I'm calling to order this hearing.

This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole of the Council of the District of Columbia.

I'm Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

Today is Friday, July 10th, 2026.

The time is 1022 in the morning.

We're in room 412 of the Johnny Wilson building.

This hearing is being recorded and will be available on the council's website, which is www.dccouncil.gov.

The subject of this hearing is, if I'm counting correctly, 10 bills related to real property taxation.

The bills are, and I'm going to take a few minutes to describe all this, Bill 26-252, the real property assessment and appeals schedule revision act of 2025.

It was introduced last year.

In fact, it was introduced on May 19th of 2025 by Council, then Councilmember Kenyon McDuffie.

The stated purpose of this bill is to amend Title 47 of the DC Code to provide extended assessment notice and first-level appeal dates for large valued real properties, to revise which real properties are required to file income and expense information with the Office of Tax and Revenue, to require large-valued real property owners to file electronically when directed to by the Office of Tax and Revenue, and to allow the Office of Tax and Revenue to send electronic appeal responses to the property owner.

The second bill is Bill 26-360 entitled The Senior Tax Aggregation Amendment Act of 2025.

This bill was introduced on September 22nd last year by Councilmembers Janice Lewis George, Anita Bonds, Robert White, Charles Allen, Matt Freuman, and Brooke Pinto.

The stated purpose of this bill is to amend again Title 47 to allow for the aggregation of the ownership interests of two or more individuals over the age of 65 to meet the 50% ownership requirement to qualify for the reduced property tax liability program.

The third bill is Bill 26-476 entitled Disabled Veterans Complete Property Tax Exemption Amendment Act of 2025.

This bill was introduced last November 14th by Councilmembers Brooke Pinto and Janice Lewis George.

The stated purpose of this bill is to amend Title 47 to exempt 100% of the taxation of real property for owners who are veterans classified as having a total and permanent disability or the surviving spouse of a disabled veteran.

The next bill is Bill 26-484 entitled The Fairness and Accuracy in Real Property Tax Assessments Amendment Act of 2025.

This bill was introduced on November 17th, 2025 by Councilmember Brooke Pinto, and its purpose is to amend DC Official Code Title 21 to extend the applicability of letters of authorization for purposes of tax appeals and also to amend title 47 to eliminate the 5% rule limiting assessment relief.

The next bill is Bill 26-641 entitled The Archdiocese of Washington Parish Real Property Deed Recordation and Transfer Tax Exemption Amendment Act of 2026.

The purpose of this bill is the stated purpose is to amend again Title 47.

That should not be a surprise with these bills, to provide real property, deed recordation and deed transfer tax exemptions for properties held under the ownership of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington and his successors in office, a corporation Seoul, or the respective parishes of the Archdiocese of Washington.

The next bill is Bill 26-686, entitled the Alpha Omega Social Action and Scholarship Foundation Real Property Tax Exemption Act of 2026, which was introduced on May 6th of this year by myself.

And the stated purpose of this bill is to amend Title 47 to exempt from real property taxation, the Alpha Omega Social Action and Scholarship Foundation property located at 1231 Harvard Street Northwest.

And possibly the last bill on this list is Bill 26-700 entitled the Reservoir District Tax Exemption Amendment Act of 2026.

This was introduced on June 3rd of 2026, so a little over a month ago by Councilmember Zachary Parker.

And the stated purpose of this bill is to amend Title 47 to designate the property.

It doesn't say what property in the hearing notice over with the former McMillan Reservoir site, Sand Filtration Site location to designate the properties affordable housing for which fair market rents, as calculated by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development apply.

So those are all the bills.

The witness list is in slightly different order than those bills, and it's our practice that government witnesses, and there are three from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, who will be at the end of the list, and that's where we will find out issues that we may have to deal with with these bills.

The record in this matter will be open for two weeks.

That is, the record will close at 5 p.m.

on Friday, July 24th.

What does that mean?

We're a political body.

If somebody comments, sends us comments in August, we'll look at them and consider them.

But if you want them in the record, they have to be filed within two weeks.

That is by 5 p.m.

Friday, July 24th.

So I'm going to proceed with witnesses.

I'm never quite sure how to pronounce your last name.

Stoltzfoos.

You did great.

Yeah, I know I didn't, but thank you.

It doesn't rhyme with anything, so I can't help you.

Good morning, Chair Mendelssohn.

I'm Carrie Stoltzfuse, CEO of Food and Friends, an organization that provides medically tailored meals and nutrition counseling to individuals diagnosed with serious health issues and their caregivers' independence across the Metro region.

In FY25, we provided nearly 1,055,000 meals to 3,039 district residents, all of whom were facing diagnoses of cancer, heart and kidney failure, HIV AIDS, and many other illnesses.

I'm here today to testify on behalf of a permanent property tax exemption for Food and Friends 160564, the Food and Friends Property Tax Exemption Amendment Act of 2026, which was introduced by yourself and Councilmember Zachary Parker.

Food and Friends has operated from 219 Riggs Road Northeast on land owned by our organization since 2004.

When we purchased the property, there was a billboard in the corner of our lot.

We leased the billboard to Clear Channel, and in March 2006, DC's Real Property Assessment Division determined that since the billboard provided us with income unrelated to our mission, we would pay property tax on three percent of our property, the estimate of the amount of our land that was used for the billboard and not for the mission of Food and Friends.

In March 2023, we ended our agreement with Clear Channel and removed the billboard.

In 2025, we applied for exemption for the property tax on 3% of our land as 100% was now used in service of our mission.

It is notable that if we had to pay our 2026 estimated annual property tax, the amount would be 247,511.94 cents.

This is the cost of approximately 27,810 meals that instead go to vulnerable district residents.

The purpose of my testimony today is to support Bill 16564 and request that the two parcels of food and friends land that have been viewed differently for tax purposes, the 97% exempted from property tax since we began operations at 219 Riggs Road in 2004, and the 3% previously assigned to the billboard be joined into a 100% property tax exemption.

We support this legislation because we believe that food and friends should receive a permanent tax exemption so long as the property is owned by food and friends, and provided that food and friends or any lessee of the property continue to use the property to provide charitable food distribution.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to raise one final point.

The temporary legislation that includes our property tax exemption is set to expire on September 25th.

Therefore, if the permanent bill we are discussing today is passed in September, it will also need to be enacted on an emergency and temporary basis to ensure continuity of the exemption while the permanent legislation takes effect.

Food and Friends is proud to serve the region from our home in the District of Columbia, and I'm grateful to for the support and partnership we've received from the DC Council and the DC Department of Health.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Give me a second.

And the exemption that the council continued is for 97% of the property.

Yes.

And this bill would be for 100%.

Yes.

Since we no longer have the billboard and we're no longer receiving unrelated business income.

That's our request.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Turning to Bill 26-641.

I have a lot of witnesses here.

As in six.

Uh, I don't know if they're all present.

Um, Mary Rhodes, senior counsel with the Archdiocese.

Virtual.

Um, Jeff Gelman, partner at Saul Ewing.

Reverend Daniel Carson, pastor and former vicar and moderator of the Curia St.

Peter Catholic Church.

Virtual.

Reverend Cornelius Ajigu, pastor of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church.

Virtual.

The Reverend Charles Antonacelli, judicial vicar and pastor, Archdiocese of Washington.

We don't see him.

And Reverend William Gurney, Pastor St.

Joseph's Capitol Hill Church.

Not online.

So it looks like we have the first four all virtual.

We'll begin with Ms.

Rhodes.

Good morning, Chairman Mendelson and members of the committee of the hall.

Are you able to hear me okay?

Yes, can't see you but can hear you.

Yeah, and I apologize.

I had my camera on and now it's not um working.

So uh I'll do the best that I can.

Never blame the technology, that's just so wrong because it can't defend itself.

Ah, uh, may I call for then?

May I call for thank you.

Well, good morning again.

My name is Mary Rhodes.

I'm senior counsel for the Archdiocese of Washington.

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today on bill 26-6401.

As this bill moves forward, I ask you to reaffirm that both this bill and the temporary bill which preceded it were intended to ensure Catholic parishes may record supplemental deeds to retitle their parish properties so that DC property records accurately reflect that the parishes are the long-standing property owners.

As Councilmember Parker definitely stated in his letter introducing this bill, and Chairman Mendelson likewise recognized in the emergency resolution for the related emergency bill, supplemental deeds are appropriate here because the parishes already beneficially and equitably own these properties.

The parishes purchase them with their own funds, they occupy them, maintain them, and pay expenses.

Numerous DC public records, including those in the Office of Tax and Revenues' own database and files, already and for many years have reflected the parishes as the owners.

The properties are held under the record ownership of the Archdiocese only because historic legal restrictions prevented parishes from holding title in their own names.

The supplemental deeds we seek to record would serve merely to confirm the parishes' long-standing ownership rates and modified public records accordingly.

This is not a situation where the Archdiocese is transferring its own property to parishes.

This is not even a transfer of property from one entity to another.

It is simply a correction of record ownership to ensure that record ownership aligns with existing beneficial ownership.

This is exactly the type of situation where, even prior to this legislation, DC law makes clear that supplemental deeds are warranted and appropriate.

Unfortunately, and despite the council unanimously passing emergency and temporary legislation confirming that Catholic parishes may retitle their properties in their own names through supplemental deeds.

When we tried recording a supplemental deed, OTR instructed the recorder of deeds to reject it.

OTR claimed that the legislative language, which clearly states that the properties, quote, may be transferred through supplemental deeds, end quote, is inapplicable, and that all references to supplemental deeds must be removed.

This contradictory interpretation presents an issue because the legislation before you today contains the same language as the emergency and temporary legislation.

The legislation's very intent is to ensure supplemental deeds could be recorded to confirm the parish's existing ownership and appropriate tax exemptions.

OTR maintains that the Archdiocese owns these properties and that the supplemental deeds would transfer the properties to new parish entities that never existed before the year 2023 when our parishes incorporated.

While the parishes did incorporate in 2023, they existed long before that.

Nearly all 38 parishes in DC predate the existence of the archdiocese, with some dating back to the 1700s.

The fact that the parishes took on a different legal form by incorporating, done in part because they faced increasing difficulties with DC governmental offices when they were unincorporated, does not erase the parish's historical existence.

In fact, the parishes' 2023 incorporation documents clearly stated that the parishes were already existing entities incorporating for the purpose of documenting their civil status.

We appreciate that OTR is now indicating a possible willingness to resolve this issue.

We respectfully ask the council work with us to ensure that the final bill includes language that properly allows for the recordation of supplemental deeds recognizing the parishes' long-standing ownership rights.

We request the council reinfirm the legislative intent to ensure accuracy in the public records, fairness to the parishes that purchase these properties, consistency with DC law, and continuing recognition of these tax exempt parish properties.

I thank you for your time and I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Rhodes.

I will have some questions for you.

Jeff Gelman.

You're muted.

Thank you.

Good day, Chairman Mendelson and members of the community of the whole.

I'm Jeff Gellman, a partner of Saw Ewing, and I've been practicing real estate law in the district for approximately 40 years and have served in various real estate industry leadership positions.

My practice regularly involves real property taxation.

I was engaged to assist the archdiocese in transferring uh approximately 300 parish properties in five counties in Maryland and nearly 100 properties owned by approximately 30 parishes in the districts.

The facts and law were clear in both the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia.

We anticipated the effort to transfer legal title to the beneficiary owners would be relatively smooth given existing law.

The state of Maryland and the clerk's office in the five Maryland counties after raising uh thoughtful reasonable questions and receiving satisfactory answers, allowed for the recording of the supplemental confirmatory deeds without the imposition of transfer and recredition taxes.

Our experience with the recorder of deeds in the tax office was considerably different.

Rather than receiving understandable questions and being afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond through discussion, we received conclusory statements of rejection without any particular degree of detail, either factually or legally.

After our written attempts for reconsideration, we received a letter citing to a number of court decisions as a rationale for the ROD's position.

After reviewing these court decisions, none of which were factually legally relevant, we presented a letter dated March 5th, 2024, a copy of which is attached to my testimony, which distinguishes and refutes the relevancy of each and every one of these court cases.

Nevertheless, uh when the when the parishes sought to have uh legal title transferred from the archdiocese to each parish, the effort to do so was blocked by the record of deeds.

The council has stepped up to right this wrong with the passage of this legislation.

Unfortunately, when the archdiocese attempted to record a single supplemental conformatory deed, it was again rejected, and the recorder of deeds stated the deeds conveying these properties from the archbishop to the parish are not supplemental deeds for recredation and transfer tax purposes.

I think the recorder of deeds is misrelying on one particular court case, the Columbia Realty Court case, where there is a quoted phrase that you are not to use a supplemental uh deed between separate and distinct entities.

But the facts in that case were 100% different.

There was a single trust with beneficiaries, and they were conveying in fee simple to a brand new limited partnership that never existed before for consideration, which takes it outside the definition of supplemental deeds.

The ownership was not identical, and so it was just a situation that was entirely irrelevant from a factual standpoint, but a portion of the court's ruling was taken out of contracts and just regularly repeated to us as the rationale.

So that decision actually supports us, but it contrasted their facts with our facts, saying it's our facts that warrant a supplemental deed, not those in Columbia Realty case.

And so we proceeded with the supplemental deed because we have regulations, long-standing district that calls for a supplemental deed called the naked title deed regulations.

The definition of supplemental deed fits our facts, and we have a court case, the tax division of the superior court, the Felder Court decision that's exactly on point that ruled that a supplemental deed is appropriate here, and so uh we are again at the point where the existing language will be resisted by the recorder of deeds, and we've recommended some additional uh verbiage at the end of my testimony to be included in the permanent legislation.

And I thank you for the opportunity to testify and I welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Kellman.

Reverend Carson.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I am Father Daniel Carson, pastor of St.

Peter Catholic Church, and our pre-K through eight school.

I support Bill 26641.

We are a good neighbor in the District of Columbia, located just a few blocks southeast of the Capitol building.

Among many ways we provide outreach to the community.

I highlight our St.

Vincent de Paul Ministry, which provides one-time financial assistance to residents in the community in emergency help, such as loss of job and needs help paying the rent or mortgage, or illness needing help with medical bills, or falling behind on utility bills or help to buy food.

In addition to our outreach and solidarity with people on the margins and other social justice initiatives, you may remember that we provided hands-on assistance to newcomer migrants who are transported to the district from the other states in 2022 and brought to our church hall, where we provided pastoral care.

Before serving at St.

Peter's, I was vicar general and moderator of the Curia of the Archdiocese of Washington, a kind of chief of staff overseeing day-to-day and long-term operations of the Archdiocese during a time when the incorporation of parishes and retitling of parish properties was starting to come to fruition after many years of research and consideration.

In these roles, I became quite familiar with how parishes properties were purchased and operated.

Most parishes in DC were established and held their properties prior to the creation of the Archdiocese itself in 1939, with some DC parishes dating back to the 1700s.

All of those DC's parish properties were technically titled under the name of the Archbishop as a corporation sole because Catholic parishes could not hold legal title in their own names under local law.

In real life, parish buildings and land are and have been occupied, operated, maintained, and paid for by the respective parish communities and pastors, with the initial acquisition of the properties coming from fundraising and donations of parishioners and pastors.

In actuality, then the parishes are the real owners of their properties.

It is only right and just that they be recognized in the public records as such.

Together with my fellow pastors, I'm grateful to the council for the passage of the emergency and temporary bills, which both recognize the properties of St.

Peter's and other parishes have been and should continue to be tax exempt and also provide for the recording of supplemental confirmatory deeds to parish corporations to reflect the longtime reality of the parishes actual ownership.

Unfortunately, DC parishes have not been able to actually get the deeds recorded as contemplated by the emergency and temporary bills, and as set forth in this permanent bill.

The ongoing dispute and getting parish properties properly and legally titled in their own names has not only been frustrating, but it tends to hinder the ability of parishes to make property improvements, contract with businesses, and complete various projects.

This in turn harms not only our parishes but the neighbors we help in the community.

At St.

Peter's, we help countless residents in our community, and the vast majority are not parishioners or even Catholic.

Other DC parishes have helped thousands more people.

Accordingly, I ask the council to enact this bill B 26641 in such a way and with such language that is needed to allow the historical reality of de facto continual parish ownership of their properties to be acknowledged in the public records without administrative hindrance.

I thank you for this opportunity and time, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Reverend Carson.

And Reverend.

Yes, I'm a job.

Please proceed.

Good morning, gentlemen, and members of the council.

I joined my brother for Castan and the rest of the Ashtas and the previous war here in favor of the uh B26-641.

And I thank you for this opportunity to offer a few words of life.

My name is Father Cornelius.

I am currently the pastor of our Lady of Ritual Health, a Catholic Church here in a Christian Ward 8.

And I previously was the pastor of St.

Luke Catholic Church in Ward 7 for 10 and a half years.

Inclusive of all peoples, both parishes that I've served have limited financial means, but we have a very rich cultural heritage of serving not only black Catholic parishioners, but the whole African American communities east of the River.

Each parish is a passionate needed and loving parish of their own and they cherish the outreach to our neighbors, especially the poor, those who are considered troubled, the outcasts, and our parishioners go out of their way to serve those who are even less privileged than ourselves.

As I'm testifying now, there are people ringing my doorbell right now, and I know they're coming here for food for assistance right now.

First, I want to thank uh council uh for passing the emergency and temporary version of uh this measure uh earlier this year with special appreciation to you, uh Chairman Menderson and Council members Parker and Allen for introducing those measures and uh this permanent bill B 26-641.

Now, by enacting uh these previous bills, you affirm the justice of ensuring the continued real property tax exemption, and that always existed since the creation of our Lady of Perpetual Health, St.

Luke, and other non-profit parishes of the Archdiocese that also provide a great deal of support and services to their neighbors and the people around us.

Now, ensuring uh the land records reflects uh the realities that have existed for decades with parishes having the properties properly titled in their own names, is likewise a matter of basic fairness and justice.

I'm sorry to say, however, that the emergency and temporary bill have not solved the problem of deeds recordation and transfer tax.

The deeds we seek to record are being held in limbo because of the disagreement of the Office of Tax and Revenue regarding the language of legislation.

Uh, this inability to have the parish properly uh property properly titled in our own names create variety of problems for us to the parish and administration in that inability for us to enter into contract with businesses and to manage projects.

This also adversely affects our abilities to do good works for our communities, especially those who are ringing the doorbell right now, and serving both parishes and the greater community alike.

To be clear, the church property themselves were purchased and built by contributions, sometimes fish fry and selling little things.

They were purchased by these parishioners themselves, so that the parish community should rightly be recognized as the real beneficial owner of their properties from the beginning, even if they were technically titled under the Archites and Corporation, so due to historic legal restrictions on parish-owning properties of their own names.

Now, the deeds of the parishes we want recorded do not change anything except on paper and merely confirming law and the public record and realities that the properties have in fact been held and owned by the parishes all of them.

Now, to suggest uh otherwise is an affront to the many parishioners, my parishions and families who have uh done all they could and built up these parishes and purchased them themselves.

So I thank you uh for the opportunities offered to offer this testimony, uh, and I welcome any questions uh from the council.

Uh thank you, Reverend.

And the other two, Reverend Anton Sally and Gurney are not here.

Um, so let's see.

I have uh a few questions.

I think I'll begin with Mr.

Gellman.

Um it seems to me that when this issue came to me, the most important thing is that the parishes are tax exempt and therefore should not have to pay the deed or the deed or transfer, that's either transfer or recordation taxes.

So does it really matter, or why does it matter whether they're um labeled as um supplemental deeds?

