Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeal over commercial cost multiplier fuels hotels’ valuation dispute at assessor’s hearing
Summary
Taxpayer representatives disputed the county’s commercial cost multiplier and resulting property valuations for three hotel properties; the assessor’s office defended its 2.72 modifier based on a county cost study and said income- and sales-based approaches were not viable for 2025.
Taxpayer representatives and the Berkeley County assessor debated the county’s commercial cost multiplier and the valuation of three hotels during a review-and-equalization hearing.
At a hearing convened by Assessor Larry Hess, a property tax consultant representing several hotel owners challenged the assessor’s use of a 2.72 county commercial cost multiplier and presented alternate cost- and income-based analyses that produced substantially lower improvement values.
The consultant, identifying the property at 301 Foxcroft Avenue as Golden Hotels LLC, said cost and income approaches using updated Marshall & Swift factors and an 8% cap rate produced a reconciled value around $8.5 million to $8.8 million. The assessor’s office had the same property assessed at about $11.46 million for the 2025 tax year, a gap the consultant attributed primarily to the county’s 2.72 commercial modifier.
Why it matters: the multiplier is applied across commercial property cards and has a direct effect on assessed values and tax bills. The assessor’s office said it derived the 2.72 figure from a county commercial cost study that used new-construction samples and a coefficient-of-dispersion test; the office said its sample set produced an acceptable dispersion (8.6) under state guidance and that income and market approaches were not usable in 2025 because of an absence of valid franchise-hotel sales and insufficient local cap‑rate data.
Hearing details and arguments The taxpayer’s presenter, a property tax consultant, said Marshall & Swift’s January 2025 multipliers for a class-B commercial property would indicate a local multiplier near 1.03 and that comparable county modifiers in some West Virginia counties were substantially lower (in the 1.5–1.8 range). The consultant argued the county’s 2.72 multiplier ‘‘is pretty high’’ and asked the assessor to explain what in the commercial study drove that number.
Assessor’s response Assessor John (presenting for the assessor’s office) explained that the county conducts an annual commercial cost study (required by the State Tax Department) using contractor- or owner-supplied new-construction costs. He said he compiled 16 usable samples, adjusted outliers, and produced a modifier of 2.72 for this tax year; he noted the modifier rose steadily from about 2.08 in 2020 to 2.72 for 2025 and that his sample produced a coefficient of dispersion of 8.6 (acceptable under state rules). He also said the income approach could not be used because there were no valid franchise-hotel sales (land use code 314) with usable income/expense data this year.
Procedure and outcome The hearing record shows both sides presented cost-based work papers and that the commission indicated written orders would be issued later for each property’s appeal. Commissioners asked staff to produce written findings so appellants could further appeal to the Office of Tax Appeals if they chose.
Ending The assessor’s office defended the county modifier as the outcome of a documented annual study; taxpayer representatives asked the commission to reconsider the multiplier or explain the commercial‑study drivers. The commission did not adopt a change on the record at the hearing and said written orders would follow.
