Special Magistrate Richard Steeves convened a Hernando County Value Adjustment Board hearing that addressed 15 property tax petitions (25-066 through 25-080). "My name is Richard Steeves. I'm the appointed special magistrate by the Hernando County Value Adjustment Board for, this hearing," Steeves said at the opening.

The county property appraiser's office presented a sales-comparison packet for each parcel and gave a 2025 "just value" for each property; petitioners then offered rebuttal evidence, typically a set of nearby comparables and an opinion of a lower market value. The parties repeatedly disputed which comparable sales were appropriate, whether sales reflected pre-repair or post-repair condition (especially in sinkhole-repaired properties), whether some sales were flips or investor transactions, and the size metric to use (total under-roof vs. finished living area). The property appraiser frequently applied a cost-of-sale adjustment in the range of about 13%to 31% depending on the packet; petitioners typically applied a 15% cost-of-sale in their grids.

Key items and figures presented during the hearing (parcel / appraiser just value / petitioner opinion as stated in evidence):

- 25-066 (14155 Prospect St., Spring Hill): appraiser just value $291,450; petitioner James Delucian presented an evidence package and said his opinion of value was $268,000, citing five comparables and a 15% cost-of-sale adjustment.

- 25-067 (5225 Harbinger Rd., Spring Hill): appraiser just value $237,891; petitioner sought $209,000 based on four comparables (petitioner's packet listed 2024 sales and 15% cost-of-sale adjustments).

- 25-068 (9529 N Cliff Blvd., Spring Hill): appraiser just value $423,953; petitioner proposed $331,000 after applying adjustments to five nearby comps.

- 25-069 (3371 Lambert Ave., Spring Hill): appraiser just value $233,258; petitioner proposed $218,000 based on three close-in comps (petitioner noted two comps within a quarter-mile).

- 25-070 (1152 Tryon Cir., Spring Hill): appraiser just value $327,782; petitioner presented six comps and said the median adjusted value was $308,000.

- 25-071 (4200 Saint Ives Blvd., Spring Hill): appraiser just value $488,718; petitioner proposed $429,000, and the appraiser flagged comparability concerns including large square-foot differences and two comparables that were repaired sinkholes.

- 25-072 (6532 Pinehurst Dr., Spring Hill): appraiser just value $265,947; petitioner proposed $242,000 after adjustments.

- 25-073 (5204 Juliet Ct., Spring Hill): appraiser just value $258,758; petitioner proposed $259,000. The appraiser noted the subject and many comparables involved sinkhole repairs.

- 25-074 (1344 Piper Rd., Spring Hill): appraiser just value $216,696; petitioner proposed $187,000 and the appraiser questioned sale dates and condition on certain comps.

- 25-075 (593 Alpine Thistle Dr., Spring Hill): appraiser just value $330,906; petitioner proposed $301,000. The appraiser questioned two comparables as substantially smaller than the subject.

- 25-076 (5971 Lyon Rd., Spring Hill): staff corrected the case synopsis to show a just/assessed/taxable value of $238,476 (adjusted $132.70/sq ft). Petitioner presented five comps with adjusted sales in the transcript ranging from $147,000 to $256,000 and reported a median adjusted value in his submission (transcript audio rendered that value at a figure that appears to be a transcription error; surrounding ranges in the packet indicate a median near $186,000). The appraiser noted two comps were repaired sinkholes and flagged a resale after renovation for condition concerns.

- 25-077 (9588 Southern Charm Cir., Weeki Wachee): appraiser just value $262,639; petitioner proposed $246,000, and the appraiser questioned a comp that was 535 finished square feet smaller than the subject.

- 25-078 (291 Rain Lily Ave., Verano Phase 2, Spring Hill): appraiser just value $273,818; petitioner pointed to a qualified sale of the subject ($285,000) and, applying a 15% cost-of-sale, advanced an opinion of $243,000; the appraiser raised questions whether the sale was part of a multi-parcel/investor transaction.

- 25-079 (11994 Lavender Loop, Verano Phase 2): appraiser just value $322,901; petitioner said his grid supported a slight reduction and that a value around $315,000 could be supported.

- 25-080 (5459 Alderwood St., Spring Hill): appraiser's packet and the case synopsis were corrected in the hearing record to show just/assessed/taxable value $370,068 and an adjusted rate of $140.66 per adjusted square foot; petitioner presented five comparables and revised his opinion to $292,000 based on living-area adjustments.

Throughout the hearing appraiser staff often pointed to specific comparability issues: some sales used by petitioners were later resales after renovation (a flip), some comparable properties had documented sinkhole activity and repair while the subject did not, and several packets contained apparent errors in sale dates or maps (one packet showed the same comp twice on a map). Petitioners repeatedly stressed proximity and median adjusted sales prices from their grids; appraiser staff repeatedly emphasized condition differences and finished-living-area versus total-under-roof discrepancies.

The transcript records the presentations, rebuttals and the magistrateconcluding each petition and moving to the next. The transcript does not contain a formal recorded ruling or vote on any petition; for many items the magistrate simply concluded the hearing record for that petition and moved on. For example, after petitioner and appraiser rebuttals on 25-066 the magistrate "concluded that 1" and moved to the next docket item.

Why this matters: Value Adjustment Board hearings are the local administrative process for owners to challenge land and structure assessments. Disagreements over which sales best reflect market value, condition before or after repair, and the proper metric for size (living area vs. total area) are the core technical disputes that determine whether an assessed value will be reduced. Several petitions raised the additional complication of repaired sinkholes and of properties that were sold, renovated and then resold at a materially different price.

What the transcript does not show: The hearing transcript included no explicit final rulings or recorded votes on any of the 15 petitions. The magistrate repeatedly closed the record for individual items and proceeded to the next petition; if and when final decisions are issued they should appear in the formal minutes or the final VAB order, which are not part of this transcript.

Speakers quoted in this report are taken from the hearing transcript. Selected direct quotes preserved in the record include the magistrate's opening line, and petitioners' expressions of their opinion-of-value in the packets (for example: "My opinion of value for the subject property is $268,000" for petition 25-066).