So a date of uh date of conveyance is a taxable event, so there has to be a citation to um a legal exemption, and you know, in the District of Columbia, an entity that's not a creature of statute, like a general partner, joint venture and unincorporated association, or the previously all these many parishes could not hold legal title in the district.

So besides the parishes, there were many, many other forms of unincorporated legal entities owning properties, but they needed a nominee title holder, and that's what happened in this case.

So the archdiocese received title from the Baltimore Archdiocese to continue to hold nominal title for the real owners, the underlying parishes, as has been testified, who purchased these properties with their own parishioners' money, occupy, use it, and so forth.

So it's really their property.

And so long existing DC law recognized that situation, and even before home rule and before local district government through the five commissioners, there were rules on this allowing for this type of transfer without transfer recordation taxes.

Uh it's reflected in two existing DC regulations called naked title deeds.

Somebody who is just holding legal title for benefit of another, and it describes it as a supplemental uh deed conveyance.

So in good faith and reasonably relying on the regulations, a tax division uh uh decision of the Superior Court and the actual definition of supplemental deed, we utilize that in citing to our deeds, and it was rejected, saying you cannot use a supplemental um deed, which statutorily is exempt.

So then we had no real good option to point to another exemption when the recorder of deeds was ignoring their own laws, you know, and that's why we feel characterizing as a supplemental confirmatory deed is 100% consistent with district law.

The only rationale that we can vaguely understand from the recorder of deeds is they continue, even in today's uh written testimony, citing to the Columbia Realty Court decision, but because they took a legal ruling out of factual context.

There there was a uh a property owned by a trust with a number of beneficiaries.

They created a brand new limit of partnership that never existed before, deeded to the limit of partnership for consideration, and the resulting limited partners did not even match with the prior owners.

So in every factual basis, that court case was distinguishable, but the ruling was where there are separate and distinct legal entities where there's a conveyance for consideration, a supplemental deed is is not the appropriate instrument, and it is taxable.

So it was a distinguishing case that the record of deeds continues to cite to, even though it doesn't support the preposition that they're trying to make.

So we're frustrated.

You know, we feel we're 100% following the law, and we just need some additional language in the permanent version of legislation which will prevent the recorder of deeds to continue to reject the recording of the supplemental confirmatory deeds without transfer and recordation taxes.

I'm not sure that answered my question.

It seems to me that the um office of tax and revenue is hung up on the word supplemental.

If they say to you, we will treat this as tax exempt that there will not be a recordation or transfer tax, can't we just remove the word supplemental?

Is there any other reason why you need the word supplemental?

Well, because they're they're trying to hang their hat on the Columbia Realty case saying uh this is like the Columbia Real case where you have two different legal entities, and it would be a taxable transaction.

But as as the archdiocese is tax exempt, maybe we would be exempt from transfer taxes, but the record of deeds, backed by the Office of Tax and Revenue, is saying you the parishes have to re-establish the tax exempt basis through the filing of FP 300, and for these uh parishes, that's a huge burdensome monumental task to submit these things.

And I believe that uh Mary included in her test written testimony how onerous this obligation is to uh prove something that already is the case because there's a laundry list of things that have to be submitted, um, and it takes a very long time for OTR to review, approve, or pick a part and try to decline it on a technical basis.

So, what I'm hearing you say is that if it's not a supplemental, if it's not termed a supplemental deed, there's no obvious basis on which to treat the transfer and recordation as tax exempt, and the alternative then would be to file these um form 300s.

Right.

Is that a correct understanding?

Right, correct.

All right, well, let me ask Miss Rhodes.

Um, how burdensome is this?

So if I'm understanding correctly from Mr.

Gilman, what's at issue here is well, House of Tax and Revenue is saying just file a tax exemption claim.

That's to form something 300.

Am I right?

Yes, and how burdensome is that?

Ms.

Rhodes, can you speak to that?

I can.

Can you hear me?

Okay, I apologize, I got cut off from that line.

Yes, I can hear you.

Great.

Yeah, and if I can go back also to your earlier question, um, in terms of the FP 300s, if I understand correctly, that's what you're asking about.

Yeah.

Yeah, so yes, they're extremely burdensome.

We um agreed last year as a compromise with OTR to submit four of our deeds using this application process.

Um, it involved just for those four properties, hundreds and hundreds of records that took a lot of our time and resources to put together to get then get submitted, and I would imagine we took a great deal of time and resources on OTRs and to then review them.

Of those four properties, we've received exemption notices for three of them, but I'm aware of them, and it took over three months for us to get those notices.

I'm not aware at this point that I've received the fourth notice, and it's been over six months since we submitted the application.

The thought of having to do that for close to 90 properties, um, it seems like an insurmountable task.

It would take quite a bit of time, a lot of resources, money that we really don't have to spare, and I guess at the end of the day, my issue is it's unnecessary.

Existing DC law is very clear, as Mr.

Gellman said, these are by definition supplemental deeds that fax the law also for recording these supplemental deeds.

The process otherwise is extremely honored, but also there's an uncertainty that comes into play when we don't regard these as supplemental deeds.

It introduces a falsehood into the public records that basically says these parishes never own these properties before this point, when in reality, I mean we can all do a Google search and see that St.

Patrick and St.

Peter and St.

Joseph on Capitol Hill have existed for centuries, long before the archdiocese, they purchased these properties.

So I don't think it's right or fair to introduce this falsehood into the public records.

Um, but moreover, this uncertainty that it brings.

There are a number of um, you know, things in DC when you're working with the DC government and third parties, too, that you have obligations triggered when you're a new owner.

Existing owners are often grandfathered in, and so, for example, we were working with the Department of Buildings for a long time regarding these property certificates of occupancy.

These parishes are in compliance, but if they're showing as brand new owners, I'm not sure what kind of obligations are going to be imposed on them.

I don't have a crystal ball, I can't see to the future.

I know that we've had to deal with defeat DC offices in the past.

Um, we've had to explain.

Look, the parishes are grandfathered in because they pre-existed some codes or some such thing.

Um, and look, if they were new owners, we would accept that.

The fact of the matter is they're not owners, they've owned these properties, they've purchased them.

Um, and so again, I guess my question would be not, you know, why not just remove the word supplemental and get the tax exemption?

But why is the Office of Tax and Revenue so insistent that we have to remove it when the facts and law say that we shouldn't have to.

The um I keep forgetting what they're called, the form 300.

Yeah, FP 300.

Ms.

Rhodes, can you say more about the burden?

And I I'm happy to.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

All right, it was a little part of there.

Chairman Mendelssohn.

Yes.

Did you not hear me?

Yeah, I heard something 300, but unfortunately it was slightly garbled.

Uh, can you say more?

I want you to describe in more detail what the burden is of filing these FP 300s.

Sure.

Um, see, it's been since December since we did the last round.

Um, there's an application, and then the application lists, I believe in the end or in the instructions, a series of maybe 10 different documents that have to be included.

When I say 10, each of the you know, 10 items there may have subsets, so 10 may really be three.

You have to go back through um the uh incorporation documents, parish historical records, financial financials and assets.

Um, and I apologize, I don't have the list in front of me, but I can tell you it took any many hours and lots of documentation, multiple people in our offices coordinating with the parishes just to put together the applications and documents for these four properties that we did in December.

Um, I'd also be happy um if it would be helpful to write up a very brief summary to see that afterwards to just you know let you know a brief overview of what that process is, sure.

Um why don't you do that?

Mr.

Gelman, did you want to add to that?

Yeah, so the supplement to be a supplemental deed, you include the relevant facts that justify being a supplemental deed.

So if the term supplemental was removed, it would look like any other taxable ordinary deed that's out there.

So, you know, though, you know, so we would it wouldn't be a deed would give the public the impression that complete legal and beneficial ownership changed from the archdiocese to the parishes, and that's not what the true facts are.

And we are very uncertain about what the practical and legal implications of putting a regular deed on the public record that gives the world the wrong impression of the underlying facts.

And as Mary said, we spent many hours with the department of buildings trying to understand what the requirements would be in terms of inspection of century old parish buildings.

Um, you know, they predate, you know, various building codes, certificate obviously requirements, and we could not get a handle on what what nightmare and uh burden would be uh facing us for years following recording an ordinary deed that was statutory exempt because the supplemental deed is it's not a real change of true ownership, it's it's the uh nominee, nominal holder of legal title for the benefit of the true owner, and we're just merging those together.

Um and so we just want to be factually and legally correct on existing DC law, because doing it otherwise, there are so many unknown consequences, we can't get our arms around.

Uh thank you.

So um looking ahead to the testimony from um the assistant general counsel for the also the chief financial officer.

They state um the archdiocese has already transferred certain parish properties to these recently organized parish corporations, and the office of tax and revenue has exempted the properties for which properly completed applications have been submitted.

The current process has functioned effectively to date, and it appears that the existing administrative exemption framework could continue to serve as an efficient approach for the remaining archdiocese parish properties.

I'm not hearing from you because you think it's sufficient.

And in fact, didn't I hear you say, Miss Rhodes, that you're only aware of three of the four applications that have been granted?

Mary, if I could.

You're on mute, sorry.

That is aware of only three.

We have our record show, only three of the four have been returned.

Mary, the four that were selected, was that because those were four deeds that were presented and rejected, but the DC government pretended that the transfer had occurred, even though the deeds weren't recorded and we were caught in a bind, or did you select four different parishes?

Uh no, that that's um correct as best as I understand it.

We had um back in 2023, rather than in and date a recorder of deeds with you know close to a hundred deeds, um, our title company said, hey, we'll start with four, make sure they understand what's happening here.

Um those deeds were rejected, which started a two-year plus, now going on three years process of trying to get to recorded.

Um, maybe I can't remember exactly when maybe about a year or so later, even though the deeds were rejected, wouldn't we accept it?

Those parishes then receive tax bills, which ultimately wound up in about two million, two and a half million dollars in tax penalties that were going to be imposed unless we work this issue out.

So, of course, we wanted to avoid litigation.

Um, and this was our first time that we're actually able to meet with OTR in person to try and discuss this, and we decided that's kind of a compromise.

Okay, you know, you report these with the FB 300s, and you know, we'll accept them.

Um, so that is what led to our using these four properties really as a matter of necessity.

Um, and it was somewhat I don't know, tyrannic is the right word.

It was disappointing.

Like one of the properties was St.

Ann's um Capital Church and tending town, and that one of the best indeeds for that property actually said on any of that.

I don't know if it was from the 1800s or 1900s, but this property is being held in the name of the archbishop as trustee for the use and benefit of St.

Anne's Catholic Church.

Actually, percent of TC legislation.

So even though the deed itself recognized that the parish was the owner, we weren't able to use a supplemental deed.

We had to pretend like the parish is a brand new owner, and as mentioned, um, you know, it involved many many hours and hundreds of pages of documents to get those submissions in.

Any other questions?

Uh, thank you.

I don't think I have any other questions at this point.

Thank you all of you for your testimony.

Thank you very much.

Uh I'm gonna turn now to uh Bill 2670.

Um, which is the Reservoir District Tax Exemption Amendment Act.

I have three witnesses, uh Ruth Hong, Senior Vice President of Development at Jair Lynch, Hill Estate Partners, Emily Alexander, Senior Development Manager, Jair Lynch Real Estate Partners, and Robert Vinson Branham, who's chairman of the DC Federation of Civic Associations, Ms.

Hong, do you want to start?

We're actually going to switch between us.

You don't mind.

Good morning morning, Chairman Mendelssohn and staff.

My name is Emily Alexander, and I'm a senior development manager at Gyro Lynch Real Estate Partners and a Ward 5 resident.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Reservoir District Tax Exemption Amendment Act of 2026.

I'm here today to urge the committee to pass the permanent legislation as written.

As you know, Councilmember Parker introduced the emergency legislation and it was passed unanimously by the council.

The emergency legislation is currently in effect, and the legislation before you would ensure the ongoing amendment of the to the tax exemption.

The reservoir district is a transformative mixed-use development that reflects the district's commitment to housing production, economic development, and effective public-private partnerships.

We are extremely grateful to this council for passing the tax exemption last year in the fiscal year 2026 Budget Support Act.

However, a misalignment between the rent assumptions in the project's tax abatement financial analysis, TAFA, and current inclusionary zoning rates threatens the economic feasibility of delivering the planned housing.

As you may recall, the TAFA for parcels two and four of the Reservoir District was structured using rent rates based on the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUDs multifamily tax subsidy project income limits in February of 2026.

The Department of Housing and Community Development published updated inclusionary zoning rates.

The updated rates do not match the rent rates based on HUD's multifamily tax subsidy project income limits.

This creates a problem because the statute granting the reservoir district project and tax exemption requires the project to use inclusionary zoning rates, even though the project's financial underwriting was structured using rents based on HUD's multifamily tax subsidy project income limits.

If the project is required to operate under the current inclusionary zoning rates rather than rent rates based on HUD's multifamily tax subsidy project income limits, the resulting revenue shortfall would render the development economically infeasible.

The proposed bill offers a narrowly tailored solution.

By allowing the project to operate under HUD rates, you will restore consistency between the statutory framework governing the tax exemption and the assumptions used to finance the development.

The legislation would not alter the existing tax exemption, providing provide any new subsidies nor change the affordable requirements of projects that have previously received tax abatements.

It is a technical correction intended to address the discrepancy between inclusionary zoning rates and HUD rates that occurred after our project's approval.

We request the committee advance this legislation as written without adding an affordable covenant requirements.

Adding an affordable covenant to a tax abatement that has already been approved by the council and written into DC code is not standard practice.

Imposing this additional requirement on the reservoir district would set a precedent for future tax abatements, which it would not, we do not believe is warranted.

The tax abatement is already written into the DC Code based on our square and lot numbers, not as part of a larger abatement program.

Without the reservoir district tax exemption emergency amendment, the project was at risk of delays that would have hindered the delivery of much needed housing and undermined the district's broader development objectives for the reservoir district.

This bill is the most efficient mechanism to resolve the issue permanently and maintain project momentum.

I urge the committee to approve this bill to ensure the development of the reservoir district has the opportunity to proceed without disruption.

Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to testify.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Miss Alexander.

Ms.

Huang.

Good morning, Chairman Mendelssohn and Plain.

My name is Ruth Hong, and I am the Senior Vice President of Development at Gyre Lynch Real Estate Partners.

I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony on the Reservoir District Tax Exemption Amendment Act of 2026.

I am testifying today to urge you to pass the Reservoir District Tax Exemption Amendment Act of 2026 as written.

The Reservoir District is one of the district's most important public private redevelopment efforts, transforming underutilized land into a vibrant mixed-use community.

This project encompasses the district's goals of housing production, economic development, and smart land use.

However, the project's financial viability is at risk if the emergency legislation is not made permanent.

In our testimony, my colleague Emily Alexander explained the issue we are seeking to resolve with this legislation.

It is paramount we solve this problem in order for this project to move forward.

I want to emphasize that while the per unit difference between rent rates based on HUD's multifamily tax subsidy project income limits and inclusionary zoning rates may appear modest, ranging from 14 to 126 dollars depending on unit type.

The cumulative impact is substantial.

Monthly gaps translating to significant reductions in annual operating income.

At the scale of this affordable housing project, the discrepancy between the rent rates based on HUD's multifamily tax subsidy project income limits and the inclusionary zoning rates cannot be absorbed and directly threaten the economic feasibility of the project to move forward.

The proposed bill does not expand the existing tax exemption, reduce the total number of affordable units, nor provide any additional subsidies from the district government.

It is a targeted technical fix that aligns the project's statutory requirements with the financial assumptions under which it was underwritten.

Without this bill, the project is at risk of delays that would jeopardize delivering the proposed multifamily housing.

There's been discussion by the administration about requiring an affordability covenant to be recorded.

Such a requirement is neither necessary nor consistent with other tax exemptions of this kind.

The reservoir district's tax exemption is codified in Chapter 46 of Title 47 of the DC Code and specifically identifies applicable square and lot numbers, making the terms of exemption in the properties to which it applies explicit in statute.

This differs from programs such as housing in downtown or office to anything where recorded covenants are used to memorialize project-specific obligations that are not otherwise established in the DC Code.

The purpose of this legislation has always been to make a targeted technical correction.

We request that this bill move forward without any additional provisions or amendments that were not part of the emergency and temporary legislation so we can ensure our equity providers and investors in this project will be built according to the terms agreed upon and will be in effect immediately upon becoming law.

Passing the reservoir district tax exemption amendment act of 2026 is the most efficient and timely path forward.

I urge the committee to advance this legislation to ensure this correction is enacted and the project is able to proceed as planned.

Thank you for your attention for the opportunity to testify.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee.

My name is Robert Vinson Branham.

I am President Emeritus of the DC Federation of Civic Associations, a former advisory neighborhood commissioner and a resident of Bloomendale along the corridor that encompasses the McMillan Reservoir.

I have been involved as a community activist in the uh citizen uh concerns about the development of that particular site for a number of years, even when I was a board member of the North Capitol Main Street.

I want to piggyback on the testimonies that have already been presented and express my support for the due for the legislation.

It is critical that this project uh continue and move forward and that the uh economic development options proceed quickly.

There are already some uh delays in getting uh occupants for the property original occupants uh uh desired occupants have uh have uh have walked away from the project, leaving the project uh subject to unmerited unnecessary delays, and it's time to move forward on this project.

And uh I let me say also for the record that I'm a former president of the Bloomendale Civic Association, and we have all we have been involved in the uh uh issues surrounding uh the development of the reservoir for a number of for a number of years, and I strongly support this legislation and uh on behalf of the DC Federation of Civic Associations.

I want to align myself with the testimony that have been presented and uh express support for the uh for the legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Branham.

Uh I think I just have a couple of questions.

Um Ms.

Alexander, in your statement, you said near the end we requested the committee advanced this legislation as written without adding any affordability covenant requirements.

Where is that notion come from?

There are uh affordability covenants required by the LDDA associated with what is after the PUD modification is now parcel to East, that we are working with Demped to update, uh and through conversations, they've identified a desire to have covenants associated with the tax abatement.

Uh we don't believe that is standard practice or kind of historically necessary and would like to avoid adding extra covenants to the land uh when it is already codified by law, but that's where it's coming from.

I'm not sure I'm completely following so the reservoir site is divided into several phases and parcels, and there are I think several developers.

If I'm understanding what you're saying, there's right now some negotiations going on with regard to other portions of the site.

Correct.

And there's some affordability being talked about there, but there's also some talk about taking that affordability requirement, and if you will, retroactively retroactively applying it to this site.

There's discussion of kind of commingling the tax abatement affordability and the land development affordability and requiring covenants to cover both rather than maintaining the land development affordable covenant as its own independent covenant that will be allocated per the PUD modification, and the tax abatement being per the DC law and code.

So there's co attempt to commingle or or not attempt, uh request to co-mingle them and not execute one without the other.

My impression am I incorrect in my impression that we're also talking about two different um pieces of land there?

Yes, the uh land development is on what is considered parcel two east, which is a completely affordable senior development, senior affordable development, and the tax abatement is on parcel two west, so consider the same square and parcel four, which is not um part of the parcel to east senior development.

If I may, Chairman.

To east to west and parcel four, which is the grosser parcel, which are the two parcels that we own, broken up by tower.

If I may, just um the affordable housing requirement for all reservoir district for the multifamily parcels is for a senior affordable component that is uh that is uh going to be in parcel two east.

Um, the tax abatement here that we've uh had approved by you and the um council does not cover that parcel, it's just on parcel four, which is the marker rate housing with the proposed um grocery on the ground floor, and then parcel two west, which is a market rate um multifamily um project.

