower assessed values on multiple parcels in Spring Hill. The property appraiser's presenters, identified in the record as Brandon Jimenez and Doug Mack, described the county packets for each petition, listed parcel IDs, and read certified "just value," assessed and taxable values into the record. Typical county packet material included the property record card, a sales report with three comparables, a location map and a cost-of-sale worksheet.

Several recurring points emerged in the back-and-forth: petitioners and county appraisers disagreed about which comparables were most persuasive and about how to measure dwelling size (petitioners used under-roof or MLS-reported figures; the appraiser's office emphasized heated/adjusted living area). The appraiser's office also flagged specific comparables as atypical — for example, noting when a comparable was a repaired sinkhole property or when an effective year-of-build listed in petitioner materials did not match county records.

A separate procedural dispute centered on how evidence must be submitted for telephonic hearings. Heidi Price, administrative services supervisor for the clerk's office, said the VAB had repeatedly informed parties that evidence must be delivered in hard copy and that the clerk's office had not received required filings. As Price put it on the record: "The clerk's office in no way miscommunicated the directive for telephonic hearings and how the evidence was to be received. ... It must be in hard copy, and we have not received it as of today." Petitioners' representatives said they had been told by staff in the property appraiser's office that emailing evidence would be acceptable and described their organizations as trying to minimize paper usage; the magistrate and VAB administrator treated that as a miscommunication between offices.

Petition-by-petition highlights read into the record (parcel IDs and county-certified values are county-supplied; petitioner estimates were presented orally):
- Petition 2025-254 (parcel R3022319179500000340): county just value $157,090; assessed/taxable $89,102. Petitioner did not appear; magistrate announced a recommended decision denying relief.
- Petition 25-039 (R3232317520012740100): county just/assessed/taxable $253,023; petitioner presented an opinion of $222,000 and five comparables; hearing concluded and will be memorialized in the record for later recommended decision.
- Petition 25-043 (R32322317524008110300): county value $220,766; petitioner offered $204,000; hearing concluded.
- Petition 25-044 (R3232317516009920040): county value $206,162; petitioner offered $194,000; hearing concluded.
- Petition 25-045 (R3232317509005930030): county value $194,650; the clerk's office received an email request to withdraw the petition but said it has not received the official DOR withdrawal form. The clerk told the record it "needs the DOR withdrawal form completed for this petition to be able to process the withdrawal, and we have not received that as of now." Magistrate Steeves said if the form is not produced, the matter will be written up as a denial; if the form is provided by 5 p.m., the withdrawal can be processed and the written denial would not be drafted.
- Petition 25-046 (R3232317525017350040): county value $147,601; petitioner offered $140,000; hearing concluded.
- Petition 25-047 (R3232317514009190170): county value $242,426; petitioner offered $225,000; hearing concluded.
- Petition 25-049 (R3232317520012590070): county value $194,880.85; petitioner offered $174,000; hearing concluded.
- Petition 25-050 (R3232317525016910020): county value $150,657; petitioner offered $138,000; hearing concluded.

Most packets the appraiser read into the record showed the county's sales-comparison analysis with three comparables and a cost-of-sale adjustment; petitioners typically supplied three to five comparables and argued for lower adjusted price-per-square-foot figures. Appraiser representatives repeatedly flagged discrepancies in effective year or condition and the appraiser's office emphasized its adjusted-square-foot methodology.

Next steps: Steeves closed the day's record after working through the listed petitions and said the VAB will issue recommended decisions in writing. For the petition where the petitioner did not appear, he announced a recommended denial to formalize the record. For petitions where hearings concluded with evidence presented by both sides, the magistrate will prepare recommended decisions reflecting the hearing record and the statutory criteria.

The hearings focused on administrative valuation disputes; no formal board votes on final orders were recorded on the Oct. 23 telephonic session itself, and the magistrate indicated recommended decisions will be issued in writing for parties to review and, if necessary, challenge in circuit court.