And so um as we've been talking to uh dumped about updating the covenants that run um with the land uh to cover the affordable senior component um per the LDDA and what's been approved in the PUD as of last of uh as of last year, um, they have been sort of conflating that because there's a covenant required for the senior affordable component that we should now have a that they feel like the city should have a covenant for the other two components for parcel four and parcel two west that are covered through the tax abatement, and as you know, we testified, um, those tax abatements are codified, you know, through the legislation and um uh the requirements are in in law, and so it would be kind of redundant to have a a covenant that runs with the land plus having it also in the legislation as well.

Okay, give me a second.

I don't have any other questions for y'all.

Thank you very much.

Um the remaining witnesses appear to be related to some or all of the remaining bills, um, 26-252 through 6476 and 26484.

I'm gonna call witnesses until either I think I have enough or that table is full.

Deborah Cuevas Hill, managing attorney with legal counsel for the elderly.

Nikitia Burko, who's staff attorney with legal aid DC.

Erica Wadlington, Vice President of Public Policy and Strategic Affairs at DC Building Industry Association.

Rassan Bernard, who's chief operating officer with WC Smith.

Is there a son online?

I'll stop right there.

Um Miss Hill, you're first.

Yes.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson and Mr.

Stum.

I'm Deborah Quivas Hill, manager of the consumer and home ownership preservation team at Legal Council for the Elderly.

I'm here to testify in support of B 260360, the senior tax aggregation amendment act of 2025.

This bill will have a real and immediate impact on several of LCE clients, keep seniors housed and protect generational wealth.

For more than 50 years, legal counsel for the elderly, LCE, has defended, protected, and empowered the District of Columbia's vulnerable older adults.

LCE is the only legal services organizations in the city that exclusively serves seniors.

The consumer team defends seniors facing foreclosure.

Current DC tax law makes inheriting a home far too expensive for some district residents, stripping families of generational wealth.

Like other jurisdictions, the district provides seniors with property tax breaks at certain age and income levels.

However, DC goes further to require that the property claim that the party claiming property tax benefits have an ownership of 50% or greater in the property.

So if two seniors live in a property and neither has a 50% interest, but their combined interest would meet that requirement, they cannot avail themselves of proper property tax benefits.

Simply put, if four seniors lived in a proper property, each owning 25%, all of them live in the property, they still wouldn't be able to qualify for tax benefits.

In other words, someone who works hard to pay off their house, raise a family there, age there, and have the senior homestead rate when their three senior children inherit the home, those children will have to pay a higher property tax rate, even if by age and income level they would otherwise qualify for senior property tax relief.

The senior property tax aggregation amendment act of 2025 fixes this problem in a relatively simple way.

The bill allows two seniors to aggregate their ownership interest to meet the 50% requirement if they live in the property and would otherwise qualify for property tax relief.

Let me give you a real example of how aggregation can save a family property.

The Johnson family who just submitted written testimony today are facing foreclosure because the district sold their tax lien during the 2025 tax sale.

The Johnson sisters have lived in the house mostly since their parents purchased the home in 1969.

In fact, this is the only home the youngest sister has ever known.

But when their mother died in 2018, they, along with their brother, who died earlier this year, each inherited a 25% stake in the house.

The two oldest sisters who live in the property would qualify for senior property tax relief.

But because neither owns 50%, they're stuck with $15,000 in taxes, penalties, and interest.

Had they been able to aggregate their interest after their mother passed, they could have afforded the taxes.

Because current law prevents them from aggregating or combining their interest in the house, they face foreclosure and the loss of the home where the family hosted Christmases, where they grew up in the neighborhood where they went to school, where their mother aged, thinking she could provide some security for future generations.

While this is about an asset, this is also about the district creating a fair process for families to keep their homes in their communities.

The council must pass the senior tax aggregation amendment act of 2025 and help families like the Johnsons and my clients keep their families homes.

Thank you, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Not yet, Your Honor.

I'll be submitting it.

I mean, I had hearing Chairman Mendelson.

Yes, I noticed that.

Oh, thank you.

Um, Mr.

Burko.

Good morning, uh Chairman Mendelssohn.

My name is Inkitia Burko, and I'm a staff attorney at Legal Aid DC's Consumer Law Unit, speaking today in support of the senior property tax aggregation and disabled veterans' complete property tax exemption acts.

Legal aid's consumer law practice focuses on foreclosure defense work along with other areas.

In our foreclosure defense practice, we represent district residents facing a variety of issues, including property tax foreclosures.

Through our casework, we have seen how inequitable access to property tax benefits places held elderly homeowners at risk of losing their homes.

We've also seen how disabled veterans might benefit from expanded property tax benefits to reduce their housing cost burdens.

Legal aid supports the two bills named above and appreciates the introducing council members' proactive approach to protect DC's most vulnerable residents from housing insecurity.

We encourage the committee to strengthen the senior property tax aggregation amendment act by expanding the senior tax relief to all senior homeowners with an ownership interest in their property in their primary residence.

First, legal aid supports the committee's passage of the senior property tax aggregation amendment act.

Legal aid has seen too many senior homeowners who, despite living in their home for decades, are unable to access property tax benefits simply because their ownership interest in the home is under the 50% threshold.

Exclusion from this vital property tax benefit is particularly harmful for our clients, many of whom reside in neighborhoods with skyrocketing assessed values that far outpace their fixed incomes.

Seniors should not face property tax foreclosures simply because they are one of several owners in a home.

Permitting heirs to combine their ownership shares to qualify for the senior tax benefit will protect many of our clients and others in their shoes from burdensome housing costs.

With the proposed legislation, the district will join other jurisdictions in adopting flexible common sense eligibility criteria to allow elderly heirs to age in place.

Legal aid also encourages the committee to build upon this initiative by allowing seniors with an ownership share under 50% to qualify for the senior tax relief.

While in some instances, one resident heir may be able to aggregate their ownership share with another to qualify for the senior tax relief.

In other cases, the 50% threshold may act as a barrier to relief.

The council has already demonstrated its commitment to preserving homeownership for heirs through initiatives such as the Airs Property Assistance Program and Partition of Real Property Act.

Removing the 50% threshold requirement for senior tax relief would build upon these prior efforts by ensuring more of the district's residents can reduce their property tax burden and avoid being displaced.

While the proposed senior property tax aggregation amendment act goes a long way toward ensuring heirs of color can access vital property tax relief, we believe the committee can further protect elderly heirs by expanding eligibility for the senior tax relief to homeowners with an ownership share under 50%.

Finally, legal aid supports the proposed legislation to make the disabled veterans property tax exemption deduction a complete property tax exemption for veterans and their spouses.

The proposed legislation would significantly reduce the housing cost burdens of our clients who have been injured in the line of duty, and we fully support the bill as written.

The two bills I've discussed would make significant steps toward the district school to protect elderly and disabled district residents from preventable home loss.

Our requested additions to the bill would only further the legislation's goals of keeping DC residents in affordable family homes.

We thank committee the committee for the opportunity to submit this testimony, and we urge the committee to pass these bills.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Perko.

Erica Wadlington.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Staff, Ms.

Bonds, I'm Erica Watlington with DCBIA.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Bill 26-252.

DCBIA appreciates the council's focus on improving the district's real property tax assessments and appeals process.

A predictable fair system should reflect market conditions and appeals processes should be uh should be able to provide a stable tax base.

While we support reforming this process, we believe this particular bill focuses its efforts in reform on the wrong issue.

Rather than the underlying methodology and valuation issues driving some of the volume of appeals, we do not recommend the committee move forward with this particular bill.

We would uh like to flag a couple things regarding this legislation.

Bill 252 would establish a separate assessment and appeals calendar, one for those income-producing properties and another for all other properties.

As you will read in today's testimony, maintaining two different calendars will create additional administrative complexity, not just for property owners, but we believe also for practitioners, the agency, RIPTAC, without addressing any of the existing deficiencies in the assessment and appeals process.

The bill also revises several statutory deadlines for those income producing properties, including moving the deadline for uh IE reports and income and expense reports, delaying proposed assessments, and extending the deadline for the first-level appeals, while also providing RIPTAC with maybe two more weeks to issue their final decisions.

However, extending these deadlines alone is not meaningful if the district doesn't have the capacity to meet them.

Our members have reported receiving RIPTAC decisions late, late as May of this year.

And this is the case for all appeals, not just ones involving income producing properties.

So without reducing the volume of appeals or providing the agency and RIPTAC with additional staffing or operational resources, creating a separate process with adjusted timelines is unlikely to meaningfully address these concerns.

The fundamental issue our members face isn't the calendar.

It's that the valuations don't reflect the market realities.

Addressing the accuracy and consistency of the agency's valuations at the forefront is the most effective way to reduce appeals, improve timelines, and ease the workload on both OTR and RIPTAC.

So DCBIA recommends that the council focus reforms on things that improve the valuation process itself.

So we are recommending giving appropriate weight to independent appraisals before uh when they are presented before uh the appeals process.

These are can be submitted by license appraisers.

Property owners can be deemed to have met their burden of proof when they submit this documentation during the appeals process.

We also recommend clarifying the statutory definition of market value and allowing appeals involving the same property uh to file those appeals across multiple tax years.

They can be consolidated into a single proceeding just to ease the burden on both RIPTAC and the Superior Court.

These and other recommendations discuss in greater detail throughout our collective record testimony and other uh DCBIA witnesses will be following me to expand upon those, are intended to improve the accuracy, the consistency, and the credibility of our assessment process, while also uh reducing the unnecessary appeals.

So DCBIA looks forward to working with you, your committee, and uh both agencies to develop reforms that improve the fairness and efficiency of our assessment system.

But let me be clear, we do not think that this bill gets us very far.

So we would ask that you reconsider this proposal, but we'll love to work with you on other ideas.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'm happy to answer questions.

Uh thank you, Miss Wadlington, and Mr.

Bernard.

Good morning, Chairman Mendelston.

Councilmember Bonds, my name is Rassan Bernard, and I'm a ward eight resident and the Chief Operating Officer for WC Smith.

We are a 58-year-old district-based company that owns or manages nearly 9,000 apartments throughout DC, including one of the largest portfolios of affordable housing in the city.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on B 26252, the real property assessment and appeals schedule revision act of 2025.

As with my colleague on this panel, WC Smith appreciates and supports the council's efforts to improve the district's real property assessment and appeals process.

However, we share their concerns that the bill focuses on procedural timing, creating schedules that shorten deadlines for OTR and RIPTAC.

These agencies are already under capacity and can't meet the current longer deadlines.

B 26252 would exacerbate the conditions that underlie a broken process.

It also creates deadlines for property owners that are nearly impossible to meet.

For example, the bill would require us to file our INE statements by March 15th.

This is unreasonable as it hits in the middle of tax preparation season, the busiest time of year for any accounting team.

Moreover, OTR does not even consider INE statements when proposing assessments for multifamily properties.

Instead, the agency relies on a computer-assisted mass appraisal system to make these determinations, thus disregarding actual property performance.

A more effective direction is to address the lack of transparency in the OT in OTR's process, which produces inaccurate statements leading to lengthy appeals that clog the system, costing taxpayers and the city time and money.

Respectfully, Mr.

Chairman, if you were if you remember nothing else from my testimony today, I hope you'll remember these three recommendations that we would that we would benefit that we would have benefit taxpayers and the city, all in the name of transparency.

First, change the process and allow taxpayers to access the worksheets and other information OTR uses to determine assessments.

Currently, we can't see what factors assessors consider for a property until an appeal is filed.

By giving us as taxpayers the opportunity to review this information, once the proposed assessment is issued, we can point out any errors and arrive at a more accurate tax rate without having to appeal.

Allow me to give you an example as it relates to our affordable properties.

These properties often have covenants through which we have committed to long-term affordability for our residents.

This means that the rent on many, if not all, of all the units fall well below market rates.

Yet, OTR will often disregard these covenants when preparing its assessments.

This happens routinely at a tax credit property in Northwest Washington.

We acquired in 2014 through TOPA.

Every unit is affordable at this property.

In fact, many of the tenants remain from the original development.

For these residents, we are contractually obligated to charge rents well below even tax credit allowable amounts.

Despite providing copies of the purchase agreement and covenant as well as rent roll for the date of evaluation to the assessor, each year the assessment is based on this CAMA model rent, the CAMA modeled rents, and does not reflect the actual income of the property.

We haven't received an evaluary for these properties and had to appeal the decision each year.

Second, OTR must make available to sales comps that it uses for market valuations.

Unless we press for that, we have no way of ensuring that the comps accurately reflect local market activity.

As an example, the assessment recently increased 30% and 28% respectively on two affordable properties in Ward 8 that are in neighborhoods where there have been very few, if any, property sales.

So we ask where did those numbers come from?

Moreover, market rate property sales continue to drop throughout the city, yet assessments don't reflect these conditions.

Finally, OTR must offer transparency in how to cap in how cap rates are determined for each property.

Under the current system, cap rates between affordable and class A properties do not reflect market conditions and are often too close to one another.

We urge the council to reject this bill and instead enact legislation that would fix these flaws in the assessment process and give OTR the resources it needs to more accurately prepare assessed values.

Thank you and happy to answer any questions you may have.

I think I have a couple questions.

80% of your members say that the RIPTAC decisions are late.

I think we were recording the percentage of uh decisions that are not meeting the deadline, the statutory deadline that was in the RIPTAC um report provided to the agency.

Provided it's the council.

But majority of our members are not receiving their um decisions by the statutory deadline.

Well, you do say in RIPTAC's FY25 performance accountability report, and by the way, uh we requested RIPTAC to be here to testify, and they chose not to.

Um, and I followed up, right?

Okay, I take all that back.

I'm told they will be here.

I sent an email yesterday.

Um, so I take all that back.

Um, in the report, I'm looking at your testimony, 10.79% of those cases had decisions issued within 30 days.

Is that what you're referring to?

Page four of your statement.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And then um, and I think part of your objection to the bill is that they're not meeting the 30-day deadline, and the bill is expanding that 30-day deadline to larger properties.

I understand correctly.

Yes, sir.

And so we're supportive of giving the agency a little bit more time if that is necessary, but we're also skeptical that given their current you know capacity and even the you know history of not receiving it on time uh currently that it's able to meet that obligation.

So we wanted to flag that for the committee, because it's something that we've been uh mentioning in our oversight testimony for a little bit about not receiving their um decisions by the statutory deadline.

Um it's it's common, it's you know, it happens, but um we would love for them to meet their statutory deadline, and we would support um that happening moving forward.

Give me a second, I'm gonna turn to my colleague, Councilmember Vonds.

Do you have any questions?

Oh, yes, thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you very much to the uh witnesses, and particularly thank you to this very important audience that's listening in, care a lot about assessments and values of our real estate.

It's great to know that you are here and want to be a part of where we need to go as a government.

I don't think anyone here um is surprised um to know that I um care very dearly about where we're going with the assessed value of our properties.

Um, and so to that in, I do have a few questions, and I want to start with, I wouldn't normally start with the elderly issue, but let's talk a little bit.

Um I only have a few minutes, I see.

Okay, let's talk about the covenants that are on properties.

And I think you indicated, Mr.

Bernard, that um any of the covenants, um, will state a rent level.

That's the interpretation of what I heard you say.

Tell us a little more about that, because that's very important.

In a town where people are saying the rents are too high.

Yeah, the specifically the uh reference I made in my um remarks, uh a property that we have a covenant for affordability, 40-50 year covenant where rents were uh were obligated to not increase the rents more than four percent a year um since the the uh inception of that property today, those rents are below market levels.

And actually, they're below um affordable uh for affordable allowance levels, tax credit levels sorry, and so so those have stayed low, and so the value of that property using income and expense statements should be viewed differently than a property that does not have those affordable covenants, and so we see the the CAMA system, which we understand why it's used for for mass valuation, but when we're assessing these properties that have covenants, we believe by providing the covenants by providing the documents that rightly sizes those properties based on income, it should be considered when evaluating the taxes for that property.

And so that's the reason why we want to bring that up.

So it's not it's not aggregated with properties that are performing at market rate at market levels, rightfully so, being paired with properties that have these covenants that are sure that are clearly uh producing less income.

Okay, well, this is also thank you very much for that response.

This is also related.

Um, as you know, we have a number of buildings and the commercial buildings in the city that have vacancies on the ground floor, but we also have some residential buildings that are required to have um commercial space on the ground floor.

What what is your thought about the vacancies of ground floor space?

What's your thought about that?

And the Smith Company.

So, you know, it's it's interesting because I think when we when we when we think about um uh let's let's use uh our Skyland workforce, our Scotland Town Center as an example.

Um, you know, the we have exogenous factors obviously in in our uh uh in our in our current market that impacts retail, impacts um vacancies.

We we we actually are um looking at right now adding uh 126 townhomes at Skyland and um and and condominiums that we hope will improve the retail that's there uh uh at the the work at the town center.

So so we believe we believe in obviously having ground floors being occupied by residents, being occupied by retail.

We want the vibrancy um that that occurs when those things occur in our city.

Um it's a very very difficult time, and we actually believe that um that residency, meaning getting the vacant apartments filled with DC residents, will drive the retail for any given um uh project, and so we feel very strongly about that, and we want to we we also believe that we have um a vacancy problems in our vacancy problems because the cost of turning over property today is costly.

Uh and if we can't, if if if if we have arrears and rent, we have rising costs, it's very difficult for us to turn properties over quickly for people to get to produce that vacancy and ultimately drive again ground floor traffic, ground floor retail, all of the above.

So it's it's really a it's really a chain reaction.

Thank thank you very much.

I ran out of time, but I would like to submit some questions for the team that spoke on elderly uh housing for sure, and to the chamber itself.

I think these are issues we really have to wrestle with.

I'm hoping to hear from the legal team that for the elderly that you'd like to see elderly in some of these ground floor properties, those that have amulatory needs.

But thank you very much, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman Bonds.

Thank you, you thank you each of you for your testimony, and Ms.

Hill, remember to give us a copy of your statement.

Scott Kreider, who's a shareholder with Wilkes Artists, Tanya Castro, Selim Modofo who's chairperson of ANC HC, Joe Riley.

I need these people online.

I didn't get it.

That's okay.

So you've got one understanding that Joe Riley, Joe Riley.

It is horrible, but there we go.

This is good stuff, it's not a lot of absolutely case.

Uh Grant Steinhauser principal for real property tax at Ryan LLC.

Very, very well.

It touches everything.

Mr.

Branham, are you trying to get my attention?

No, you're not.

Number 25.

Yeah, you're witness number 25.

We're witness number 19.

Oh, we appreciate your enthusiasm.

Mr.

Kreider.

Mr.

Kreider, you're up.

Thank you, Chairman.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chairman.

Good morning, Chairman Mendelson, Councilmember Bonds.

My name is Scott Kreider.

I'm a shareholder at Wilkes Artists.

For more than 50 years, we have represented district property owners and real property tax matters, and today we represent hundreds of them.

I'm here in opposition to Bill 26-252, and I would like to emphasize three points regarding this bill.

First, the bill significantly shortens the first and second level appeal time frames in a way that is bound to frustrate the appeal process and drive more appeals to DC Superior Court.

At the first level of appeal, let me walk you through what I mean.

Currently, the appeal time frame runs from April 1 when you submit the appeal to August 1 when the Office of Tax and Revenue issues its decisions.

That is a four-month period.

During that period, I kind of like to characterize it as ping pong between taxpayers and the Office of Tax and Revenue.

We submit our appeals.

We then request information from the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue regarding how they assess the property.

That currently, that process takes months right now.

So the taxpayers request the information regarding how the assessors have valued these properties.

Then the taxpayers have to analyze that information, both the assessment and the financial performance of the property.

They have to then identify any issues with the assessment.

Then there is an appeal hearing with the assessors in which information and arguments are presented to the assessors.

The assessors then have to go review that information, talk with their supervisors, and issue decisions, all within that four-month time frame.

This bill would reduce that time frame from four months to two and a half months.

It's simply not a practical reduction in time frame.

Look, right now the system's tight but workable.

All the stakeholders are racing through these four months to get through the process, and we just get through it in barely enough time.

Reducing that process by, like I said, a month from four months to two and a half months would frustrate the process and just push more forwards, more appeals forward to the second level, which then I'll go forward to that.

You heard Mr.

Mendelson from Ms.

Wadlington about how RIPTAC is not meeting uh its current uh decision deadlines this year.

We did not receive uh approximately 40% of our decisions by the February 1 deadline.

What does this bill do?

Bill does two things.

One, it reduces the time the taxpayers have to file appeals at RIPTAC from 45 days to 30 days.

Uh no purpose for that, and then it reduces an already condensed RIPTAC appeal hearing schedule by 40 percent from five months, September through January to three months, mid-November to mid-February.

Again, this would simply frustrate the appeal process and result in more appeals being pushed to DC's superior court.

Uh second, the bill quite frankly just addresses the wrong problem.

OTR's stated reason for this bill is that it needs more current income data to produce more accurate assessments.

That is not the issue that is driving appeal uh volumes.

The issue now is OTR is uh basically disregarding market sales.

For the past three years, the district has looked at nearly every sale and said it is a non-market sale, and they have excluded it from their valuation models.

What this has resulted in is assessments that are untethered to market realities, and that is why you're seeing taxpayers and property owners frustrated with assessments.

And finally, I'm bringing this up uh for the first time uh this testimony because this is a relatively recent uh phenomenon.

We have just recently started receiving threats of increased assessments from OTR assessments at the first level.

So we go into the appeal, we present information showing the assessment should be decreased.

We're getting emails and calls from assessors saying if you don't withdraw your appeal, we're going to increase your assessment.

Uh whatever the intent, the effect here is clearly to discourage property owners from exercising their appeal rights, and we believe this presents real fairness and abuse process concerns in the system.

I'm over.

I appreciate my time and uh available for any questions uh if the council has any.

Thank you, Mr.

Kreider.

Ms.

Castro.

Good morning, uh Chairman Mendelson, Councilmember Bonds and staff.

My name is Tanya Castro.

I'm co-founder of Castro Haas PLLC.

I've been handling rural property tax matters in the district and Northern Virginia for 40 years.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Bill 26252.

I'm going to pick up for where Mr.

Krider will play tag teaming here.

We think again that better quality assessments should be the goal here, and the changing the appeal cycle is not going to achieve that goal.

As mentioned in other testimony, the bill would establish two separate assessment and appeal calendars, one for income producing properties and one for all other properties.

So you could have a develop an owner with an income producing apartment building, but land that they need to develop, and they'd have two different calendars for those two different properties.

And currently, we have an example of a property that's assessed at only 1.7 million dollars has to file an income and expense form.

So that would be included in the current list of properties that would be subject to this legislation.

Among the adjustments to the calendar include moving up the deadline to file income and expense forms and then also changing the date to mail the assessment notices.

The apparent goal is to provide OTR with the most recent income and expense data so that they can presumably do a better job coming up with their values.

We think this is a solution in need of a problem.

They have that information so then they can make adjustments during the appeal process.

The calendar would also give the staff only two and a half months to do the work that OTR staff currently has 10 months to do.

In my experience over the past 40 years, completing all of those steps effectively in two and a half months is just is just not possible.

I would also note that other local jurisdictions have calendars similar to the current DC calendar, and those jurisdictions are able to issue better quality assessments with substantially lower appeal rates.

We'll skip to that.

First, we think the legislation should be introduced to clarify that assessments must be based upon generally accepted appraisal practices, procedures, rules, and standards as prescribed by a nationally recognized professional appraisal organizations.

This would be consistent with the Virginia Code.

Current methodology, which is the result of all of these high level of appeals, is not consistent with generally accepted appraisal practices.

We think the district should also establish a statutory framework allowing for property owners to consolidate disputes involving the same property across multiple tax years, multiple years in one proceeding.

Again, this would be consistent with how the Virginia Code uh is set up.

For example, in Virginia, taxpayers often wait until they have three years of assessments to challenge before they file a lawsuit, and then they can proceed forward with one lawsuit.

These recommendations would address the main reasons why there's so many appeals in the district, and would improve the accuracy of assessments and thereby reduce the number of appeals.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and happy to answer any questions.

Salima Tofo is not here, Joe Riley.

Good morning.

Chair Mendelson, Councilmember Bonds.

My name's Joe Riley.

I'm a regional managing director in commercial property management.

I've been managing office buildings downtown for 24 years.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill 26-252, the real property assessment and appeals schedule revision act.

My testimony today is focused simply on the proposed change to the income and expense form filing deadline, moving it from April 15th to March 15th.

It sounds simple, it's just the month, and I appreciate the desire to provide assessors with the information earlier in the assessment cycle, but I believe moving the deadline forward by a month will significantly reduce the accuracy and reliability of the information provided.

The most immediate challenge is obvious.

It's timing.

Property owners and managers simply do not have complete and finalized year-end financial information by March 15th.

Many expenses think about utilities or contract vendor billings.

They routinely lag by weeks or maybe more than a month after the close of the calendar year.

It's not until we receive those invoices and code them, review them, enter them before we can start to finalize all our statements.

At the same time, we're simultaneously completing all our other year-end stuff: accounting clothes, financial reporting, audits, tax-related reporting, and every other year-end obligation.

Compressing the income and expense reporting deadline into this already demanding period will force many filers to rely on estimates rather than finalize and properly reviewed data.

The complexity of the reporting itself is another important consideration.

Income and expense forms require hundreds of individual data points.

In addition, the required rent rolls contain dozen of inputs for every lease within our property.

If you've got a big commercial property between the INE form and the rent rules, that can be thousands of inputs that we need to get right.

Um, we have to collect it, verify it, and report it accurately.

And accuracy is especially important.

You know, these forms are signed under oath and submitted under penalty of perjury.

Property owners and managers take that responsibility very seriously.

Before submission, information is commonly reviewed by multiple parties, including property managers, senior management, accounting teams, property owners, or institutional clients.

Each layer of that review helps ensure the information provided is complete, accurate, and reliable, but it takes time.

And also note that in our industry, most leases allow the landlords until April 30th to complete the annual operating expense reconciliations.

I think I think that deadline is relevant because it's the product of decades of experience and reflects the practical reality that year-end data collection, reconciliation, and verification take time.

In many respects, the proposed March 15th income expense filing deadline would require information to be submitted before property owners have even finished their other standard year-end financial processes.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to retain the current April 15th filing deadline.

It strikes a great balance between providing assessors with timely information, ensuring that the information submitted is accurate.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley, and Mr.

Steinhauser.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman and honorable members of the council.

My name is Grant Steinhauser, and I'm a principal on the real property tax team at Ryan LLC.

I have lived and worked in the DMV for the past 17 years and spent the past 12 focused on real property tax assessment matters in DC, Maryland, and Virginia.

At Ryan, we represent hundreds of commercial and residential property owners in the district, including over 40 billion of assessed real estate value.

On behalf of Ryan LLC, I wish to express our opposition to B 252 and our support for B 484.

These bills recognize that the council and Mayor Bowser are serious about addressing the problems in the district's tax code head on, but in doing so, it is important to do no further harm in addressing the situation.

B 252 would exacerbate the problems faced by taxpayers, while B 4A4 would codify common sense solutions that have proven track records in other jurisdictions.

Despite good intentions, B 252 will only serve to make existing problems in property tax administration worse by compressing the time assessors have to properly assess complex properties.

It will shift administration of incorrect assessments to the Real Property Tax Appeals Commission or RIPTAC, which is already failing to meet statutory deadlines.

Currently, RIPTAC is required by DC Code to issue all decisions by February 1st, so that in theory a taxpayer can have their appeal decision in hand in advance of the first half tax bill being issued and paid in March.

In recent history, RIPTAC has been so overloaded with cases that their docket goes well into February, rendering it impossible for them to meet the 2.1 deadline.

In practice, maybe half of the decisions are issued by the 2-1 statutory deadline.

Uh and even this week, we are still receiving decisions from hearings that were held over six months ago.

Compressing this timeline will only make matters worse.

Fortunately, there is an alternative that allows the council to enact effective solutions.

B4A4 offers impactful no or low cost fixes to the district's property tax assessment and appeals process.

Here are a few key provisions.

One, it allows letters of authorization to remain in force for up to three years.

LOAs are used for taxpayers to authorize their agents to file an appeal on their behalf.

And currently, uh the district requires that taxpayers provide a new separate signed and notarized LOA every year at for both OTR and RIPTAC levels of appeal.

So two separate LOAs each year.

This is overburdensome to both the taxpayer and OTR, who actually has to review thousands of LOAs per year, and allowing more durability will save time and money on both ends, similar to what is done in Maryland and Fairfax County.

Two, permitting taxpayers to opt into uh electronic document delivery.

Um so much of the assessment and appeals process is already administered online, including virtual hearings at all three levels of appeal.

Uh yet OTR does not provide electronic delivery for property tax-related notices, such as first-level appeal decisions.

Instead, they are mailed via USPS and regularly take up to two weeks to reach their destination if they make it at all.

Uh electronic delivery is a common sense measure that should save the district money on postage and improve the taxpayers' experience as they can receive their decisions in a more timely manner.

And three, uh specifying the term days in this code uh uh refers to business days and not calendar days.

Uh, this is a simple clarification that will clear up a frequent point of confusion at RIPTAC, where OTR is required to submit their response to an appeal seven days before the hearing, and the petitioner must submit their rebuttal three business days before.

Uh if there's a holiday weekend in between, there can be times where OTR's submission and the petitioner's rebuttal are due on the same day, which is obviously not the intent of the code.

Uh the district is at a crossroads and passing B 252 would move the district backwards and make its property tax administration system uh more onerous and chaotic, while B4A4 would streamline property tax administration for both government and taxpayers alike.

Thank you for your time, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

So I do have a few questions.

Um maybe I'll focus on you, Mr.

Steinhauser.

Um, so the letters of authorization.

That's just simply a letter that says uh that uh Phil Mendelssohn is authorized to represent me in this matter.

All right, got it.

Correct.

And then why is it so great to eliminate the 5% rule?

The 5% rule isn't something that exists in Maryland or Virginia or really in other places.

So we're better than them.

Uh I'll give the example of you know, a hundred million dollar office building.

You appeal, the commission concludes to a value of ninety-six million dollars.

Um, but because it doesn't meet their five percent threshold, you're sustained at a hundred million.

So you end up essentially overpaying your tax bill by you know over seventy-five thousand dollars.

Uh, but then they ult the pet the taxpayer ultimately files to court and gets that money back anyways, plus interest.

Okay, so my house is valued at $100,000 dollars.

Uh no, at my house is valued at $100,000.

I think that's too much.

Um it's actually should be like $95,000 or $96,000 dollars.

Isn't that kind of stupid to tie up the process?

I wouldn't say so, no.

What's the tax on $4,000?

$86, maybe.

That could be important to you.

That's a ticket to a game.

I don't know.

I will that answers that question.

Maybe those are the only questions I had with regard to your testimony.

Miss Castro.

Um moving up the deadline to file I and E reports.

The apparent goal of these proposed changes would be to provide OTR with the most recent income and expense data.

This is a solution in need of a problem.

The current appeal process is structured so that in the context of an appeal, the district has the most recent income expense available.

That doesn't strike me as very efficient.

So the assessors are going to go off and assess the value of your property, and they get it wrong because they don't have the most recent IE.

And so after they do that, and you have to file an appeal, and then they have to do whatever paperwork.

And then you get to bring them at the first level, the uh current I and E.

That doesn't strike me as efficient at all.

Well, the issue is the they're not relying on the income and expense forms in the first place.

So it's the methodology.

What are they relying on?

They assemble all of this data and they put it into a database and they they create uh in their CAMA system uh the methodology that they're using to value commercial property.

So CAMA is mass appraisal.

Correct.

Makes sense on a residential context.

You're saying they use mass appraisal for commercial property?

Correct.

And and to emphasize the point, the the calendars in Virginia and in Maryland are the same as the calendar in the district, but Maryland and Virginia are able to come up with high quality assessments with far fewer appeals than the district is.

And why do they come up with because they have better quality uh uh processes and and methodologies for valuing their properties than the district does?

Meaning they don't use the CAMA?

They have their own versions of mass appraisal, but it's it's better quality and they they rely uh on better data than the district does.

Uh maybe let me just see.

Uh yeah, one other question.

Um several people brought this up, Ms.

Castor.

I made the note with your testimony.

What's wrong with two calendars?

I deal with multiple calendars.

I I think it would be very confusing to both the taxpayers and the representatives at the district.

Uh my example was uh a property owner that has a multiple apartment buildings and they may have multiple pieces of land and they want to file appeals.

Well, they'd be two separate calendars.

So there'd be one calendar for the for the apartment buildings and a separate calendar for the land parcels.

Uh so it it it's already a lot for property owners to keep track of of these calendars, and now they're gonna have to keep track of two different calendars.

And on the flip side, that means the folks at the district, office tax and revenue and rip tax, they'll have to keep track of two different calendars as well.

So I think it's just as administrative burden.

Well, I think the folks at the district like want they don't see a problem with the two calendars.

So, and I'm thinking while you were speaking, a landlord, I probably should let it go, but uh a landlord's got uh a thousand uh apartments and uh is in the process of evicting ten people, uh each of whom's on a different calendar, they're able to handle that.

I I can't respond to that fact, so yeah.

All right, Councilmember Bonds.

Thank you, Chairman.

In my very short time, I guess I'll just be very general.

Um can I get from each of the panels um a step in the appeals process?

Aside from the reporting deadlines that you've discussed, but steps in the appeals process that should be changed.

Whether it's a need for additional staff, uh elimination, uh, maybe filing paperwork that is required, um, the electronic record keeping process, um, and you just mentioned the dual or competing calendars.

Give me some thoughts, please, that you may have on that.

And we'll start with you, sir.

So currently, you know, we have we have four months for a first level for the first level appeals.

And often you would want the assessor to come and actually physically see your property for site inspections.

Um it's regular, you know, in other taxing jurisdictions where they'll come see your property.

You have the opportunity to show them, hey, you know, this just has changed, our tenant moved out, we're redeveloping it, whatever it is.

Alright, so physical assessment.

Right.

All right, it's craft through.

I only have three minutes.

Sorry.

Uh I'll just I'll defer to other one.

Don't be shy.

No, I would say uh uh requirements to recognize sales.

That's the single biggest problem right now is we have dozens and dozens of sales across asset classes that the district just continues to dis uh disregard, and that's the reason why the assessments don't reflect market value.

All right, that's what I was gonna say.

Alright, is Castro anything?

No?

Okay, all right.

So that that's what I I was trying to figure out if we were to uh and to make any changes that would be meaningful, what do you see to be the most meaningful changes that um need to be done?

I think you all have, I think I've heard all day the interest in change that needs to be made in this process, and I guess from my perspective, um we depend on uh tax revenue that's generated through the assessed value of the property, the facilities, and the land.

So, um how do we come together on this in order to keep the district moving forward and also to be fair and be real about the circumstances that we're confronting in this new frontier of um our country as well as our city?

Any thoughts?

No, okay.

All right.

The other question I have is I wanted to ask a little bit about um Bill 484.

Um, everyone seems to be comfortable with 484.

Is that correct?

You'd see the merit in that.

All right, and with my minute left, um, do you have any thoughts about how we should handle um the assessed value of senior own property, residential property, where they are actually the resident in place of property.

Have any thoughts about that?

I know your commercial interests, but just you know, you you will be a senior one day, you know.

What do you think about that?

I'm an office guy, right?

But I thought the testimony about combining seniors that live together was very compelling.

That just made logical sense to me.

Compelling in what way when you say that.

Well, if it's like grandma dies and she she's leaving the property to her her, you know, elderly children, the two children, if they they both are eligible, that that's like the fact that the ownership split, it still meets the intent, as far as I could tell.

All right, okay.

And what do you think about um uh a senior being the qualifying resident for reduced property taxes without having to prove that they have 50%, perhaps they have been um negligent and changing the deed, um, one of the spouses' deceased, um, how do we help them?

We currently have the 50% property tax reduction, but that's based on the um income of the household.

So if grandson is living with grandma and grandson's income far exceeds 100,000, then the senior is not eligible.

My only thought just thinking of this is uh the occupancy of the house, at least as I'm thinking about this, would seem to want to drive where the exemption goes.

Um, because you know, the if the elderly occupant of the house is really going to be the beneficiary of the exemption.

And so to me, rather than ownership, it's kind of the occupancy and who bears the burden of the cost.

It's just to me like looking at this anew, I haven't focused on this.

That kind of strikes me as where you'd want to aim the targeted relief is to the occupant or the tenant.

All right.

Well, I'm doing scattered here because we don't have 15 minutes to talk to each of you, but thank you so very much.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you all for your testimony.

Uh Eric Jones is vice president of government affairs at DC for DC commercial properties at AOBA.

Uh Tony Mancuso, Chair of the DC Public Policy Committee, Creator Capital Area Association of Realtors.

Gary Kelts, listed as a public witness.

Antonio Myers, listed as a public witness.

Robert Vincent Branham.

Joseph Bishop Henchman, Executive Vice President, National Text Taxpayers Union Foundation.

I think I'll stop right there.

Mr.

Jones, Eric Jones is online.

Mr.

Jones, you're up.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Femin Middleton and the members of the committee of the whole.

I am Eric Jones, a fortune rate from Washington, and Karen Ward for a resident who serves as Vice President of Government Affairs, DC Commercial for the Department of Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington, also known as the OBA.

Over 50 years, the Yoba has represented commercial office and multifamily residential real estate in Washington, D.C.

Metropolitan area, with members' portfolios totaling over 166 million square feet of commercial space and more than 480,000 rental units in D.C.

Maryland and Virginia.

In the district proper, our members manage more than 75 million square feet of commercial space.

I'm here today to provide comments on B 26252, the real property assessment appeals scheduled revision act of 2025 and B 26484, the fairness and accuracy and real property tax assessments amendment act.

First, I'll start with the real property assessment and appeal schedule revision act 2025.

For at least the last decade, based on my internal research, members have voiced concerns, and AYOBA has shared its views on the property tax appeals process.

Although the agency claims this legislation will streamline the process, reduce inaccuracies and cut appeals, our members remain uncommitted.

Shifting the due date for income and expense reports from April 15th to March 15th is unlikely to achieve the intended goal.

An earlier deadline could pressure property owners and accounting teams to compile data based on previous years' close without considering outstanding invoices, final reconciliations, or other essential accounting activities.

Furthermore, this change would increase staffing needs at a time when operational demands are already high, given the risk of supplying inaccurate information, which can lead to criminal or financial penalties.

We strongly recommend against this change.

Additionally, the idea that this would reduce appeals cannot be substantiated.

While the agency argues that the information typically included in appeals would is part of the calculation, it wouldn't be completed based on previous paragraphs.

This, since this information, which may be inaccurate has already been submitted to OTR, the appeals process will resemble a legal case potentially before the understaffed and overburdened office of the Ministry of Hearings or OAIDS, which would be costlier and likely to lead to similar outcomes.

While the ability to provide appeal decisions virtually is appealing, even this could be a topic of concern if the agency has failed to conduct proper due diligence to ensure that all contact information is current.

Now I'll turn to the Fairness Agrees and Real Property Tax Assessments Act of 2025.

Similar to the previous bill, our government affairs committee appreciates the legislature's intent, but remain hesitant to support it.

The limited industry participation during its drafting and since its introduction seven months ago does little to see to ease the doubt about its need.

As an organization, we believe tax policy should be created, should not be created in isolation, and this legislation represents exactly that.

While we were unfortunately here today to oppose both of you affirmation legislative items, we appreciate the council and staff for their efforts in addressing these issues and are open to working with any member of the body and their team on a collaborative process moving forward.

In closing, I would like to thank you for this opportunity.

Really quickly, because I know Councilman Bonds has asked on this.

When you talk about the senior housing, I can personally speak to just last year, I, along with two of my elderly aunts, had to sell one of my family homes, which I was co-owner of, because they could not qualify as dual owners.

And because of that, practice selling it, the tax burden fell strictly on my wife and I to take care of an additional home, which we could not always do.

After a long period of time, it just became unsustainable based on the need of the home and things like this, or why I think that is a great idea that you previously mentioned.

But for that, I thank you for the time.

Thank you, Mr.

Jones.

In your statement, you said um a reference to the bill process would resemble legal case potentially before the understaffed and overburdened Office of Administrative Hearings.

Did you mean OAH or did you mean the real property tax appeals commission?

OAH, uh because it the from our understanding, if you actually get past the RIP tax process, which this bill would possibly create, it would then go to OAH.

I'm sorry, you're saying tax cases go to OEH?

After RipTAC, yes.

Based on the comments of several of our members.

We had several lawyers and other members who said after the RIP tax process if you still wish to appeal, and I'm basing it on that information.

All right.

Uh, thank you.

Tony Mancuso.

Afternoon, Chairman Menderson, Councilman.

My name is Tony Mancuso.

I'm the chair of the public policy committee for the Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors.

Garr and our 11,000 members are the leading fact-based and collaborative voice for real estate professional small housing providers, homeowners, and renters who live and work in the District of Columbia and Montgomery County, Maryland.

Our testimony today centers around the support for B 26476, the Disabled Veterans Complete Property Tax Exemption Amendment Act.

When we evaluate legislation, sometimes review of the specifics requires extensive discussion and debate.

In the case of this bill, after the specifics of the legislation were slayered were shared, unanimous support was reached in less than a minute.

Currently, the district class one, a residential property is taxed at 85 cents per hundred dollars of assessed value.

As an example, if a disabled veteran has a home valued at half a million dollars, their property tax bill would come out to $4,250 each year.

For some, this may be manageable, but for those with limited abilities to work or for those who are on a fixed income, this tax bill may lead to serious implications on their ability to afford basic necessities, care of loved ones, pay for repairs to their home, etc.

etc.

Those who have served our country, especially those who sustain disability as a result of their service, deserve relief and support wherever possible.

This legislation will go a long way to help minimize the financial burdens that our disabled veterans have to account for.

Washington, D.C.

is filled with monuments that honor men and women who have served our country, making DC affordable and supportive of veterans who call the district home is just as important a testament to their legacy as the monuments that remind us of their service and sacrifice.

We urge the committee to support this legislation unanimously.

We appreciate the opportunity to share our association's perspective and are eager to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Mancus.

Gary Kells.

Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to speak today on uh 26476.

My name is Gary Kelts, and I'm a U.S.

Air Force Gulf War Era 100% service connected disabled veteran.

I suffer from chronic respiratory illness due to toxic exposure, PTSD, as well as other issues.

I served proudly, I took my oath seriously, and I prepared to put my life on the line for our country.

I moved to the DMB nearly 11 years ago.

I chose to live in Maryland at that time because Virginia and Maryland both have property tax exemption for 100% disabled veterans.

There are 21 states in fact that offer that benefit.

In 2023, I decided I really wanted to live in the district.

I made the decision to move here.

I love living in Washington, D.C., and I'm a proud resident to be here.

Housing expenses have gotten out of control in the district.

I believe if this bill is passed, veterans that live in the DMB areas would likely make the decision to move into the district.

This would also boost the local economy as well.

This year I purchased a home here in the DC.

The price of my home with current mortgage rate makes a large monthly payment.

Making housing more affordable needs to be a top priority in DC.

I'm asking you to please vote yes on this bill and let's make DC appealing to our veterans.

I'd like to thank Councilmember Brooke Pento for sponsoring this bill, Councilmember Janice Lewis George for co-sponsoring, and thank you again for allowing me to have a voice in our community.

Together we can build a better Washington, D.C.

Thank you, Mr.

Kelson.

Thank you for your service.

Antonio Myers.

Not here.

Robert Vinson Branham.

Hello again, Chairman Mendelson, Councilmember Bonds.

And first let me thank my two colleagues for their service.

I am President Emeritus of the DC Federation of Civic Associations.

And I am also a military service connected disabled veteran.

I support the legislation dealing with disabled veterans tax exemption.

However, I would like to recommend a modification to the legislation that veterans, disabled veterans, service connected disabled veterans who do not have 100% disability, don't benefit from this legislation.

Our service should not be distinguished by the degree of disability.

If the intent of the legislation is to honor disabled veterans, all service should be recognized as opposed to unless you are 100% disabled, you don't get the benefit of being of the tax exemption and the recognition.

So I would urge the council to amend the uh the legislation and the law as it currently is to make it applicable to the percentage of disability, the service connected disability of the uh of the veteran, and make it uh uh transferable to the to the spouse.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Um I don't have any questions for you all.

Let me turn to Councilmember Bones.

Who am I forgetting?

Oh, Mr.

Henchman.

I'm sorry, that's because I have to turn to Paige.

I'm sorry.

No problem.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Councilmember Bonds.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Joseph Bishop, Joseph Bishop Henchman, and I'm here in my capacity as executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation here in Washington.

And of course, uh Washington, D.C.

resident.

Uh no one is more optimistic about the city's economic future than property tax appraisers, as uh homeowners know when they get their uh appraisal in the mail.

Um, I'm speaking uh today with comments on uh B-26252, but primarily on uh B-26484.

On 252, I'd just like to echo the comments made by some of the previous witnesses that the calendar and procedural changes in the bill are um a solution in search of a problem.

There are difficulties with the property tax appraisal and appeals process, but the bill doesn't um uh uh effectively address many of them, uh especially with income producing properties, and I'd especially compliment the testimonies of Ms.

Castro and Ms.

Wadlington for offering constructive solutions and that in and love to see the bill uh go more in the in that direction.

On B26484, uh I want to uh praise uh Councilmember Pinto's introduction of it and the uh provision to remove the 5% yo-yo uh restricting appeals uh the unless they are at least 5% above the or below the uh appraisal.

Um as someone previously noted, this provision exists nowhere else.

Got the West Law search in front of me, it's a DC only provision, and I and I get that that's not necessarily the end of the argument for for you, Mr.

Chairman.

But I did want to put some numbers on it, uh, especially since I have my appraisal in front of me here, my assessment in front of me here.

Um average home in the district right now is about $700,000.

Uh 5% of that is $35,000, and then you apply the property tax rate and you get $297.

So that's the um that's the rub for a lot of people.

And you know, just taking mine, for instance, where my appraisal came back or my assessment came back 9% above uh market value of what it really should be.

Um if I appeal it, which I am, and there's a meeting in the middle, as sometimes happens in a judic or adjudicatory bodies.

Uh well, that would be four and a half percent, uh, and actually I lose, I lose completely then because it's not above five percent.

Um, and then there's an opportunity then to go to court, which is not restricted by this 5% rule, and then I win in court.

So if the goal of this is to avoid unnecessary process and expense and burden, I don't think it's achieving that, and that's a reason why it's not in the recommended appeal practices from our organization, it's not in the recommended governmental practices from uh the bodies that assign those, including the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.

Um, it's a thumb on the scale in what is supposed to be a fair and even-handed process, and I'm hopeful that the uh committee looks favorably on that particular provision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry I overlooked you, uh, but I don't have a copy of your statement.

You'll provide that.

I'll provide it.

Thank you.

Great.

Council Member Bones, do you have any questions?

Yes, thank you very much, Chairman.

Um I want to just talk a little bit about this idea, this concept that you've put out into the public domain, Mr.

Henchman, and that is the thumb on the scale.

I think when we talk about tax policy, we're putting the whole hand on the scale for obvious reasons.

And so just um, can you can you help the public that may be listening to understand the the harm, the hurt, um, when we put our thumb on the scale, given that this is the mechanism by which we fund many and all of governments programming that we do primarily.

Sure, I'll try.

Uh so my organization, National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

We put out a property tax appeal guide, not just for DC, but for our members all over the country, and um it's certainly a harrowing process, it's not an easy one.

Uh it's not designed to be an easy process because uh uh we don't want lighthearted or frivolous appeals, but we want to get it right.

I think government wants to get it right.

Taxpayers want to get it right.

And uh, you know, I've met I've never met somebody who's excited about paying their property tax, but I think a lot of people understand that it's uh it's how we pay for schools, it's how we pay for police, it's how we pay for all of the important services that we need.

And um we like to talk about our tax system as a voluntary one, and by that we mean we rely heavily on people self-reporting, on people self-complying, on people doing the right thing.

And when you have rules like this, where um it's not about getting it right.

It's if the government is right plus five percent, the government wins.

Um, you do a you do harm to that, encouraging people to uh comply voluntarily, and it's cumulative, it's hard to measure, I get that, but um the the load star for RITPAC and for this process really should be what's the right answer, not what's what did the government say plus five percent.

Thank you, thank you very much for that.

Uh very quickly, um Mr.

Kelts and Mr.

Brennan, both um veterans.

Um, not only thank you for your service.

I want you to now talk to us a little bit about a disability and how you see it, because the idea is that this bill will help our veteran community, but when we talk about whether you have to be a hundred percent or 50 percent, are we slicing the melon a little too much?

I know we're talking about money, so and that's so very important, and money that can help with, as you mentioned, Mr.

Henchman, the various programming that we have to do as a government.

But what how how where do we draw the line?

Well, I can modify my comment and recommendations to simply say it's gonna be this eliminate the uh uh percentage uh uh uh requirements.

It was a if you are uh a disabled veteran certified by the VA, then you're eligible for the uh uh for the exemption regardless of uh of percentage.

But I think that you say that you had to be 100% determined uh uh uh uh disabled veteran.

I think uh disenfranchises other quality uh other uh deserving uh veterans from the benefit.

All right, Mr.

Kelts.

I am basing my information on what other states do and what the DMB as a whole does, which is 100% disabled.

I believe very strongly in it.

I believe in uh getting this equitable across the country.

There are 21 states that currently do it.

There are some that do uh make alterations by uh your percentage, and I think you have to usually be 30% or more.

I'm not sure.

I don't have the facts on that.

I'm basing my testimony on a hundred percent disabled.

All right, well, thank you.

Um, as it relates to residency, um, you know, it's very easy to be someone who is a veteran who's uh uh acquired a very interesting very portfolio of properties.

Okay, so now as the owner, there's the cost of property taxes.

Are we talking about the veteran living in the premise that would see the re tax reduction?

Absolutely, it needs to be your primary residence.

Okay, primary residence.

All right, and that would be the same for the spouse.

It does carry to the spouse as well.

Okay, I just want to make sure that we're all talking the same thing.

Thank you, and thank you for buzzing me.

Thank you very much for your thank you very much for your thank you each of you for your testimony.

And thank you, Mr.

Jones.

Um, the last group of witnesses before we turn to the government, Brandon Scott, who's chair of the Public Policy committee DC Association of Realtors.

Claudio Roca, who's member of the Public Policy Committee, DC Association of Realtors.

Shaniri Hubbard, who's president CEO of the DC Chamber of Commerce.

Online.

And Benjamin Filon, who is listed as a public witness.

Here up.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelssohn.

My name is Brandon Scott, and I'm the chair of the public policy committee for the DC Association of Realtors, or DCAR.

I am also a resident of War 7 and a professional realtor at Kelly Williams Capital Properties.

Now, DCAR is the district state association of realtors and serves as the premier voice of real estate in DC.

Now our mission is to protect and promote the interests of our approximately 2800 members and their clients who live and work in every ward of our city.

Now, through our advocacy, we represent the real estate professional small housing providers, property managers, homeowners, and renters.

So I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Now the fairness and accuracy of the real property tax assessment amendment act is intended to help stabilize our commercial real estate market and revitalize downtown.

We support that goal.

However, after consultation with both the ministry agencies and the proponents of this bill, we ask that the elements of the bill be narrowed in scope to address the problems that it is trying to solve.

At the outset, we have no objections to four provisions of this bill, namely extending the effective period for letters of authorizations, standardizing appeals, filing deadlines to business days, extending the deadlines for decisions to prior year appeals to March 1st, and allowing electronic delivery of appeals documents.

Now these provisions are largely non-controversials and make a lot of sense.

However, we believe that eliminating the 5% rule for adjusting a property's estimated market value would not be beneficial in the residential market.

Smaller residential properties have not experienced the same decline in property values as commercial properties, and modest percentage adjustments would not result in meaningful tax savings on typical untypical homes.

On the other hand, eliminating the 5% rule for single-family homes and smaller residential properties would likely encourage a higher volume of appeals for relatively small dollar amounts, leading to backlogs and delays at the real property tax appeal commission.

Now, these delays will cause real homes for harm for homeowners with more serious assessment concerns.

Now, in addition, updated market data obtained during the pendency of an appeal for smaller residential properties could result in an increase in taxes for homeowners who appeal their valuations.

Now, to avoid these harms, we recommend that any elimination or adjustment of the 5% rule be limited to commercial and mixed-use properties, as defined by the property class and zone.

Similar, we are concerned that accelerating the decision timeline for complex commercial cases to 30 days would require additional capacity at RIPTEC.

Without substantially more resources, we are worried that attempting to accelerate this timeline would also increase pressure on the appeal system.

Now with those two issues addressed, we would support the legislation moving forward.

I would like to thank you, Chairman Mendelssohn, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you, Mr.

Scott.

Ms.

Roca.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson and Councilmember Bonds.

My name is Claudia Roca.

I'm a member of the Public Policy Committee for the DC Association of Realtors, or DCAR.

I'm also the director of the cooperative division for Monarch Title.

And I work here in the district, including in properties wards two and six.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

As my colleague Brandon mentioned, I'm here to share our support for the senior tax aggregation amendment act and the Disabled veterans Complete property Tax Exemption amendment act.

DCAR submitted letters in support of both of these bills since they were introduced, and we appreciate moving them to a hearing today.

B 26360, the senior Tax Property Tax Aggregation amendment act would support seniors who want to age in place in the district and permit unnecessary foreclosures.

Current law allows seniors a real property tax deduction if they individually own 50% of a residential property and their household meets certain income requirements.

The challenge arises when a family property is passed to multiple heirs or owned collectively by more than two seniors.

This legislation would allow seniors to aggregate their ownership stakes and ensure they receive the tax relief they would otherwise be entitled to.

As you consider this legislation, we ask you to also consider raising the current income limit to receive senior property tax relief.

The current household income limit of 159,750 leaves many residents at real risk of displacement foreclosure or difficult choices between paying taxes or paying for other necessities.

As more seniors choose to live together to manage increasing costs, the household income limit for the senior property tax deduction will impact more households over time.

The Disabled Veterans Complete Property Tax Exemption Amendment Act would build on earlier reforms to extend a complete homestead deduction for the homes of qualifying disabled veterans and their surviving spouses without existing limitations related to household income or home value.

Adopting this reform would align with the district's benefits more closely with the approaches taken in Maryland and Virginia, reducing the risk of displacement for veterans and their families.

In addition, program administration would be significantly simplified by eliminating current eligibility requirements requirements based on arbitrary income and property value limits.

Removing restrictive eligibility requirements would reflect recent increases in both home values and area median income in the district and ensure the program remains a viable benefit.

Perhaps most importantly, this legislation reflects the fact that disabled veterans have already paid more than their fair share for the security and well-being of the district.

Extending this benefit is the least we can do to recognize their service.

Thank you, Chairman Mendelssohn and Councilmember Bombs.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Miss Roka.

Uh Shanneri Hubbard, I believe, is not here.

With the Chamber of Commerce.

Um, Benjamin Filon.

Good afternoon, uh Chairman Mendelson and Councilmember Bonds.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Bill 26-0476.

The Disabled Veterans Complete Property Tax Exemption Amendment Act of 2025.

My name is Benjamin Fallon.

I proudly served in the United States Army for 22 years and have been determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs to be 100% service connected, permanent in total.

I've lived in the District of Columbia for seven years, about six and a half of those years.

I rented in different areas of the city.

And earlier this year, I made the decision to use my VA home loan benefit to purchase my first home, my very first home here in the district, Ward II in the Shaw neighborhood.

I'm originally from Texas financially.

Instead, I chose to stay in the district because I believe in this city.

Continuing my career supporting the Department of Defense and invested in this community by purchasing a home.

There's one point I hope you remember today.

It means the injuries from my service never will.

Many veterans with permanent and total disabilities continue working, paying taxes, raising families, and contributing to their communities.

We are not asking for charity.

We are asking the district to recognize the lifelong sacrifices that earn this designation.

That is why Bill 26-0476 is so important.

The bill removes the current household income restriction restriction that prevents some permanently disabled veterans from qualifying for property tax relief simply because they continue working after military service.

It also replaces the current partial exemption with a complete exemption and extends that protection to eligible surviving spouses.

This bill is about more than property taxes.

It is about housing stability, financial security, and honoring veterans whose service resulted in permanent lifelong disabilities.

The district would not be standing alone by passing this legislation.

States with very different political priorities, such as my state of Texas, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and most recently the state of New York have all concluded that veterans with permanent and total service connected disabilities should have full property tax relief.

I chose Washington, DC as my home.

Today I respectfully I respectfully ask the department the district to demonstrate it values veterans who have chosen to invest their lives here.

Bill 26-0476 is a thoughtful targeted measure that removes an outdated barrier and strengthens the district's commitment to those who have sacrificed the most.

I respectfully ask that you pass Bill 26-0476.

Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your continued support for our nation's veterans.

With regard to the senior citizen tax relief, you argue that the 159,000 uh threshold or ceiling is unfair.

Um our thinking is that we don't need to be providing real property tax relief to people who have the ability to pay their taxes.

Household income of 160,000 annually seems like it's more than adequate.

So explain the thinking.

The 159,750, is looks adequate for just the property taxes, but with the rising cost of everything else within the median income and the like I said, the rise in paying for uh electric water and all that, when you look at the total cost of that household, the 159,750 is really not a good marker for a total household income.

It's the this is kind of bare minimum what they're getting from either their benefits or something else.

So it it would really trigger paying for housing costs or paying for groceries at that point.

If you look at the actual cost of living in the District of Columbia, interesting argument.

It is um indexed to inflation, so it goes up.

Understood, but most of the benefits that a senior citizen gets don't include, as I said, I understand you're you're thinking of just housing costs, which is one item.

Um they wouldn't, it would probably make them tight on making anything, or if there's a repair in the future.

It would put them at a disadvantage for any emergency that comes up.

It looks like I said, potentially if the everything is perfect, it looks like the budget balances.

But again, these seniors, if there is an issue with the roof or uh a boiler or something of that nature, they won't have the reserves to pay that and then all their housing income.

Other housing costs.

I'm gonna turn to Councilmember Bonds.

Council Member Bonds, do you have questions?

Yes, thank you very much, and thank you, um, panel, and thank you, sir, for your service as well.

On the senior uh property tax relief, um, a few years ago, I attempted to uh remove seniors of 70 years of age from paying property taxes in this city.

And um the chairman decided, well, everyone pays property taxes, so it became uh deferred program.

And the original interest rate for a deferred program was about six percent, which is as you know what that means.

Over the years, we have thought about how we could move the needle again.

So it's not just veterans, but it's also long-standing seniors who really help to make this community what it is, so that uh my children and grandchildren can say that they want to live here.

Okay, as yours as well.

And I say all of this to say, I wonder if you have the thoughts and the stomach for where I think we need to be now.

If a senior's income is, let's say, under 50,000, most of them their income is really under 30,000, to be honest with you, in the district of Columbia.

But they are in properties that they purchase many years ago as a retiree from the federal government on a very limited income, but they were able to buy a home for 12,000 that's now valued at 800,000.

So that means their tax is up.

Yes, they currently, if they live alone, or they their income for the household doesn't exceed 159,000, they have the opportunity to get 50% reduction.

But 50% reduction on that value of a home, you see they still have to pay thousands.

So I wonder if we're at a point where we need to create a tiered approach to uh property taxes.

So the lower income pays maybe 10%, maybe the middle income of that as we go up, getting closer to 159 or 175, would pay maybe 25%.

And in other words, thinking about how we might make an adjustment so that this is a community that welcomes everyone.

So it's not one group of citizensry versus another if you are property owner.

What do you think about that, Ms.

Rocco?

I although the idea actually does have a lot of appeal.

How my thought is more how would that procedurally work in a tiered system?

How does that get implemented?

What is the who's to unpack it, who's to uh process, who's to please.

So I I understand the intent, but a lot doing putting in a program where are is it an arbitrary system and and is it self-reporting?

You know, there's a lot of nuance to proposing something of that scope, though in in its spirit, I think that's a it's it's a good idea.

Okay, well, thank you.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Fellon, you want to comment on that, uh only I can only comment it in in reference to the uh 0476 about the disability and hearing the earlier testimony about it.

Um I think there is a very distinct difference between being 100% disabled and 100% disabled permanent in total, those are two separate and different things.

A veteran can be 100% disabled, but the vet the VA says hey, you know what?

You have an opportunity to improve for your injuries.

You're still 100% disabled, but you have the opportunity to improve.

All right.

The permanent in total comes in when the VA decides there's no more we can do for you.

Good luck.

Your your injuries will probably continue to progress as you get older.

So there's the distinct difference there.

And I think some people get that mixed up, uh, and I'm not trying to, I'm just trying to go with what the VA states.

All right.

And when we're talking about household incomes and you know, you know, limitations on that.

Sorry, I'll wrap it up here in a minute.

Uh, we're talking about aligning a l legislation with money, and the VA doesn't do that.

The VA is aligning their disability ratings with your injuries.

All right.

Well, I thank you very much for that.

Mr.

Scott, do you the question is still on the table?

Do you have some thoughts?

I asked Ms.

Roka.

Do you have some thoughts about the senior ideas that I projected?

With respect to the senior tax, I think it that there's definitely room, I think, for for larger consideration.

Um I think the um low-hanging fruit creates the opportunity, as Ms.

Roker talked about, which is creating space for more seniors to be able to live collectively together.

Um I think if we are looking at what the tax benefits look like around that, so if there was an adjustment from the 159 or 160 price point that created considerations for seniors that lived in the community or in the house together, um, there may be more opportunities, I think, to create a gateway to to explore what those opportunities look like.

Um I appreciate that comment, but surely you are not suggesting that only if seniors live together should they have a tax benefit.

No, I no, I think that's just one part of it.

I think that's one pathway to be able to create a broader discussions around how do we begin to tackle the the opportunity for taxes.

You will be a senior one day, you know that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to the panel.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Uh I have no further questions.

Thank you each of you for your testimony.

We're gonna turn now to the government.

Um we have three.

And again, I want to apologize.

I had suggested that RIPTEC would not be here.

Robert Cooper is participating virtually, he's vice chair of the real property tax appeals commission.

Robert McKean, who is Deputy Associate General Counsel at the officer of the chief financial officer, and Basil Fachina, who is assistant general counsel at the officer of the chief financial officer.

And what I'm gonna do, because I have lots of statements from y'all, is um go through all of your testimony and then I'll ask questions.

And if Councilmember Bonds is still here, she'll ask questions as well.

So, Mr.

Cooper, you're first, and thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Chairman's uh Mendelson.

Um good afternoon uh to you and to members of the committee.

Uh my name is Robert Cooper.

Uh I am vice chairman of the Real Property Tax Appeals uh Commission, uh, and I bring greetings from uh our chairman, uh Mr.

Trent uh Williams and the other professionals that make up our commission uh and staff.

Uh we thank you for this opportunity uh to testify on both of the bills before you uh real property tax appeals uh assessment and appeal schedule revision act uh two five two and the fairness and accuracy of real property assessment submitments act, uh which is uh Bill 2484.

Um as you know, uh RIP tax serves as the uh second level uh real property uh appeals body uh and uh determines uh whether the office of tax and revenue has had erred uh in its property assessment, so not unlike other appeal bodies, uh, our body looks to see if there was an error.

Uh now there's an assumption of accuracy uh coming uh before us.

It is presumed that the assessments uh before us are accurate.

So our goal is to listen to the evidence and testimony presented and determine if there was any error made on the part of the office of tax and revenue.

Um so as to these uh bills, um, you know, I think generally uh there's some uh support uh for them.

Anything that will advance uh accuracy, anything that will advance uh the speed of processing uh these accurate uh decisions uh is is welcomed.

Um uh and uh but we believe that under 44, there are a few of the amendments that uh we believe will may hamper in fact the productivity of the commission, uh specifically uh changing the end of this of our second uh level appeal season to March 1st of each year.

Uh though this does uh give us uh additional time on the back end, uh it directly impacts uh may ultimately impact OTR's ability to timely notify property owners of their annual assessments and then their ultimate ability to file uh in the the next level of appellate level, which is the courts, and it could severely impact the entire appeal season.

Another concern is obviously a change to electronic submissions uh of appeals.

Now there was some discussion about whether it was the entire appeal process or only electronic submissions uh within between the petitioners and officer tax and revenue.

Um, you know, most petitioners, residential, commercial, small large buildings, warehouses, and the like uh vacant property have adopted the online portal, which is our file and serve express uh uh portal for the filing and submission.

Uh you have to understand that there are often hundreds of pages of documents submitted by the parties with photographs and the like and uh uh it it it it could conceivably bog down uh an email system.

Uh if if again, if this is pertaining to uh filings and submissions with the uh commission, um uh you know our staff is relatively small, and I can get into that into questioning, but uh we believe that having a central database uh where all parties, all stakeholders can have access to reviews, submit, and and also determine timeliness of filings and completeness of filings uh makes this process uh a bit more simpler and and is easier uh for everyone to access.

Expanding this to email submissions would clutter inboxes and could cause other problems where parts of the emails may not make it uh there are deadlines for submissions and uh and again if the emails are then submitted to our staff, then our staff has to then package them and submit them into the appropriate places.

And as I said, I can get into our staffing issues in a little bit.

Um finally the elimination of the 5% rule uh will increase RIP tax caseload and hearing volume, uh which would have downstream impact on administrative processing times dramatically.

Um 5% rule uh again, I can get into this with questioning, but the 5% rule aids in uh frivolous uh, say frivolous, but you know, cases where someone says, as you said uh uh Chairman Mendelssohn, you know, somebody wants a hundred dollar reduction and uh you know that equates to about 45 cents uh tax, but we're spending uh multitudes of hours of time for both the ultimate tax revenue uh to set it for hearings, our staff, our decisions uh that we have to issue.

Um, and uh, you know, the majority of the the this 5% rule issue, you know, again, we're uh whether the whether the the assessments are accurate or not.

There the goal is accuracy, but we have to determine whether there was an error.

So there has to be some leeway uh for the officer tax and revenue uh to say, you know, it's in this area, uh it's not down to the penny.

And so if someone wants to come in and argue pennies, then they would have the right to do so, and uh it could bog down the system.

Uh and there are other issues that we can address uh on questions and uh when you get to a question and answer session.

Uh under uh 252 seeks to administratively modernize and improve the accuracy of assessments.

Uh our RIPTAC understands this bill would allow additional time to submit income and expense and reports and other relevant documents, facilitating an accurate timely assessment.

Generally, obviously anything that uh assists and aids uh in uh uh creating accurate assessments uh now it accurate doesn't necessarily mean acceptable to a petitioner.

Um, you know, and again, most of these cases, the vast majority of cases don't fall anywhere near a 5% issue.

It's dramatic reductions that petitioners are requesting.

So I think obviously if OTR needs more paper more paperwork, more certifications, I think there are challenges that have been uh expressed uh by the uh the property owners in the industry.

I think it's accurate, timing of these things is, but at some point deadlines have to be met, and we have to determine what deadline is appropriate and whether or not the parties can actually meet those deadlines.

So just a few other quick points.

Having heard the testimonies from uh numerous stakeholders today, you know, over the since uh over the last five years or so uh RipTAC is handled uh on average about 5,900 cases, and those are cases from Office of Tax Revenue on appeals, it's also uh cases from Department of Buildings, uh vacant property, uh blighted property, uh, some of the cases dealing with the seniors.

Uh we we handle all of those.

Uh with six full-time commissioners, uh, and we have can get up to eight part-time commissioners.

We actually have two only, only two full-time administrative staff persons that handle all of the paperwork that's reviewing every piece of paper that comes in, making sure that it's categorized in the hands of the commissioners, and the scheduling of the cases, and that scheduling is very intensive, dealing with both the petitioners and office of tax and revenue, providing us a debt uh dates, calendaring, make sure we have adequate uh support for those hearings.

Most of us are on panels three days a week, and each day we're we could be subjected to hearings between 10 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock in the evening.

And that means that each of us may have five to six cases to decide and write, and we're right back at it again the next day.

So, and then of course we have one full-time IT person who aids us, and he's working on both panels each day, making sure that our hearings are recorded, that we all have our documents, and that everyone is able to communicate uh uh properly.

Obviously, we the remote hearing system works.

Uh, and we have our our our great executive director who sort of watches over and manages all of us and makes sure that uh legislation is presented to us and that we have opportunity to meet publicly and also do things that we can into the community to ensure that people understand that they can in fact file appeals and how the appeal process works.

So for our residential cases, single family, small buildings, our decisions uh are we're obligated to render our decisions in 30 days, 80 days for commercial uh residential buildings of five and more over the last year or so, fit this last year, 59% of all our cases were decided by the February first deadline.

Now you may say, well, that's that's you know wholly deficient when you we are obligated to be 100%, but you got to understand we're still hearing cases in February.

We were hearing cases in late February, beginning of March.

So the number of cases was so great this year that we were still hearing cases well after the deadline.

83% of all the commercial cases were decided within the 80 days that were permitted uh under the act.

So we're doing a yeoman's job.

Is it perfect?

Did we meet all of our our obligation?

No, absolutely not.

But if we're still hearing cases in March, there's no way we can have all our cases wrapped up by February 1st.

It's impossible.

And again, uh we you know staffing.

I'm I'm sure in our our submissions to the council, we need more staff.

Our technology is what it is.

Uh, it could use upgrades.

Um, we've got some printers that don't work, copiers, we've got issues, but we're making it work.

But our staff is overworked and by creating a situation where this 5% rule uh is eliminated, and and you also have to remember, you know, other jurisdictions only do their assessments every two years.

Uh, these the office of tax and revenue is working hard.

They're producing assessments and reassessments every year.

So they can't get out to every property and and see every property.

There are not enough OTR representatives and assessors to do that uh level of work.

But um, I I think overall, um, anything that uh the the changes in the laws or regulations to create accuracy, I think there were some great points made by some stakeholders today about the appraisals and capitalization rates and those types of things, but all of those cases come to the commissioners, and we're obligated to listen to all the testimony.

And remember, each case takes about a half hour to 45 minutes.

So if we have uh large complexes with multiple lots, uh multiple properties, we we hear all of those, and we usually have two panels going each day.

So I will um uh you know uh be willing and and able to answer any questions uh posed of me as I again I'm standing in for our chairman uh but I'd be happy to answer any questions uh when when the time comes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Cooper, and thank you for being here.

I will have some questions, but let me turn to the other two witnesses.

Uh Mr.

Is it Mr.

McCune McKean?

Uh McKillone.

Please proceed.

Okay.

This is on bill 484.

Uh will you I think you're testifying on everything here for here on everything.

Okay.

Um, all right, I'll start with the low one 25 uh 252.

Um, good morning, Chairman Mendelson and members of the committee of the whole.

My name is Robert McKeon.

I'm the associate uh deputy associate general counsel in the office of the chief financial officer.

I'm pleased to testify for the OCFO on Bill 26-252, the real property assessment and appeals schedule revision act of 2025.

As you are aware, owners of income producing properties frequently appeal real property assessments, alleging that the Office of Tax and Revenue valued the property based on stale income and expense information.

Currently, assessments are derived from income and expense information accumulated two calendar years prior, which does not necessarily account for current market conditions.

The bill would provide OTR with the means to base its assessments for income producing properties on the latest income and expense information available from the immediately prior calendar year.

By advancing the data available, OTR's assessments will account for the latest market dynamics, including changes in vacancy, rents, and expenses, and utilizing the latest derived capitalization rates to achieve the aforementioned objectives.

OTR would publish a listing of those properties that must file income and expense forms.

Oops.

The income expense statement filing due date would be advanced per the bill as introduced to March 15th rather than April 15th.

Assessment notices for those affected properties would be sent by June 1st rather than March 1st, and the first level appeal deadline would be July 1st rather than April 1st.

Appeals to the real property tax appeals commission would be extended by 15 days, and the time frame for RIPTAC to render decisions would be similarly extended by 15 days, resulting in no change to RIPTAC's overall a lot of time for rendering decisions.

The bill also allows OTR to provide responses to RIPTEC via electronic communication and for RIPTAC to adjust rehearing panels in the event of a leadership vacancy.

The bill was first introduced over a year ago and OTR requests that the applicability date of the bill begin with annual assessments made on or after January 1, 2028, which would be effective for the tax year 2029 annual assessments to allow for sufficient time to implement this change.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

This concludes my testimony, and I am happy to answer any questions may have at this time.

And I'd also like to note that OTR is uh very willing to um uh work with stakeholders uh on to address any concerns that they may have.

So do you want to go to your next statement or should I turn to Mr.

Fachina for 360 and then back to you for 476?

How do you want to do this?

We can alternate, sure.

Okay.

I'm happy to deliver the testimony on 360.

Okay.

Yeah, good.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelssohn, members of the committee of the whole.

My name is Basil Fashina.

I'm an assistant general counsel in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

And I'm pleased to testify for the OCFO on Bill 26-360, the Senior Property Tax Aggregation Amendment Act of 2025.

The bill changes the property ownership requirements for the senior citizens and disabled real property tax deduction under DC Code Section 47-463.

This deduction allows a 50% reduction in the real property taxes imposed on qualifying residential property.

Currently, to qualify for this benefit, a residential property must be at least 50% owned by the senior citizen or disabled individual applying for the benefit.

The bill would change this rule to provide that the applicant need only have an ownership interest in the property, which could be less than 50%.

The bill provides that for senior citizens, individuals residing in the property, including the senior citizen applicant, must own at least 50% of the property.

These other individuals do not need to be senior citizens.

Accordingly, a property could qualify for the deduction even though a senior citizen owns only a small interest in the property.

Similarly, the bill eliminates the 50% ownership requirement for the disabled deduction, and so a property could qualify for this deduction even though a disabled individual may own only a small interest in the property.

As a result, the bill would substantially broaden eligibility for these benefits and would not require that the benefit of the deduction be primarily given to senior citizen or disabled property owners.

If it is determined that the bill should simply allow for the aggregation of ownership interests of senior citizens or disabled individuals, suggested language to accomplish that objective is attached to my testimony.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

This concludes my testimony, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yes.

Good morning, Chairman Mendelssohn and members of the committee of the whole.

My name is Robert McKeon.

I'm the Deputy Associate General Counsel in the Office of Tax in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer's Office of Tax and Revenue.

I'm pleased to testify for the OCFO on Bill 26-476, the disabled veterans complete property tax exemption amendment act of 2025.

The bill would provide for a hundred percent real property tax exemption for a home owned by a veteran who is wholly disabled as a result of service in the armed forces.

The benefit will apply to the home when subsequently owned by a surviving spouse.

Additionally, the benefit will apply in the instance where the home is owned by a veteran who died in the line of duty, or was shortly thereafter acquired by the surviving spouse who was domiciled in the district, or the veteran was so domiciled as of the date of the veteran's death.

The income threshold applicable to senior and disabled tax relief is removed.

Suggested language to clarify the complete veterans exemption legislation is attached to my testimony.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

This concludes my testimony, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

I think that's where you wanted to start.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Right.

Um good morning, Chairman Mendelssohn and members of the committee of the committee.

Members of the Committee of the Whole.

My name is Robert McKeone.

I'm the Deputy Associate General Counsel in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

I'm pleased to testify for the OCFO on Bill 26-484, the fairness and accuracy in Real Property Tax Assessments amendment act of 2025.

Pertaining to letters of agent authorization, appeals, thrushold appeals decision thresholds, and electronic correspondence.

The bill would provide for a letter of agent authorization analogous to a power of attorney between the power between the property owner and its tax representative, allowing the tax representative to represent the property owner before the Office of Tax and Revenue and the Real Property Tax Appeals Commission.

Once executed, an LOA is valid for three years unless revoked or the property is transferred.

The current LOA used in real property assessment appeals matters as tax type and tax period specific, as is the case with any power of attorney in tax matters.

And this legislation does not elaborate on whether the LOA could apply to subsequent or prior tax periods or multiple tax types, for example, homestead deduction, senior citizen tax relief, income tax, franchise tax, sales tax, employment tax, and personal property tax.

Additionally, under this legislation, the LOA would not be required to be notarized.

To limit the applicability of the LOA in this bill to real property tax assessment appeals, DC Code Section 47-825.01A applicable to assessment appeals should be amended and not the Uniform Power of Attorney Act.

The bill also would eliminate the long-standing 5% rule where RIPTACT is limited to adjusting assessments in those instances where the change would exceed 5% of the assessment under appeal.

Additionally, the bill would change the deadline date for RIPTEC to make its decisions from February 1st to March 1st.

The delay in closing the assessment appeals season will cause delayed billing and a significant postponement in tax revenue receipts at OTR and may create other related challenges.

The bill purports to provide for electronic communication if requested by the property owner.

However, the bill would amend a provision related to non-real property tax appeals, which is inapplicable to real property tax assessment appeals.

OTR would suggest that the council consider making such amendment to DC Code 47-804 applicable to service of notice with respect to real property tax matters.

OTR is ready to assist the committee in providing draft language that would implement the intent of the council.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

This concludes my testimony, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Okay, thank you.

We have Bill 26-564, I think it is next.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson and members of the committee on the whole.

My name is Basil Fashina.

I am an assistant general counsel in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and I'm pleased to testify for the OCFO on Bill 26564, the Food and Friends Property Tax Exemption Amendment Act of 2026.

In general, the bill would add a specific real property tax exemption to the District of Columbia Code for the real property of food and friends, Incorporated, located at 219 Riggs Road Northeast.

The bill conditions the exemption on ownership of the property by food and friends incorporated and use of the property by food and friends or any lessee of the property to provide charitable food distribution or related services.

The bill further provides an exemption for 100% of the land of the property.

Background information concerning this property and its real property exemption is as follows.

The property was previously granted a partial administrative exemption under a provision of the DC Code, which conditioned exemption on the use of the property for purposes of public charity with principal impact in the district.

3% of the land was kept in a taxable status due to commercial use.

In 2025, Food and Friends requested that the Office of Tax and Revenue grant a full exemption for the property because the commercial use terminated.

In accordance with standard practice followed in processing request for exemption under the public charity provision, OTR requested information concerning the portion of the organization's clients that were district residents.

The information provided showed that less than half of its clients were district residents, and so the property did not meet the requirement established by both the exemption statute and the case law that an organization must primarily district residents, must primarily benefit district residents in order to qualify for an exemption.

Emergency and temporary legislation to maintain the partial real property exemption of the property has been enacted, but this expires, but this legislation expires after a set period, at which point the property will be subject to the removal of the exemption unless it demonstrates that the applicable administrative exemption requirements are satisfied.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

This concludes my testimony.

Thank you.

And I believe next is 641.

Correct.

Yes.

I have so uh good afternoon.

My name is Basil Fashina.

I'm assistant general counsel with the OCFO, and I'm pleased to testify for the OCFO on Bill 26641, the Archdiocese of Washington, parish real property, deed recordation and transfer tax exemption amendment act of 2026.

The bill generally would provide recordation and transfer tax exemptions for the transfer of specified parish properties currently owned by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, a corporation sole, to named nonprofit corporations organized to hold the real property of that parish.

These corporations were generally created during 2023 and did not exist prior to that time.

The bill would also provide a carryover of the existing real property tax exemptions of these properties to the new ownership.

Emergency and temporary legislation covering these subjects has been enacted.

The bill would supplant the existing administrative exemption process that ordinarily would apply to transfers from one property owner to another.

The Archdiocese has already transferred certain parish properties to these recently organized parish properties, parish corporations, and the Office of Tax and Revenue has exempted the properties for which properly completed applications have been submitted.

The current process has functioned effectively to date, and it appears that the existing administrative exemption framework could continue to serve as an efficient approach for the remaining archdiocese parish properties as they transition to ownership by the parish corporations.

The bill also provides that the archdiocese may transfer the special the specified properties to the separate parish corporations through supplemental deeds without transferred recordation tax.

Since other provisions of the bill already exempted the transfer of these properties from the archdiocese to the parish corporations, this provision does not affect the tax treatment of these deeds and serves no recordation or transfer tax purpose.

This provision can be removed from the bill without adverse tax consequences to the Archdiocese or the parish corporations.

This provision, however, has occasioned a disagreement between OTR and the Archdiocese, which is extraneous to the tax issues implicated by these property transfers.

It has been established under case law for many years that a supplemental deed under the recordation and transfer tax laws does not include a deed transferring property from one legal entity to another.

In fact, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has recently issued a decision which has reaffirmed this point, holding that a deed which transfers ownership of real property from one legal entity to another is not a supplemental deed.

Accordingly, the transfer of these properties by the archdiocese to the separately organized parish corporations are not supplemental deeds, and the language of the bill does not change the established definition of this term.

If it is desired to treat these deeds as supplemental for purposes of these transfers, the bill language should be amended to say this expressly.

Suggested language to accomplish this change is attached to my testimony.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

This concludes my testimony on this bill.

And the next bill is Bill 26686, Alpha Omega.

So I will move on to that one.

Okay, good.

So I'm pleased to testify for the OCFO on Bill 26 686, the Alpha Omega Social Action and Scholarship Foundation, Real Property Tax Exemption Act of 2026.

In general, the bill would add a specific real property tax exemption to the District of Columbia Code for the proper for the real property of the Alpha Omega Social Action and Scholarship Foundation located at 1231 Harvard Street Northwest.

And the bill conditions the exemption on ownership of the property by the foundation and use for its charitable and educational purposes, and that the property not be used for commercial purposes.

By way of background, this property is not previously qualified for an exemption for real property tax.

Indeed, an application filed by the foundation was denied by the Office of Tax and Revenue for failure to satisfy the applicable exemption requirements.

The foundation appealed the denial to the Superior Court, and after a trial on the merits, the Superior Court sustained the denial of exemption.

The evidence presented at the trial indicated that the property's character was that of a fraternity house or private club.

The property, accordingly, does not qualify for a property tax exemption of the type administered by OTR.

As a result, this property can only be exempted by specific legislation.

The bill also forgives all real property taxes, interest, and other related charges assessed against the property for the period between October 1, 2018 and September 30, 2026, and directs that any payments of real property tax, and detects that any uh payments of real property tax be refunded to the person who made the payments no later than 45 days after the effective date of enactment.

It should be noted that the forgiveness provision covers provisions before the foundation became the owner of the property, as it is shown by the deed of title in to the foundation, which was accorded on October 27, 2020.

Furthermore, the bill does not address the outstanding recordation tax liability that has been incurred with respect to this deed.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

This concludes my testimony.

And so I'll just seven.

So um so uh thank you for the opportunity to testify uh for the OCFO on bill 26700, the reservoir district tax exemption amendment act of 2026.

This bill amends an existing abatement for the reservoir district development consisting of specified lots 809, 810, 814, 815, and square 3128.

That is currently provided under DC Code Section 47-4683.

This abatement will apply beginning in tax year 2030.

In general, the bill would amend the affordable housing requirements of the abatement law, providing for a set aside of one-third of the operating rental units of the property as affordable as defined under the specified provision of the U.S.

Internal Revenue Code.

The units designated as affordable will be available to households qualifying for the 80% income limit category of the multifamily tax subsidy project income limits for the Washington, Arlington, Alexandria, DC, Maryland, Virginia, HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area as reported annually by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, and made in a manner consistent with the specified provision of the Internal Revenue Code.

That concludes my testimony on this bill.

Thank you very much.

Give me just a second.

So we're gonna have 10 minute rounds, but I'm gonna be a little bit longer than 10 because I've got eight bills that I have to or ten bills that I have to ask about.

Um thank you everyone for your testimony.

Um, struggle through this on uh see if I can do this in bill order.

Um with bill 26-252, I don't know if I'm gonna have all my questions, that's a problem.

Um it sounds like Mr.

McCune that your office is generally does not see problems with the bills, even supportive with some of the provisions.

Yes, we're we're in support of the bill.

Um we think that the bill um will permit more accurate assessments because we will have um the latest um income and expense information uh that is actually from the prior calendar year versus two prior calendar years.

What about the testimony that um the assessors do not use the income the INE statements that they use uh the computer-assisted mass appraisal system?

The the INE statements are used to calibrate the computer assisted mass appraisal system.

That's it's what's it's what it's the data that goes into the into the computer modeling.

So I was a little surprised when I heard that testimony earlier.

I would have thought that the properties, the commercial properties, especially the largest ones, because there aren't that many, uh, would be assessed on an individual basis.

That is looking at the INE statement, but there's instead of computer assisted mass appraisal.

Right.

Um you say more.

The the there's a um the income from like specific types of properties is aggregated, analyzed and aggregated so that maybe a uniform uh rent is derived, and that is used to um to determine what the assessed value of the property would be based on an income modeling, but it's all based on the data that that is um that is you know extracted from the income and expense forms.

The income expense forms are whether it's computer modeling or individual appraisals, the income expense forms are are uh mission critical to um creating uh accurate assessments.

So there was testimony that Arlington has a much better uh computer software for its mass appraisal.

Um why would that be?

Um that may not be an easy question to answer.

The um, do you know how current the INE forms are for Arlington when they calibrate their camera?

No, I um no, I I do not know what data they use in Arlington for when they come up for with their latest assessments.

Has OCFO looked at the appeal rate in other jurisdictions?

Because the appeal rate would reflect the extent to which uh taxpayers believe that the assessments are unfair.

I get it that some taxpayers are always gonna think their assessments are unfair, but you're gonna get more if more people think it's really unfair.

True.

Um I think it's probably fairly accurate.

I mean, and others in this room who were tax representatives could um chime in or or well voice their opinion on this, but I think major commercial properties routinely um appeal their assessments year after year regardless.

So I think it's it's basically it's a cottage industry of appeals that occur um systematically, and I don't know if it's tied, I don't believe that it's necessarily tied to how accurate the assessment is.

I think the appeals are gonna occur regardless.

Are the appeals successful?

My impression is a lot of them are.

That would suggest that that would support the argument that if the assessments were it would it would suggest that either the um whoever's granting the appeals, which is probably RIPTAC is just being generous and just granting appeals, or it would suggest that the assessments could be better.

The so this is going a little bit beyond the scope of the bill.

How many assessments are reduced at the first level appeal at OTR and how many are reduced at RIPTEC at the second level?

I don't think that those are high percentages.

I think that those are um largely sustained.

Um I'm sure Mr.

Cooper could uh pipe in on that, but um I I don't believe that you're getting substantial en masse uh reductions that are occurring at RipTAC, nor nor at OTR.

Um where they generally occur is probably at um superior court with the um the ultimate appeal to uh of the uh RIPTAC uh decision to superior court.

By way of analogy, we have about 900 appeals that are lodged at superior court for major commercial properties generally every year.

The superior court decides one case every two years, and then that's an approximation.

The rest of the 899 and a half cases, we have to settle.

So I think you can understand what probably occurs during settlement negotiations.

You're not suggesting that uh the government settles a case that they think they could win, because that's revenue that we lose.

What I'm suggesting is that we have intense pressure from the superior court to settle cases because they're not gonna decide them.

They don't have the means to decide the cases timely.

One case every approximately two years gets decided.

We'd like to have more decisions.

We don't.

If you go to Maryland, they have a they have um an appeal structure that's based pretty much I think solely for real property assessments.

I think uh Virginia probably does too.

We don't, so these get backed up in superior court, and that's where they linger.

And what happens is we have show cause orders that say, why aren't you settling?

Get this case out of here.

And there's a lot of pressure that comes from the judicial side to eliminate the docket.

Um I could pursue that further, but I will not.

Um there was testimony that criticized the two separate assessment and appeals calendars.

Uh two different calendars may create unnecessary administrative complexity for property owners.

What's your reaction to that?

And what do other jurisdictions do?

I'm I'm assuming that most jurisdictions probably have everything on uh on a uniform um assessment uh time, or you know, all assessment notices go out at the same time, um, presumably.

For us, I don't the two-track system I don't think would be confusing because for homeowners they would they would remain on the normal cycle, and it's only that major commercial property owners and apartment build owners that have to file income and expense statements, they would be on on the more delayed uh notice uh system.

Um so I and and they would know that through a published uh we would publish like which properties are in on that second track.

So I don't know that it would be all that confusing to commercial property owners.

There everyone else is gonna be staying the same, the homeowners or whatever.

They they're they won't have to look.

Um it's just the um the major commercial property owners and apartment building owners that would that would migrate to the second track.

Um they're generally more sophisticated um uh you know uh uh property owners that are that would that monitor um these activities and and for sure their tax representatives would be.

Uh let me um ask Mr.

Cooper.

I should have asked us a minute ago.

So what is the um what is the rate of sustaining or of granting appeals?

Um great, great question.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

Uh approximately 93% of all the cases that come before and heard and decided by the commissioner are in fact sustained.

Remember, the burden is uh on the petitioner to prove error on part of the office of tax revenue.

There's a presumption that the OTR assessment is in fact correct.

So 93% of all the cases that come before us are sustained.

Commercial, residential, industrial, and six percent are six percent of all the cases that come before us.

Now that six percent may say, well, that's that's a lot that uh the the root tax is doing the production.

Well, then six percent also includes where there was a recommendation by the office of tax revenue to for us to make the record the reduction, there's a process to do that where they say, Look, we can't change it in our system, because it's it's now before you, which you know, you could have a debate on that, but they said we cannot change the number.

So we recommend you change the number, uh, and and we can support that change.

We've done our additional research, we've looked at uh the new I and E's, what have you.

And then the now, if the petitioner says, Thank you for your reduction offer, but we don't accept it, we think it should be uh another 80%, uh another 20% reduction, then we so long as it met that 5% threshold, we will accept the recommendation from officer tax and revenue for the reduction because again the presumption is their assessment is in fact correct.

They've got the manpower, the expertise, the cam, all of the data software they can make these those decisions.

The other are stipulations, where in fact officer tax revenue says we recommend a reduction of 15%.

The petitioner may have had a compliment uh appeal for a 45%, but they say, you know what, we'll accept your 15% reduction.

That's called a stipulation.

They then sign a document, we then adopt that, and the reduction goes into place.

So the six percent of all the cases that become before us, a majority of them are by stipulation and recommendation.

Now there are other cases in which we find error on the part of officer tax or reference where they either disregard it information that was obvious that was presented, that we had they had, either they just disregarded, or they applied the wrong uh statute or something on that line, and we do address those uh routinely and make reductions as again so long as the production is greater than five percent.

And of course, uh the Chairman Mendelssohn, we also handle matters uh from the uh Department of Buildings, which includes vacant blighted property and the like, and so we also address those.

And again, the presumption is that both Department of Buildings and Office of Tax Revenue.

Their determinations are in fact correct, that proper notices were sent and the like, and then we then uh adopt 93% of the time what the office of tax revenue with their expertise says is in fact correct.

But again, we do an analysis, we listen to all the testimony and evidence, which is given on the record, and then we make our decision.

But again, the presumption is that OTR with all of their data and software.

So is correct.

93% of the cases you sustain the assessor.

Correct.

Six percent you reduce the assessment.

Is there any significance to the one percent?

Uh it could be um uh where cases are uh withdrawn uh or yeah, it's again that it could be you know 99 uh point three percent uh fit that those those numbers.

Um again, you know there are cases that um get withdrawn uh often, so that goes into the total number of cases that came before we didn't resolve it at all.

Let me uh ask you, Mr.

Cooper.

The um the bill, gosh, I have so much paper here.

Um the bill changes uh deadlines for various things to happen.

Um for as I understand it for residential, like homeowners.

There's no change in the calendar.

I'm looking at Mr.

McEwen, that's correct.

There's no change for residential homeowners in terms of the calendar.

That's correct.

So for commercial, um the INE is due April 15th, not March 15th.

And assessment notices are sent by June 1st, not March 1st.

And the appeal process would be extended by 15 days on both ends.

Um, and I don't know what that means since I don't see that in front of me.

So when is Mr.

McCune, when is RIP tax supposed to be done?

By February first, by February 15th.

Currently it's February 1st, and under the bill it would be February 15th.

Okay.

Um but RIP tech is also supposed to complete cases within 80 days.

Did I hear remember that correctly?

Yes.

Uh I'm sorry.

Was that directed towards me?

Yes, we have 80 days to correct uh to uh produce a decision on a uh residential of five or greater or commercial properties, and uh 83% of all of those those cases were in fact decided within the 80 days this past year.

Okay, so the testimony has generally today generally been that RibTech doesn't meet the February 1st deadline.

Well, why are you still hearing cases in March?

If you have 80 days, they have to be filed by some date in September, yes.

Well, why are you still hearing cases in March?

And how does that fit within the 80 days?

Or is it 80 days after you hear the case?

We have about 6,000 cases.

Uh we have six full-time uh commissioners, two uh we have up to eight part-time commissioners.

We have uh two, only two full-time administrative staff to have to receive all the documents, review them, prep them, organize them, schedule them, and then we have to hear the cases, and so we have two panels going each day, five days a week, and we have sometimes 30 cases, uh we that it would run from different properties.

We run from 10 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock and later sometimes in the afternoon.

So let me interrupt you.

What when's the 80 days calculated from?

When does the date?

Yes, sir.

I'm I apologize.

Yes, 80 days begins from the date of the hearing.

So when we have the hearing, we have 80 days to issue a decision.

Okay, and uh right now, hearings every day.

Right now, the deadline for filing an appeal is when I I believe it's September, uh, or it's uh it's X number of days.

September 3rd was another issue.

It's supposed to be X number of days after the decision uh on this first level appeal is rendered by OTR.

There have been instances where that was late, and so therefore the decision uh the appeal was late.

Uh sometimes when they file the appeal, certain documents aren't uh available yet.

Uh they can't file an appeal unless they've received the decision from OTR on the first level appeal.

Um, and so there are reasons why cases are still scheduled in January and in February.

Some cases get rescheduled, uh sometimes the petitioner may be ill, the cases get pushed off.

They have to be rescheduled.

Um, so we're here this year we heard cases into March.

So who's who um who formulates your budget and who is responsible for your budget?

Um our executive director uh uh in conjunction with our uh ex our chairman, uh Mr.

Trent Williams.

So did they reach out to the council when we had the budget to say we need more resources?

I I it is my understanding, I wasn't involved in in those, but it's my understanding that for the last several years have been a request uh for additional resources.

Uh I've not I can't uh I'm and to whom was that request made?

I would presume to the council uh sir, but I'm not sure I I wasn't involved in that, but I know that I've had there were internal discussions uh about the need for additional staff.

We've got only two full-time administrative staff persons who are overloaded, uh, and one full-time IT expert who handles all the hearings bouncing back and forth between the panels.

Now, you know, all the petitioners in the room, stakeholders, they'll they know that our staff works hard.

Uh so I'm not questioning that, but I will just note that uh I will just note that uh the committee our chair has oversight over um OCFO and RIPTEC and I don't remember any testimony at our hearing with regard to RibTech, our budget hearing with regard to RibTAC and resources.

Um I'm also the one who has to put together the uh proposed uh budget committee print for the council.

Which I did on June 8th, maybe, and I don't remember any outreach from RIPTAC with regard to uh the need for resources.

In fairness, I do recall testimony about this uh the confirmation hearing for several members.

But not in connection with the budget hearing or putting there putting together the committee print.

Uh I have more questions, but I'm gonna turn to my colleague for 10 minutes, Councilmember Bundes.

Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you all for being here, and thank you for your testimony.

I I have a couple of questions.

Um I wanted to ask Mr.

Cooper, uh, when did the number of cases that uh your commission is seeing escalate?

Um, has it been in recent years, the last two years, one year, five years, what?

Yes, I good question.

I I was I used to be chairman when it was the Board of Real Properties Assessments and Appeals, and I came back as a glutton for punishment.

Uh but um uh over the years in 2022, there was a nearly 7400 cases.

Um, and this is you know coming out of the pandemic, uh, there was a lot of reductions in valuations, tenant occupancies.

The the number case workload was slowly reduced down, and then it's come back on the rise again.

This last year, we had almost 6800 cases.

So there were similar numbers years ago, but not not that great.

Uh because in fact the hearings were held in person, uh, and uh as some of the stakeholders would know, those those uh hearing rooms got really warm uh sometimes, and uh uh they would have to bring down boxes and boxes of documents.

So having it electronic and uh uh submitted and and uh remote hearings has helped tremendously.

Uh but that also may have maybe feed into the fact that we're actually hearing our cases now.

Yes, thank you for that.

Umce upon a time uh RipTat was in my committee, the committee that I chaired, and I did not remember or recall that there were tremendous number of cases at that time.

So I was curious as to when the escalation came.

So let me just ask you um what is the frequency of in-person assessments on commercial properties as an example?

And maybe that's for Mr.

McEwen.

I don't know.

What I what I'm getting at, how informed?

How are you informed about the assessment appeal process?

Do you hear back from RipTech?

I understand that your office will submit to RIP tag your opinions or your recommendation as to how they should move forward for any appeals that they receive.

And so I'm trying to understand in that process.

So I think that's why they want their LOA, the letter of agent authorization to be good for three years because they're just gonna keep using it.

And would you say that knowing the commercial community is going to appeal, and they understand the uh log jaw that we have and in the courts that they're likely through a settlement to win?

I guess it really doesn't matter about the number because we know they're going to appeal anyway.

Well, winning winning is um uh a hard characterization, especially when it comes to appeal assessments.

Um there is with assessments there's always a band of acceptability of you know what what um what a property is likely to sell for, what its value is.

Nobody can fully predict with a hundred percent accuracy, but there is normally like a maybe a band uh that goes that can fluctuate maybe by even 10% or something like that.

But um, so how do you do a settlement then?

If if how how what do you look at in order to settle?

Um are the numbers the settlement numbers closer to what the property owner wants, or is there some guide that we have generated through a computer model that says whatever, or is it through have we done um in-person assessments of the property?

Would that help?

Um I'm just trying to understand how we get how we how we hold on to the money that we collect, um, and what is it based on?

If it's based on you know good policy, then we want to hold on to it.

If it's because we are not doing um in person assessments and maybe we missed something, that's another story.

By the time litigation's going on, there's a lot of information going back and forth about the specific property characteristics.

So I think those are becoming very fine-tuned at that point.

Um the um, like I said, there's always a band of acceptability of of where an assessment could lie.

Um I do believe that if we had um more final decisions from the ultimate appeal process that um that could uh serve to reduce um the numbers of appeals as well.

Um right now, like I said, we're not really getting decisions.

And when we get decisions, you know, we we learn from those.

So, like, you know, when a judge says, no, this is this is the law, and this is how it's going to be um interpreted and and how you're gonna apply it.

We we learn from that, and then we take that forward on other uh assessments.

Um so the the entire appeal process is instrumental to us for um deriving better assessments.

But it it would be beneficial if we if we actually you know could arrive at a ultimate decision.

I hear you.

Thank you so much for that.

Thank you.

And I I want to thank you all for your comments on some of the other properties and your analysis.

Um, I say go forward.

I I like what I'm hearing from you, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

I think that they make a lot of sense.

Um everyone who is involved in the nonprofit world, um, would like to have um uh permanent tax exemption, irrespective of what they may actually be doing and how they do it, but you know, that's not we're we're not in a perfect world, I don't think.

And so we just have to look more closely at some of the organizations that are classified as not-for-profit and how we treat them.

Um so I'm hoping there'll be more conversations with you about it.

Thank you so very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Cooper.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

And Council Member Bond, if I may, if I may just touch upon one thing that you said earlier, this is Robert Cooper again.

Yes, one of the issues, and I think the the that the testimony about this um that it goes back this the use of the income and expense forms.

Um the the fine-tuning that was just discussed, uh, which then leads potentially to settlements in the court, we see that too at our level uh when they off the tax revenue has the benefit of the full complement of documents uh and that there's there's able they're able to have that conversation.

And I think that was maybe where the the gist of this legislation was is to get those income and expense forms before the per the parties and they have these discussions because a lot of the cases that come before us, uh other than capitalization rate, um, you know, are you know what are the actual numbers?

So you may have this mass appraisal viewpoint to get the appraisals out the door in a timely fashion, but then when someone appeals or or entity appeals, then they kind of narrow down and get a look at these actual numbers is what was uh just being said about you know what is the true value of the property, what are you actually making on the property?

Because we've seen sometimes, you know, they're saying, Well, the average rents are this.

Well, it that that those rents are not being achieved at this building, so because this building is before us at RipTAC and likewise that building is before that judge in that court and saying, Well, I don't necessarily care about your mass appraisal, we're now focusing on this appeal that's before us and if have you looked at these numbers uh and once they look at those numbers then they're able to have probably uh a better conversation which actually gets closer to the true value of the of the property and on the I know I'm I'm not here on the senior things but there that you know clearly we have cases that come before us uh that are that uh relate to the senior uh issues and we have to resolve them uh you know the laws are what they are case law is what it is but I I have to say if you've got uh uh you know in our community we often don't use wills and trusts people put their children's name on their properties as a means of uh asset retention in the family passing down generational wealth but if the one senior is living in the property and uh and the the a child is on the deed with her and they're joint tenants that that's a question that came up a couple years ago well now they're joint tenants uh there is no division of ownership there is no 50 percent both own 100% so how is that viewed uh those cases have come up and we've had to you know despite our personal feelings of tax rumors says well no that's they you you view it as a less than 50 percent ownership well how is that when under the law of property ownership they both are owners uh jointly uh why shouldn't that they they now own one hundred percent uh they just own it together there's no 50 percent tenants in common you might have 51 percent and the other owns 49 percent but not when it's joint and so I think there needs to be some clarification if it hasn't already been made I think that also needs to be addressed.

I I thank you very much for your comments Mr.

Cooper and again I thank the entire panel and I am hoping that this um this hearing points to the need for reform and I think we need to be as as a little more accurate as to the times in which we are are living um we're not back in the 1940s or 50s or whatever whenever we began this this process um maybe even before for the district of Columbia and we we we just really need to look at where we're going and how we're going to treat our dear um community district of Columbia and Mr.

Cooper I especially want you to have an opportunity to talk to the seniors you know they're in my committee also so I want to arrange that so know that and I think I should have tax and revenue also to come and talk because so many young young people think that they know what how to advise but but they but they really don't and thank you chairman and I know I've gone over my time but I must say this is this is a very important hearing because it gives the community an opportunity to hear from our so-called tax collectors because that's what this is about so thank you very very much.

I have a few more questions I may go through the remainder of the bills with regard to the senior citizen uh tax aggregation amendment act bill 26-360 um if I'm understanding correctly Mr.

McEwan the way you read the language of the introduced version is senior citizen could own you said uh small interest it could be like a fraction yes that's correct Mr.

Fashina um and um so you suggest language where it would be clear that the taxpayers in the aggregate would be over 50 percent yeah, that's true.

I've proposed language that if you want to aggregate the interest of the seniors who are living in the property and have them own at least 50 percent uh of the property, then I've seen it.

That's that's what the language gets at.

That's right.

Okay.

And then with uh regard to Bill 26-476, so that's you, Mr.

McEwen.

Again um your concern is a just in the drafting here, if the council wants to go forward, but what isn't clear to me is what you're correcting with the proposed language.

It it mainly um had to do with um a surviving uh spouse of a um veteran um who uh um let's see.

I think uh of surviving spouse of a veteran who who died in the line of duty.

Um when I read what's in the current draft versus um what I think they were trying to do, um it's it seems like uh there wasn't much of a distinction between what happens when you have a veteran who has a hundred percent disability service incurred condition that's a hundred percent disabled, um, and and then down in paragraph five with a when the veteran um the surviving spouse of a veteran who who um who died in the line of duty, um, when I read paragraph five, it starts talking about uh the dwelling unit was owned by the veteran at the time of the individual's death, or I guess the veteran's death, the dwelling unit was acquired by a surviving spouse within two years, um the if it I think what they're trying to get at was the surviving spouse buys another property in two years and not acquires the veteran's property in two years, because if they were the spouse, then they probably was jointly ownered and owned, and she wouldn't have to acquire it, or I say she or he the survivor um would just come to own the property because of joint ownership or tenants by the entirety.

So I when they talk about acquiring the property within two years, um I think they're talking about acquiring a different property, and not staying in the same one.

And so that's what you were focused on was trying to clarify that.

Yeah.

Okay, let me move on.

Um 26-484.

Um, in your testimony objecting to the idea of the letter of whatever it is, um letter of authorization, letter of agent of authorization, being um multi-year, or are you objecting to the code citation that's being amended?

It's it's more I don't I don't I don't believe that they should be amending the um uniform um the uniform act related to um powers of attorney.

Um I think what they're trying to do is create a um create a um the ability to have a LOA, uh for a tax case, yeah, for real property tax matters.

So the bill is drafted as you see it amends the wrong law.

Very expensive, yeah.

And if it mends the correct law, it's up to us whether we want that policy, but that's not what your objection is.

Right.

Yeah, I mean, if they if they wanted to do that, I think it would it would be helpful if they did it within chapter 8 of Title 47 related to real property tax matters, um, is um if it's gonna be multi-year, um we're gonna have to create a database that can track that, that we don't have that right now.

Right now, you know, we get a new LOA every year.

Is there what do you do with it?

I mean, this strikes me as a lot of paperwork.

Uh why can't I just give you a letter of um agent authorization?

And um every time I show up, obviously within a limit limited number of years, but every time I show up, I just produce the same letter.

So I give the letter to the assessor at the first level, the same letter at the uh RIPTAC, uh, the same letter the next year.

Why wouldn't that be good enough?

That if that's I mean, to be honest, if that's how it would work, um, we were thinking that uh maybe we would have to create a database and have this housed in there and and be able to pull on it and and know when it expires and things like that, but you're just saying like have them submit the the L.

Yeah, everybody knows.

Let's say it's good for two years.

Everybody knows that you if I come to you, you're the assessor, and I come to you at first level with the letter that's dated um April 1st, 2020.

That's out of date.

I come to you with a letter dated April 1st, 2026.

I can use the same letter in 2027.

Right.

I don't I suspect there aren't a whole lot of um what do I want to say, false agents who are spending their time at RipTech?

Right.

Well, okay, so um part of that is like uh when it comes to major commercial properties, we have the LOA um notarized, and you might say that maybe that's a little archaic, um, but um the reason I don't know that I have a problem with it being notarized, but only once and um maybe they even give you the original so that somebody can track it down, but um I'm not sure that I think that Scott Kreider, who probably does a lot of these cases, is showing up under false pretenses in cases.

No, I yeah, I it's just um the the the appraisers are uh at OTR are very um protective of because the income expense information is part of the case file and and the LOA gets access to that, so they are um let's just say that they're highly protective of income and expense information.

Right, I that adds a dimension here.

Uh let me move on.

With regard to the five percent rule, what if we kept the five percent rule for let's say um valuations under 10 million dollars?

Um so then we're talking about more meaningful dollars if it's a more expensive case.

Would that create a problem?

Having a bifurcated approach toward five percent, no um uh test there was testimony that most jurisdictions don't have a five percent rule.

So uh there also is testimony that this would overwhelm could overwhelm RIPTAC, which is already overwhelmed.

So if we said five percent for large value cases, excuse me, five percent for no five percent for large value cases, right?

Um I mean I'd I'd have to defer to to RipTech on that one.

Um it's uh oh is uh the only thing I know is the five percent rule I think has been around since at least the board of equalization, uh, oh no, it's DER or maybe prior.

Um but it's kind of part of the DNA.

But uh I'll let Mr.

Cooper on it.

Mr.

Cooper, so would that create a problem for RipTAC if we said that um there's no five percent rule for large value cases and only for the smaller ones?

No, I I think what would happen is I mean, again, most of the big properties the delta between the assessment and what the petition plaintiffs want or the petitioners want is typically 30 percent, 40 percent.

So the five percent rule doesn't really come into play until there's a stipulation or recommendation.

Uh and so there have been times when the recommendation was reduce it by X, but it fell within five percent, and the um uh and the uh uh the assessor was unable to tweak it to get it beyond five percent.

And therefore, even though he said yes, I recommend a reduction, it wasn't within five percent.

We cannot.

It was within five percent where our hands are our hands are tied at that point.

So, yes, it it would give some leeway for us to make some minor revisions if the petitioner does not accept it.

But I don't know that there are many cases where the petitioner sitting around say, Well, my request is only you know three percent, so I'm not gonna file an appeal because they'll file appeal and ask for 30 percent.

Yeah, and we'll settle for six percent uh if the recommendation if they into a stipulation.

Um or they'll go to court and then whatever happens there anecdotally uh will happen.

That's helpful.

Um electronic communications, so still on Bill 26-484.

Uh, Mr.

McCune, the issue there is again the wrong code citation.

Uh you said OTR would suggest council consider making such amendment to 47-804.

I'm guessing it was a different statute.

It's section 804 has to do with what what is acceptable notice under under um the chapter, and um right right now it's like first class mail, so um it it would be uh beneficial if that um general provision could be um tweaked to accommodate uh you know uh what occurs at at the first level peel um with OTR and and and how notices are done uh at the second level with with RipTAC.

Um I think it would be um better that it were in the general provision relating to the OTR notices under uh for real property tax matters, that's all.

Okay.

Um I'm moving to Bill 26-56 for food and friends.

So the way I read your testimony, this is Mr.

Fashina, is it's up to us if we want to grant the as a matter of policy the exemption.

Um you go into some of the background why they didn't qualify for the exemption categorically.

Do you know what the fiscal impact would be if we make this 100%, which is the bill?

Um unfortunately, no.

I I don't have a fiscal impact statement or um, but otherwise the the bill in terms of form is acceptable.

Yeah, I don't have any issues with the form.

Let me turn to I'm gonna skip archdiocese for a second.

Alpha Omega, um, probably the same issue in form, it's okay, but uh there's a probably a fiscal impact, and you don't know what that is.

Correct.

I don't know the fiscal impact.

I would also suggest that.

It shouldn't uh provide an exemption retroactive exemption before they own the property.

Yeah, I yeah, I wouldn't that that doesn't seem I haven't seen that before.

And um 26-700 reservoir district, there was no issue there.

No.

So let me come back to Archdiocese, and I think that's no, that's you, Mr.

Fashion.

Um I'm trying to think, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this.

The um there's the issue of the tax exemption.

I don't think there's any issue whether the Catholic church should be exempt from paying real property tax.

Uh no, no, there's several paths to getting the exemption that they want.

They really truly resent all the paperwork, and I my sense is that OTR is minimizing that, and the archdiocese is really feeling the pain with 89 properties.

Well, um, they also seem to feel strongly that supplemental, a supplemental deed, there's a lot of meaning there.

So, am I reading the addendum correctly that they can get their supplemental deed if we just simply deem that the transfer is a supplemental deed?

Yeah, that's what the suggestion would be.

Yes, just to treat it or deem it as a supplemental, because I mean, we've got I I can go through all the like legal stuff about what is a supplemental deed and and you know, so on the history and so on and so forth.

I don't know if you want to do that.

I don't.

Um, but I also uh Mr.

Gelman's testimony was kind of persuasive on that point.

He cited in 1987 case, and also noted that um the Columbia reality.

Columbia case was distinguishable.

Uh I don't well, I I if you want to get into like a legal discussion, I I respectfully disagree with a number of the things that he said.

I don't think Columbia Realty venture is distinguishable.

I think that the factual situation we have here is clearly outside of the supplemental deed uh rules that have been laid down by the statute and the case law.

The 19 uh the Superior Court case he cited, we think is we think is distinguishable, and also since it's a superior court case, it's not really of precedential effect.

But uh the long and short of it is the bill that they have gives them the recordation and transfer tax exemptions that they're asking for, and a carry over the real property tax exemptions that they currently have, all without getting into the whole supplemental deed issues.

I have a feeling that there's really no tax purpose to calling these supplemental deeds, given the existing legislation and the b other provisions of the bill and the fact that they could apply for administrative exemptions here, and and you know, so it's as they indicated in their testimony.

It seems like they want the supplemental deed to sort of serve some sort of a non-tax purpose.

And I think that, you know, supplemental deed concept that they're dealing with here is a tax concept, and it really, you know, really looking outside of to non-tax purposes or trying to make the supplemental deed concept do non-tax work when it is just a tax concept is probably, you know, I think that that's you know, not really that's going beyond really what's necessary for purposes of this tax issue.

Well, I could agree with you that it's going beyond what's necessary for purposes of tax.

They're a church, last I checked a very legitimate church, and uh they're tax exempt.

Yes.

But I heard some testimony that there is meaning to recognizing that the ownership hasn't really changed.

That's outside of tax.

And I think that's why it's such a big issue to them.

Yes.

Yes.

Um, Ms.

Rhodes testified to that, but I think Mr.

Gellman did as well.

And I can be sympathetic to that.

I mean, I've owned my home for two centuries, and I just there's some there there may be some.

Not a meeting.

No, I've not actually owned my home for two centuries.

Um there could be some not easily identified identifiable uh reason why I don't want the record to suggest that the ownership has changed.

Um, that's certainly a legitimate point, but what they're trying to accomplish or the way they're trying to get there is by using a tax concept and tax language and a tax exemption that has an established tax meaning.

Yeah, but deed is not necessarily tax.

Now, I'm going to get over my schemes very quickly, but because I'm not an attorney, but the um I mean a deed is more, it's something different than tax.

No, well, for purposes of the transfer and recreation tax, there is a definition of a deed, yes.

And that's my concern with this, is they're using concepts and terms under the defin under the transfer and recordation tax statutes.

And supplemental deed is defined in the recordation tax statute as a deed that simply corrects or confirms a prior deed.

It does not reflect a transfer of property from one legal entity to another.

That's in the recordation tax law.

That is, yes.

Okay.

But I'm guessing there's a whole lot of case law around supplemental deeds.

Not that I'm not outside of the tax context.

I'm not really familiar with any, and they really have not cited any anything uh outside of the tax context on that.

So, I mean, you know, you could make the argument outside of the tax context that, well, you know, the the circumstances are such that this is not really a change of ownership.

But if you're trying to do that within the context of the tax law, you have to follow the tax definitions of the terms.

You have to follow the tax rules, the tax, the tax concepts.

And the basic transaction we're dealing with here is a transfer from the Archbishop of Washington, Corporation Seoul, which is the legal entity that represents the Catholic Church in the District of Columbia, to a newly organized District of Columbia nonprofit corporation that is going to hold the property of each parish.

They've got like 30 plus of these nonprofit corporations they organized back in 2023.

And what they're doing is they're transferring a deed from the archbishop to the parish corporation, which is a separate legal entity.

And the other case, the Court of Appeals just decided this reaffirmed this within the last month, that a transfer of property from one legal entity, that is a corporation sole, to another legal entity, which is a DC nonprofit corporation is not a supplemental deed.

It's a transfer of ownership from one entity to another.

Now you can they can make arguments and say, well, these parishes, they go back a hundred years, and you know, this, all this and that.

For recordation and transfer tax purposes, we don't have to look at any of that.

The only things we are concerned with is who are the parties to this transfer?

The corporation sole and the DC nonprofit corporation.

Whatever happens outside of that, behind that, you know, that's not a tax concern for us, and we don't need to get into that to decide the tax issue.

Now, if they want to go to some other agency and say, well, you know, uh really the uh parish, this parish corporation, which is an unincorporated entity and is not recognized for civil law purposes.

Well, it really was the owner of this church, and so you know, we're putting it into this new corporation, which is just holding title.

You know, it's kind of the it's all the same thing.

You know, they can certainly make that argument, but they can't say they can't use the tax law to prove that there's no change in the ownership.

They'd have to prove that under whatever law would be applicable to the agency that they're addressing.

And and that's kind of our main concern with this is just that we want to keep, you know, the tax law, you know, the tax law of the tax law, and we also don't want the meaning of these terms fuzzed up so that we would have problems uh applying the tax law in other contexts.

So if they want to, you know, go to some go to some other agency and say, well, we're really not changing the ownership, you know, they're not gonna be able to say, you know, they're they're they they I don't think they should be able to say, hey, oh, and OTR agrees with us, so you should do the same thing that OTR does.

I mean, I don't think that's the right way to approach this.

So, right.

I think you're going a little bit beyond, though, the um addendum that you offered.

And I do want to, so I've not gotten a reaction from the archdiocese on the addendum.

Uh, but I do think it's constructive that you offered some language that might solve the problem.

Uh I will reiterate, I think the problem is multifold.

It's one they want the tax exemption.

And they didn't get in the middle of all this, they did get a bill for four properties.

Uh the second is that they want to avoid all the paperwork.

And uh the third is that there are um, I don't want to put this um intangible benefits, or some unrecognized uh benefits from maintaining the uming that the ownership isn't really changing.

So that's what we're looking to try to do here.

Uh I'm gonna leave it at that.

Um thank you, each of you, for your testimony.

Okay, I'm gonna wind on this hearing.

Uh again, thank you to all the witnesses, uh not just the government witnesses who are here at the moment.

Uh as I indicated before, the record in this matter will close at 5 p.m.

This has been a hearing on Friday, July 24th, 2026.

L'oo- We gotta jump for the cars with this.

El fin de los nextos de la parte de la calculada de los participantes de los participantes de los participantes de los organismos de los dos en los programas de los que se permitió en los burstones.